Self - Assessment As Per EFQM

Applying Self-Assessment against the EFQM Excellence Model in Further and Higher Education
Consortium for Excellence in Higher Education
Sheffield Hallam University 2003
Enablers
People Policy & Strategy Partnerships & Resources People Results Processes
Results
Leadership
Customer Results Society Results
Key Performance Results
Innovation and Learning
This publication has been written as a way of sharing learning from practical experiences within the Higher and Further Education sectors. It does not review the concepts from an academic theory perspective, but introduces the management practices and learning which have emerged from detailed practical research undertaken within the sector. This is one in a series of publications that have been produced to share the learning from our work, in both a practical and strategic way. The other publications cover the following topics: Embracing Excellence in Education. A summary of the learning gained from applying the EFQM Excellence Model in Further and Higher Education Benchmarking Methods and Experiences Linking the Excellence Model to other Management Models and Tools Organisational Learning and the Future of Higher Education Application of the EFQM Excellence Model in a College of Further Education.
Published on behalf of the Consortium for Excellence in Higher Education by Sheffield Hallam University. All Rights Reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form without the permission of the copyright owner. Sheffield Hallam University 2003. The views expressed in this publication are those of the particular contributor concerned, and are not necessarily shared by Sheffield Hallam University or any other contributor.
Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Overview of the Programme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 Overview. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Introduction to the Excellence Model and Self-Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 The Fundamental Concepts of Excellence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 The EFQM Excellence Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 Excellence Model Dynamics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 Introducing self-assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 Self-Assessment Concepts and Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Self-assessment methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 Issues to be addressed when applying the Model and introducing self-assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13 Understanding the RADAR Scoring Matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15 Difference between an EFQM self-assessment and other forms of HE institutional self-assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16 Application of Self-Assessment in Higher Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17 Introduction to self-assessments carried out by members of the Consortium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17 Which self-assessment method? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17 What knowledge and skills are needed by those involved in self-assessments? Using the outputs from self-assessments to make improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22
Factors that did not support self-assessment implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23 The impact of using self-assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24
Conclusions and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26 Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28 Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29
Header
Introduction
Overview of the Programme
The Consortium for Excellence in Higher Education has been led by Sheffield Hallam University and has included the Universities of Cranfield, Durham, Salford, Ulster and Dearne Valley College (FE representative). The GMP143 Programme has been part funded under the Developing Good Management Practice HEFCE initiative (99/54). The University for Ulster was funded and supported by the Department for Employment and Learning (DEL). The programme (which contained 18 projects) had a life span of three years. Its main aim was to evaluate the benefits of introducing and implementing the EFQM Excellence Model into the Higher Education Sector. Funding for the programme was awarded by HEFCE on 14 April 2000. The Programme commenced in May 2000 and concluded in May 2003. The 18 projects undertaken fall into four main areas, which can be summarised as follows: Self-assessment projects Six projects covering each institution (Sheffield Hallam, the Universities of Cranfield, Durham, Salford, Ulster and Dearne Valley College) tested the implementation of self-assessment activities against the EFQM Excellence Model. Assessments took place in range of areas schools, departments, research institutes, cross college and faculty wide. Each institution tested different self-assessment methodologies, rather than just using one. This added greatly to the richness of the learning. Work has also been undertaken in some areas to investigate the integration and alignment potential with other aspects of quality assurance and performance management. Mapping and research projects The five projects in this area sought to address the relationship, inter-relationship, synergy and gaps between the EFQM Excellence Model and other management tools, models, concepts and auditing frameworks that are used within an HE and FE environment. These aimed to reduce confusion across the sector about where each may fit within an organisation compared to another. Benchmarking projects The two benchmarking projects aimed to compare the work that we were undertaking, with educational institutions internationally who are exemplars of excellence, and with other private and public sector organisations within the UK who have won quality awards. These projects have allowed us to develop, enhance and evolve our methodologies and approaches to ensure that they are as excellent as they can be when compared to the best.
Communication projects The five communication projects included Mirror of Truth conferences for each year of the programme, the development and maintenance of a programme website (http://excellence.shu.ac.uk), and a final programme report which has brought together the findings of the programme over the three years. The Programme overall, and each project, has been planned and managed using a light-touch project management method, based on PRINCE2 project management methodology. (http://www.ogc.gov.uk/prince/). This has helped to provide clarity, direction and purpose to each of the projects, as well as enabling linkages to be made and learning to be transferred more easily.
Overview
Header
Aim and structure of this publication
This publication introduces the concepts, practices and experiences of self-assessment using the EFQM Excellence Model. It aims to share the learning gained from Consortium members within FE and HE who have, using various methodologies, introduced the EFQM Excellence Model into their institutions. The core aim in each case has been to use selfassessment as a catalyst for driving continuous improvement. It is hoped that this publication will be a useful guide for practitioners who are starting, or are already on, their excellence journey. The publication is divided into four parts: Introduction to the Excellence Model and self-assessment - An introduction to the fundamental concepts of Excellence and the EFQM Excellence Model - An overview of self-assessment, the processes and benefits Self-assessment concepts and methods - The five key self-assessment methods, the benefits and associated risks of each - Issues that need to be addressed when applying the Model and introducing self-assessment. The learning gained from Consortium members - Factors that influenced the selection of one or more selfassessment method, and some of the outcomes experienced - The knowledge and skills needed by those involved in selfassessment - How outputs from self-assessments were used to improve operations - Issues which created barriers to successful introduction of selfassessment, and the difficulties encountered that lessened the rate of success Conclusions and recommendations - Summarising the key points learned, and the impact using self-assessments has had for the HE and FE institutions involved, and giving recommendations to help other organisations ease their own implementation of selfassessments
Summary Publication (Embracing Excellence In Education) and in the EFQM Model Guidelines. In essence, the model is a nonprescriptive framework based on nine criteria. The Model was initially used as a way of recognising achievement, with self-assessment being undertaken by organisations who needed to show continuous improvement over time in order to apply for the European Quality Award. After its introduction, however, it was discovered that the Model and selfassessment were proving to be valuable for driving continuous improvement activity within organisations that were not planning on applying for the award. It was also noticed that the Model was being applied in a wider range of organisations than the private sector for which it had originally been written. As a result of this, further versions of the Model were produced. This included in 1999 the Public and Voluntary Sector Model. This has since been refreshed and updated in 2003. It is this Model that the Consortium has been using.
Summary of the key benefits of using selfassessment
Self-assessment has been likened to holding up a mirror and facing the truth: we dont always like what we see, but we need to acknowledge what we see to be able to make improvements. The impact that undertaking self-assessment can have on institutions is both tangible and intangible. When implemented successfully into an institution, the benefits seen have included: Clear identification of stakeholders and their requirements. Engagement of students and other customer groups. Identification of and improved engagement with partners. Improvement of business planning, through the appropriate integration of self-assessment which leads to a greater clarity of focus and more resourceful and strategically focused plans. Improvement activities which are planned, undertaken and reviewed. Identification and mapping of processes leading to greater efficiency and effectiveness. Improved internal and external communications. Sharing of good practice across organisations, and within organisations. Systematic gathering of data to inform internal and external quality assessments. A change in culture to one of openness, sharing and continuous learning, innovation and improvement.
Background to the EFQM Excellence Model and self-assessment
The European Foundation for Quality Management (EFQM) was created in 1988 by 14 leading European businesses. The EFQM Excellence Model was formally launched in 1991 with the aim to make European Businesses more competitive through the application of TQM philosophy. A detailed description of the EFQM Excellence Model is set out in the accompanying
Header
Introduction to the Excellence Model and Self-Assessment

1 The Fundamental Concepts of Excellence 2 The EFQM Excellence Model
The EFQM Excellence Model is a nonprescriptive framework that recognises there are many approaches to achieving sustainable excellence (EFQM 1999a). In the 2003 EFQM booklet on the Model, Excellence is defined as:
The Excellence Model is described by the EFQM as:
a practical tool to help organisations establish an appropriate management system by measuring where they are on the path to Excellence, helping them to understand the gaps, and then stimulating solutions (EFQM 2003). The Model, shown in Figure 2, is a non-prescriptive framework based on nine criteria - five Enablers and four Results. The Enablers cover what the organisation does, and the Results cover what the organisation achieves; Enablers cause Results. Enablers
People Policy & Strategy Partnerships & Resources People Results Processes Customer Results Society Results Key Performance Results
Outstanding practice in managing the organisation and achieving results based on a set of Fundamental Concepts The eight Fundamental Concepts of Excellence underpinning the EFQM Excellence Model are:
Customer Focus Results Orientation Leadership and Constancy of Purpose Management by Processes and Facts People Development and Involvement Continuous Learning, Innovation and Improvement Partnership Development Corporate Social Responsibility
Results
Leadership
Figure 1 Fundamental Concepts of Excellence (EFQM 2003) Details of how these fundamental concepts have been interpreted and applied to a higher and further education context can be found in the publication EFQM Excellence Model Higher Education Version 2003 (http://integralexcellence.shu.ac.uk) It is upon these eight concepts that the Excellence Model has been based.
Innovation and Learning Figure 2 The EFQM Excellence Model (EFQM 2003) Each of the nine criteria have a number of criterion parts, and these are the only prescriptive parts to the model.
The Enabler Criteria The five Enablers assess and question whether an organisation has the appropriate approaches in place to achieve the targets it has set. The detail of the Model provides a framework for rigorous analysis that questions whether, in each area, the organisation can demonstrate that chosen approaches and strategies: are effective and efficient in delivering results are deployed to their full potential demonstrate continuous improvement. Each of the Enablers is broken down into criterion parts, with guidance points within these criterion parts to help develop and support knowledge and learning in that particular area. Criteria
1b 1c 1d 1e
The Results Criteria the four Results criteria question whether there are comprehensive measures in place that can monitor and track performance, and assess whether objectives have been met. The Results criteria also question the extent to which benchmarking against the best in class is undertaken and used to enhance learning and improve performance. The criteria challenge to what extent an organisation can show that the chosen indicators: comprehensively measure what is important to customers and others who receive a service from the organisation demonstrate continuous improvement against target and results. Each of the Results are broken down into criterion parts, with guidance points within these criterion parts to help develop and support knowledge and learning in that particular area. Criteria
1a 1 Leadership
Criterion parts 6a Areas to address 6 Customer Results
6b Criterion parts Areas to address
5 Processes
5a
5b
5c
5d
5e
Criterion parts Areas to address 9 Key Performance Results 9a
9b Criterion parts Areas to address
Figure 3 The Enabling Criteria (EFQM) Figure 4 The Results Criteria (EFQM)
Criteria and criterion parts Each of the nine criteria has a definition, which provides a high level explanation of the particular criterion. To develop the high level meaning each criterion is supported by a number of criterion parts (EFQM 2003) which an organisation assesses itself against, and from this determines strengths and areas for improvement, from which continuous improvement actions can be taken. Criterion parts There are 32 criterion parts within the EFQM Excellence Model, 24 within the Enablers and 8 within the Results. These criterion parts pose a series of questions that should be considered during the self-assessment process. Within each criterion part is a list that contains possible areas to address. These areas to address are not a checklist, exhaustive or mandatory. The intention is to provide further explanation and meaning for each particular criterion part. An example of the leadership criterion and criterion parts is given here:
Details of the Higher Education version of the criteria and criterion parts can be found in the publication EFQM Excellence Model Higher Education Version 2003. (http://integralexcellence.shu.ac.uk)
Excellence Model Dynamics
The Model is dynamic in nature and has many linkages. The links between each of the criteria of the Model suggest that it is interlinked and interdependent. The linkages are at four levels: Across the whole Model, drawing out and tracking key themes Between the Enablers and the Results, in terms of cause and effect Within the Results, by having leading and lagging indicators Across the Enablers, where improvement in one area is often dependant on the circumstances of another.
Introducing self-assessment
Leadership (Criterion 1) Excellent Leaders develop and facilitate the achievement of the mission and vision. They develop organisational values and systems required for sustainable success and implement these via their actions and behaviours. During periods of change they retain a constancy of purpose. Where required, such leaders are able to change the direction of the organisation and inspire others to follow. Leadership covers five criterion parts (1a 1e) that should be addressed. 1a Leaders develop the mission, vision, values and ethics and are role models of a culture of Excellence 1b Leaders are personally involved in ensuring the organisations management system is developed, implemented and continuously improved 1c Leaders interact with customers, partners and representatives of society 1d Leaders reinforce a culture of Excellence with the organisations people 1e Leaders identify and champion organisational change Figure 5 Leadership criteria and criterion parts (EFQM 2003) The definition of each of the nine criteria, along with the relevant criterion part is contained within the Public and Voluntary Sectors version of the EFQM Excellence Model (EFQM 2003), can be found in Appendix 1. 6
Self-assessment against the Excellence Model Self-assessment is seen as a key driver for improving performance in an organisation and is a key concept of the EFQM Excellence Model. The majority of organisations that employ the Model, use it as a way of finding out where they are now, considering where they want to improve, and then making decisions on how to get there. This is illustrated simply in Figure 6.
Where am I now
How to get there
Where do I want to go?
Figure 6 Simple assessment concept (EFQM) Self-assessment is a method of looking across an organisation at a specific point in time to see where it is in relation to achieving its performance outcomes. In the initial stages, self-assessment can be used as a health check - a starting point for focusing attention and action. The EFQM (1999b) define self-assessment as:
A comprehensive, systematic and regular review of an organisations activities and results referenced against the EFQM Excellence Model. In other words organisations need to have in place cyclic, rather than absent or ad-hoc, measurement and review processes.
It is recognised that assessment against all nine criteria is both desirable and accepted as good management practice. Organisations that are applying for the European Quality Award need to demonstrate evidence in each of the criterion part areas. The primary objective of self-assessment, however, is to identify an organisations strengths and areas for improvement and to develop action plans to improve organisational performance (EFQM 1999b), as illustrated in Figure 7.
quality concepts and frameworks, just starting the journey, or somewhere in between the two. Some methods require much more effort than others; the choice of method is therefore also dependent upon the availability of resources within the institute, particularly those relating to commitment, time, energy, information and finance. Figure 8 shows the methods in terms of how much they are based on rigour and evidence.
Supported by Evidence AWARD ENTRY PRO-FORMA
DATA
Model Evidence
Assessment Action Plans Areas for Improvement Score Copyright BQF
Strengths
PROCESS RIGOUR
WORKSHOP Low MATRIX QUESTIONNAIRE Copyright EFQM High
Figure 7 The inputs and outputs of a self-assessment process An overview of the different methods of selfassessment There are a number of methods of self-assessment against the Excellence Model which can be used. It is recognised that each one can deliver different benefits and involve different resources and risks. Further detail on each is given in the next section, but an overview is given here. The five key self-assessment methods are: Questionnaire Matrix chart Workshop Pro-forma Award simulation
Based on Opinion
Figure 8 The five self-assessment options
Before a method is chosen it is important to consider what the organisation is hoping to achieve from using the EFQM Excellence Model. For instance, if the aim is to secure a quick fix to a specific problem then this may not be achieved given the long-term nature of the Model. Alternatively, if the organisation is looking to achieve an EFQM or British Quality Foundation (BQF) quality award it must be realised that the RADAR scoring matrix awards higher scores to organisations that can demonstrate positive trends for more than 3 years in a wide scope of result areas. This means that continuous improvement efforts need to be in place for several years prior to embarking upon using the Excellence Model for attaining an award. FE and HE institutions can choose to use any or all of the five self-assessment methods, and their choice will depend in part upon whether they are well on the way with the application of
The different methods also vary in terms of requirement of resource and skill, and outcomes from the process undertaken. Figures 9 and 10 indicate some of these differences, although all are subject to change if the assessment processes are enhanced, developed or combined in any way.
MATURE ORGANISATION
Appropriate Questionnaire
Proforma supported by peer validation Pro-Forma Facilitated Workshop
Award Simulation
DEVELOPING ORGANISATION
Questionnaire and Workshop Matrix and Workshop
Pilot Award Simulation Pro-Forma & Workshop
STARTING ON THE EXCELLENCE JOURNEY
Elementary Questionnaire Standard Matrix LOW EFFORT
Standard Questionnaire
Very detailed Questionnaire or Tailored Matrix HIGH EFFORT
MEDIUM EFFORT
Figure 9 Maturity of organisation vs effort required for self-assessment
Strengths/ Areas for improvement Questionnaire Matrix Workshop Pro-Forma Award Simulation NO NO YES YES YES
Accuracy of Score LOW LOW MEDIUM MEDIUM/HIGH HIGH
Knowledge of Model NO NO YES YES YES
Site Visit
Trained Assesors NO NO FACILITATOR YES YES
Resource Implication LOW/MEDIUM LOW/MEDIUM MEDIUM MEDIUM/HIGH HIGH
NO NO NO OPTIONAL OPTIONAL
Figure 10 Self-assessment summary table
Starting on the Journey towards Excellence It is critical that self-assessment is viewed as an integral part of the journey towards Excellence, rather than a stand alone exercise or a one-off. In the first instance, self-assessment can be classed as a health check, where an initial analysis against the Model provides information and evidence, from which improvements can be made. As learning and understanding progresses, use of the Model becomes more integrated into the way of working.
Excellence
Self-Assessment Action Plans Health check
There is no one prescribed way of developing the self-assessment process, but activities will include: Educating and training staff to give them the knowledge and skills necessary to fulfil their role Scheduling self-assessments Developing action plans resulting from self-assessments Planning review meetings Embedding the self-assessment process into the regular business planning cycle Maintaining commitment to activity plans by supporting improvement activities.
Maturity of organisation
Figure 11 The Excellence Journey the beginning Irrespective of the method chosen, there are eight generic steps for carrying out a self-assessment. These steps are illustrated in Figure 12 and, although they are shown as sequential, some activities may overlap others.
Develop Commitment
Plan self-assessment
Establish teams to perform self-assessment and educate
Review Progress
Communicate self-assessment plans
Conduct self-assessment
Establish action plan
Implement action plan
Figure 12 Eight steps for carrying out self-assessment (EFQM 1999b)
Header
Self-Assessment Concepts and Methods
Self-assessment methods
A brief explanation is given here regarding each method. More information can be found in the EFQM publication Assessing for Excellence: A Practical guide for Self-Assessment (EFQM 1999). The methods are discussed here from a generic point of view, but in the following section they are considered in terms of their applicability to FE and HE. Questionnaire method This method is deemed by the EFQM (1999b) as one of the least labour intensive, providing an existing questionnaire is used. Electronic versions which are now available can make the collation of data quick and easy. Depending upon the breadth and depth of the questionnaire, it can collect information on a very wide range of issues. Given a full distribution, it can obtain the views from everyone in an organisation. Benefits Quick and easy to apply Can involve all the organisations people Supports communication efforts The questions asked can be customised to suit the organisation Enables the organisation to receive feedback which can be segmented by function and by level Can give a good visual reference if results are graphed Risks and Issues Strengths and areas for improvement cannot be ascertained Accuracy of feedback is dependent upon the phrasing of the original questions There may be questionnaire fatigue within the organisation Questionnaires tell you what people think, not why they think it Does not allow for direct comparison with scoring profiles of European Quality Award applicants Scores can be derived, but can only be used realistically as trend data, rather than real scores
Can be used in conjunction with other methods Expectations can be raised and unfulfilled if timely, appropriate actions do not occur
Matrix chart method The matrix chart method requires an organisation to create a series of statements that can be assigned a rating. These statements have to be identified for all the nine criteria of the Model. The chart can be used by teams to self-assess where their organisation is in relation to the statements. An example of statements from a matrix chart, focusing on Leadership criteria, is given in Figure 13. Statement with a rating of 1 The MIS (Management Information Services) management team has a process in place to develop its own awareness of the concepts of Total Quality. Statement with a rating of 4 Leaders act as role models for MIS values and expectations, and regularly review their own effectiveness as leaders. Statement with a rating of 7 The MIS management team is proactive in valuing, recognising and rewarding all employees for continuous improvement. Statement with a rating of 10 The MIS management team is proactive in promoting creativity, new ideas and motivation in order to sustain continuous improvement and to foster a culture of Customer Focus. Figure 13 Leadership Matrix Chart (Source: EFQM Practical Guide to Self-Assessment, 1999)
10
Benefits It is simple and fairly quick to use Requires minimal training Can involve as few or as many of the organisations people as necessary Supports team discussion
Risks and issues Dependant on the type of matrix used, a list of strengths and areas for improvement are not necessarily produced It does not always allow comparisons against EQA applicants Not necessarily direct cross-reference between the matrix statements and the sub-criteria of the model Time consuming if you develop your own matrix chart
Clearly demonstrates progress and the lack of progress in relation Scoring using the RADAR concept is not usually possible, to all the nine criteria of the EFQM Excellence Model depending on the matrix chart used Provides a practical way of understanding the fundamental concepts of the Model Enables teams to assess and display progress, shows gaps and possible next steps Good for facilitating team discussions and team building Involving the management team of an organisation in developing their own matrix can be a powerful process Can give a good visual reference of gaps between current and future state if these are represented pictorially Workshop method The workshop method can have five distinct phases: The development of understanding and shared purpose The gathering of information across the criteria of the Model Scoring the evidence gathered Identification and prioritisation of improvement actions Review
However, this is the most flexible of methods, and is dependant on the time and resource within the organisation and skill of the Facilitator. It is possible to undertake a self-assessment in one or two workshop sessions which are carefully planned, managed and facilitated. Usually these phases will be undertaken throughout the session, although the Review process may need to follow later in order to check progress against actions. Benefits An excellent way to familiarise teams with the Model Risks and issues It is less robust than some of the other methods, as the information is based mainly on the opinion of those in the workshop Requires expert facilitation, preparation, planning and management Evidence of assessment, review and deployment can be difficult to assess Can result in unrealistic, often over generous scoring
Supports team building An agreed list of strengths and areas for improvement is produced which helps drive improvement actions Allows for discussion and agreement regarding the strengths and areas for improvement, allowing a common view to be agreed Encourages ownership and motivation towards taking the outcomes forward and ensure improvement actions are undertaken
11
Pro-forma method The pro-forma approach involves using a template (paper based or electronic), which contains all the 32 criterion parts of the Excellence Model. An example is given in Figure 14. Criterion 1 Leadership Excellent Leaders develop and facilitate the achievement of the mission and vision. They develop organisational values and systems required for sustainable success and implement these via their actions and behaviours. During periods of change they retain a constancy of purpose. Where required, such leaders are able to change the direction of the organisation and inspire others to follow. Criterion part 1a Leaders develop the mission, vision, values and ethics and are role models of a culture of Excellence. Areas to address* How leaders: develop and role model ethics and values which support the creation of the organisations culture are personally and actively involved in improvement activities review and improve the effectiveness of their own leadership and act upon future leadership requirements stimulate and encourage collaboration within the organisation
* The areas selected by the organisation engaged in self-assessment, they would have particular relevance to its activities
Strengths The senior management team has developed a management competencies model that supports the organisations ethics and values Effectiveness of leaders is assessed by employee survey and 360 degree appraisals Department executives ensure their people participate in cross divisional improvement projects Areas for improvement Leaders are not personally involved in improvement activities
Evidence Competencies model available on organisations intranet Staff survey data from surveys of 1996, 1998, 2000 and 2002 appropriately segmented and individual leaders improvement actions included in their appraisement process All cross-divisional projects, and team membership, are documented on the organisations Intranet Figure 14 Extracts from example given in EFQM booklet Assessing for Excellence: A Practical Guide for Self-Assessment (EFQM 1999) updated with statements from the refreshed Model. (EFQM 2003) Assessment teams collect the appropriate information and then use the pro-forma to bring the evidence together. This is then usually discussed at a facilitated workshop. Benefits Provides factual information and real evidence Delivers a list of strengths, areas for improvement and can also record actions, depending on the template used Can involve a range of the organisations people Provides a reasonably accurate indication of an award application score (if scoring is used) The output from the assessment is clearly documented Scoring profiles can be close to the Award simulation approach in terms of accuracy Less resource required than the Award simulation approach Risks and issues The process is dependent upon good data collection The pro-forma can stifle recognition of the full story relating to excellence development if it is not used openly and honestly can give the opportunity for creative writing! The output provides only a summary of the current position Can be challenging for managers to collect the right data, particularly in areas where no data may exist Some time and resource required, although not as much as for Award simulation approach
12
Award simulation method The Award simulation approach is in essence a replication of the process for entering for the European Quality Award. It involves preparing a full submission document in accordance with the criteria laid down in the EFQM Award Application brochure (EFQM 2000). Subsequently a team of trained assessors, either internal or external to the organisation, scores the application and provides a feedback report containing a list of strengths and areas for improvement. Benefits Provides a list of strengths and areas for improvement Risks and issues Less involvement of managers because the task is usually delegated Is resource intensive with the need for a dedicated team to pull the evidence together over a period of months (can be between 3 and 6 months) Only provides a snapshot of the organisation at that time Approach may be too ambitious as a first attempt at selfassessment for new recruits to the Excellence journey because of the potentially high volume of areas for improvement produced
It is based on the collection of evidence and is therefore fairly robust Potential for creative writing, covering up the real issues An excellent communication document for internal and external use Subsequent reports become easier to write Provides an opportunity to compare performance with other organisations Provides a rehearsal for applying for the European Quality Award Provides a powerful and concise way of reflecting the culture and performance of the organisation Provides international recognition if successful in winning an Award or Prize If unsuccessful in receiving an award, can still receive constructive and useful comments on which to base further improvement Good way of benchmarking against other best in class organisations Scoring and score relatively robust
Issues to be addressed when applying the Model and introducing self-assessment
There are a number of key generic issues that need to be considered when introducing the Excellence Model using self-assessment. Agreement of why the assessment is being undertaken There needs to be a clear and agreed rationale for undertaking a self-assessment, with a defined remit and scope. The desired outcome from the process needs to be identified, and what it is intended should happen with the desired outcome i.e. the results of the assessment process, should be agreed. This could impact on the type of methodology used. The key driver for the assessment must therefore be identified. Determining what to focus the assessment on Applying self-assessment means that improvement efforts can be aligned across the areas that matter most to the institution and/or the people who work within them. A range of symptoms may be evident across the institution, such as poor student recruitment, student retention, a financial crisis or concerns with staff morale. If looked at in isolation the root cause of the issue may not be discovered, so it is recommended that self-assessment is undertaken across the full range of criteria in the first instance.
13
It must be agreed at which level self-assessment should be undertaken, whether it be departmental, in academic areas, or across the whole institution. It could be a mix of these, as indicated in Figure 15.
University Wide self-assessment
School/Department strategic self-assessment
Implementing improvement plans Following any self-assessment activity, it is vital that actions are taken forward, prioritised and implemented. Without this, the assessment process becomes a paper exercise rather than part of a continuous improvement cycle. It is significant that improvements identified at strategic levels need senior management commitment. If step-change from self-assessment is to be achieved, a balance between strategic and operational actions needs to be achieved, rather than a focus just on operational areas. Embedding self-assessment as part of a cyclic process Self-assessment needs to be undertaken at regular intervals. 12 monthly intervals appear to be appropriate as this length of time allows for improvements to occur and trend data to be generated and reviewed. The generation of action plans, action taken and self-assessment reviewing the improvement in performance, creates a cyclic process of continuous improvement.
Team based self-assessment
Personal reflection
Figure 15 Assessment levels Level of knowledge required to engage in selfassessment It is important to recognise that not everybody in an organisation needs to have an understanding of the Excellence Model. There needs to be a balance of knowledge between the champion/facilitator and team members. The champion/facilitator responsible in an organisation for implementing the Excellence Model needs to have a sound understanding of the Model, its potential benefits, different methods of self-assessment, and how to use them flexibly and sensitively. A team member should be able to identify and access the key evidence base that is needed to undertake the assessment, but does not necessarily need to have an in-depth knowledge of the Excellence Model, although some knowledge is helpful. Implementation of the Excellence Model is much more successful when there is commitment from senior leaders. It has been shown that commitment is significantly greater where senior leaders are personally engaged in improvement and learning activities using the Excellence Model. Ensuring senior leaders are conversant with the business benefits of the model, its basic concepts and structure, is therefore very important.
Leadership Direction Systematic Review Benchmarking Strengths Areas for Improvement Act Plan Strategic Plan for Business Excellence Process Management Deployment of approaches Benchmarking Self-assessment Key performance indicators
Check
Do
Figure 16 Self-assessment as part of a continuous improvement process The linking of self-assessment to business planning One of the main ways to ensure that self-assessment becomes embedded as part of a natural cycle, is to integrate it as part of the business planning cycle. Positioning self-assessment as part of an integrated planning approach is a key benefit of using the Excellence Model. This does not mean that all business plans have to be written and framed around the Excellence Model, but it does mean that using self-assessment as part of the planning process can lead to a greater clarity of focus and more resourceful and strategically focused plans.
14
3
Vision, mission values Leadership Maturity Continuous Improvement Strategic Integration Vision, mission values
Understanding the RADAR Scoring Matrix
Identification of Stakeholders Self-assessment
Identification of Stakeholders
Identification of Stakeholders
At the heart of the Excellence Model is a concept known as RADAR Logic:

Determine the Results required
Strategic Planning
Action Planning
Business Planning
Integrated Planning Process
Assess & Review Deploy approaches

Figure 19 RADAR Logic
Plan & develop Approaches
Implementation and review
Implementation and review
Figure 17 Integration of the EFQM Excellence Model with Business Planning Self-assessment offers a snapshot of where an institution or team is, at a moment in time. Resulting from the self-assessment will be a number of improvement activities, often more activities than an organisation has the resources to address. It is necessary to identify and address the vital improvement activities, rather than trying to implement and resource all of the improvements that have been identified. Grouping the activities will help the prioritisation and allocation of resources. It is the self-assessment measurements that inform the learning, which drives the improvement actions. Only when all these elements are in place, linked to a regular business planning cycle can an institution, department and/or team claim that they are truly using the EFQM Excellence Model. This is the second stage on the journey towards Excellence.
Excellence
This philosophy embraces the thinking that an organisation needs to: Determine the Results it is aiming to achieve once its policies and strategies have been implemented; Plan and develop an integrated set of sound Approaches which will enable the results to be realised; Deploy the approaches in a systematic and comprehensive way throughout the organisation across its breadth and depth; Assess and Review whether these approaches are effective and have been able to provide the planned results, identifying, prioritising and implementing planned improvements as a result of this analysis. As part of the self-assessment process it is possible for an organisation to derive a score, but the decision to use a numerical scoring system should be given careful consideration. If using scoring it should not be seen as a pass or fail indicator but as an indicator of how much improvement has been made and where on its journey to Excellence the organisation is currently standing (EFQM 1999). If an organisation wishes to be compare its performance and progress with other organisations, it is helpful to be able to benchmark the score from a self-assessment against other scores. Scoring can also be used to highlight where significant improvements can be made and therefore where priorities could be focused. RADAR is an integral part of the scoring mechanism for the Model. This method of assessment is used by Assessors for assessing applications for the European Quality Award. This means that any scores derived from a self-assessment can be benchmarked against award winning organisation from across Europe. 15
Self-Assessment Action Plans Health check
Business Plans & Self-Assessment Planning tool
Figure 18 The Excellence Journey - the Second Stage
Research has also shown that the RADAR concepts can be easily integrated as part of: on-going management thinking problem solving and analysis an evaluation tool when assessing internal evidence prior to external audit, to check whether the information being collected and presented is really sound and integrated, shows good deployment, and can be linked directly to the achievement of the stated results useful support to project management tools when composing funding or business planning documents
Difference between an EFQM self-assessment and other forms of HE institutional self-assessment
The approach taken to self-assessment, when using the EFQM Excellence Model, is different to other approaches that the HE sector may by familiar with. For example, the QAA Framework and the EFQM Excellence Model derive from different starting points and are not viewed as substitutes for each other. However using the Excellence Model can support a HE institution to meet the requirements of external quality assessments. Examples of the some of the differences between the QAA framework and the self-assessment using the Excellence Model is given in Figure 20. A detailed report Mapping the QAA Framework and the Excellence Model (Steed and Arnold, 2001) has been produced and is available on http://excellence.shu.ac.uk QAA self-assessment (2001 Framework) The QAA subject review self-assessment is prescriptive and mandatory and strongly linked to public accountability in relation to academic standards and quality assurance, it is less concerned with academic governance or management. The QAA self-assessment and review occurs on a five-yearly cycle. The self-assessment document is submitted to QAA to provide a framework for the review. External QAA reviewers visit the institution to review the subject area. The visit can last several days. The preparation time for assessment is between six months and two years. EFQM self-assessment Organisations choose to use the Model and it can be adopted at any time, using any method, at any level over a time scale, which suits the organisation. The EFQM Excellence Model is for most organisations a self-assessment tool intended to encourage and promote good management practice. Self-assessment and reviews occur at regular intervals, usually in the range 6 months to two years. The self-assessment documentation can be a short management report or a fuller document addressing all the 32 criterion parts of the Model. There are no external reviewers unless the organisation wishes to undertake a self-assessment using an award simulation approach or to enter a quality award. The time for a self-assessment can be as much as several months, but this task is seen as part of the organisations approach to managing the organisation rather than adding to day-to-day management responsibilities. The internal team determines strengths and areas for improvement. Action plans focusing on improvement activities are developed and reviewed by the people responsible for securing the improvements.
A final report is produced by QAA following the review. Teams responsible for subject areas are required to produce internal action plans.
Figure 20 Examples of the difference between EFQM and QAA subject review self-assessment
16
Application of Self-Assessment in Further and Higher Education

1 Introduction to self-assessments carried out by members of the Consortium
Using just one method Some members of the consortium used just one method, but most used more than one. All four of the methods used by the Consortium were used, at one stage or another, singly. Questionnaire Several different types of questionnaire were used, including Business Driver (BQC Performance Management www.bqc-network.com) and E-pathways (www.cforc.org/organisationalreview/epathways.htm). With this method data, was easy to gather and, especially when computerised, easy to collate and analyse. While some questionnaires were found to be very appropriate, the language used in several off-the-shelf products was off-putting to staff at all levels, and the questions in some did not fit the operation or group that it was being used with. The data gathered using this method identified a much wider range of issues than would have been identified by several of the other methods, and in some instances it provided managers with feedback on problems they were not aware of. However, sometimes the output from questionnaires was daunting and offputting because of the large number of areas for improvement that were identified. In some cases this led to a raising of expectations, where a large number of issues had been raised, which became impossible to priorities in a meaningful way. This was counter-productive and off-putting for the staff engaged in the process. Questionnaires provided quantifiable evidence from a wide range of inputs. While the output from questionnaires was useful for measuring and identifying changes and improvements, it rarely helped with the identification of underlying causes. In most cases it helped to yield an understanding of what staff opinions were in a range of areas, but did not help to explain why, or suggest any connectivity between the issues. Experience from the sector therefore suggests that questionnaires used in isolation, must be used carefully, with a clear rationale and framework for taking actions forward. Communication with staff and the management of expectations is critical. The perception base rather than evidence base of the information collected should also be considered and balanced against the speed and relative ease of the process. Questionnaires were found to be useful and helpful when used alongside another assessment method, as explained in the next section. Matrix This method has been used in two institutions, with differing results. This is partly related to the difference in type of Matrix used, and also partly related to the process through which the Matrix was applied.
As outlined in the previous section, self-assessment provides a snapshot of an institution or organisation at a specific point in time. This can be used to great effect, but if poorly used can result in little more than a waste of scarce resources. Results from Consortium members have shown that there are two factors that have a major impact on the success, or otherwise, of using selfassessment as part of a management and planning process: support from the very top of the institution or unit being assessed integration of the outputs from the self-assessment into business planning and management processes Within the Consortium the role of the self-assessment process varied widely. It ranged from being a core part of the business process when a Vice Chancellor directed that it should be an integral part of the business process through application in a number of departments and areas, to a lets see what it can do in one small area. This section describes how Consortium members introduced and applied self-assessment, and draws on these experiences to provide pointers that may help other institutions to introduce selfassessment successfully.
Which self-assessment method?
Selecting a method There is seldom a single best choice of method for selfassessment. Many factors impact on this selection decision. These may include: the resources available, the culture of the institution, the knowledge and understanding within the institution of the Excellence Model, and the objectives required from the process. Over time, the most appropriate method may change, and it may also be appropriate to use more than one method at once. Consortium members found that carefully choosing the most appropriate method yielded a much greater buy-in to the process. It was also found that tailoring the content or intensity of the method to reflect the situation of the area it was to be used in, enabled areas to achieve a greater understanding of the Excellence Model than was achieved by simply adopting a blanket one-type fits all approach. This also helped to ensure the best use was made of scarce resources. There are five basic methods available for self-assessment, described in the previous chapter, and Consortium members used four of them: Questionnaire, Matrix, Workshop, and Pro-forma. The only one not used was the Award simulation method.
17
In one institution a generic matrix has been used to provide a gentle introduction to the Excellence Model, with the analysis and discussion that surrounded it often leading to the identification of underlying causes and the development of action plans. The issues addressed by this method tended to be restricted to those described in the contents/statements of the matrix. In another institution, a generic Matrix was used as part of the training and development programme for staff, who were then able quickly complete a simple self-assessment. In this way, they began to see the value of the Model, its application potential and its interconnected nature. This made the theory real. In the same institution, a more complex Matrix was developed particularly for use within the HE sector. The Dynamic Matrix for Excellence in Higher Education (contact c.steed@shu.ac.uk for information) has been written with statements to reflect the different criterion parts within the Model. Also included is an area for recording, strengths, areas for improvement and actions. As all the statements relate to the criterion parts of the Model, the scoring method allows for the derivation of a benchmark score out of 1000 points. This has been used successfully with senior management and other teams across the sector as a way of identifying top-level priorities. The process of engagement is usually relatively short and the learning gained from members of the team relatively rich. Workshops These have tended to be used in two ways: WITH reference to the Excellence Model. In the first workshops participants were introduced to the model, and then at subsequent workshops they undertook an assessment against the Model, with a score derived where requested, and improvement plans developed. WITHOUT reference to the Excellence Model. In these workshops the focus was on key themes, such as stakeholders, the identification and delivery of key results, processes and process working, partnerships, culture change and leadership development issues. In this was, a general walk around the issues that the Model highlights (as explained in the Fundamental Concepts) have been explored and explained without the constraint of the Model. In some cases, the Model was presented as a summary to bring together the areas discussed. The workshops were found to be effective ways of undertaking detailed discussion and exploration of issues and problems that participants were aware of. In some instances different workshops were used for different categories of staff; some participants in the workshops found this to be divisive, but on other occasions such as when some of the key issues only affected one category of staff segregated workshops were considered appropriate. Workshops delivered in a series (for
example three morning workshops over three weeks) have been helpful in making the concepts accessible to staff (not too intensive in one time period), with time for reflection and consideration in between adding to the richness of the learning. Pro-forma This method was very detailed and rigorous, providing a large volume of data and yielding a number of strengths, areas for improvement and actions. The documentation used in this method varied significantly in both complexity and length. When it was tailored to meet the situation of the departments or areas it was being used with, there was a greater degree of buy-in from participants. One consortium member used simplified documentation, without scoring, to provide a light introduction for staff who were unfamiliar with the Excellence Model, and this was found to be very effective. Over time, as understanding of the Excellence Model grew, the pro-forma was expanded and the process became more rigorous. Another Consortium member used, very successfully, the reverse method: they started with a very complex pro-forma and then used a simplified model later. The rationale was that the complex pro-forma could be used as a vehicle to support learning about the Excellence Model. Its use led to a deeper understanding of the issues and complexity that the Model unlocks, with strategic rather than operational issues surfaced. As a result of using this method, significant step-change improvements have been made in a number of academic and administrative areas. The approach used in both institutions also differed. In the first institution, the pro-forma was populated based on information gained from a series of interviews. The interviewer used the information gathered to populate the pro-forma. It was noted that the nature of this approach meant that the results tended to represent the views of the participants directly involved, and often this was a small number of participants. In the second institution the pro-forma was populated by a team from within the assessment area who consulted colleagues and gathered a consensus opinion in all criterion areas. In this way, they owned the document and were able to critically self-evaluate the information, gaining information from a wider representation base. In both cases, however, the gathering and analysis of the evidence and information was found to be, depending upon the complexity of the pro-forma used, time-consuming. Using more than one method Sometimes an institution used a combination of methods to meet specific needs; this involved either using different methods to reflect different situations in separate parts of the business, or using a combination of methods in a specific area because they complemented each other. Over time, as the situation in an
18
institution changed, the most appropriate methods sometimes changed, and this was the situation for several members of the Consortium. Different methods in separate parts of the institution Using a range of methods offered flexibility. It was possible to meet the specific needs of different situations, and the different levels of learning and understanding. It also enabled the testing of different methods to see if they might be useful in a Higher or Further Education environment, and provided an opportunity to explore where richness could be gained through using a combination of methods. Selecting the most appropriate method for a specific area took time. It involved identifying in each area the knowledge, time available, resources, level of commitment, and obtaining a view as to how the staff in the area saw the method fitting into their work. For some staff, a really detailed and rigorous assessment method initially might have put them off for life, but a taster of what it might unlock in a non-threatening and easy to access way could open up opportunities for further rigour later. This is what happened when staff in one academic area began by using a series of workshops, but soon realised that there was actually an awful lot that they didnt know - and they wanted a better understanding so the department moved on to a more demanding approach. In contrast to this, in the same institution, another department chose to use a very rigorous approach to really understand the issues, but are now using the same approach in a less intensive way as a checking mechanism. Using a combination of methods Self-assessment methods based on workshops and pro-formas can involve relatively few people within an institution, although this was very much dependant on what the whole assessment process looked like. For example, the number of people engaged in one workshop, or on one assessment team may have only been 9 or 10, but they may have been considering the collected evidence from 30 or 40 people which they have collected as part of the assessment process. Several Consortium members used questionnaires to provide extra data from a much wider base and thereby support either the pro-forma or workshop method. The combination of pro-forma and workshops was found very useful. Pro-formas gathered a lot of detail, and this when carefully collated and presented formed a good basis for workshops where the issues and supporting detail could be fully explored. It was also found that follow-on workshops were useful ways of supporting team building, and encouraged team discussions of strengths and areas for improvement. One Consortium member used questionnaires to support other methods to give the general staff in the school or department a voice in the process. This also enabled a comparison to be made between the perceptions of staff and managers where two
questionnaire types were used. The information from the questionnaires was used as a cross-check to ensure that the evidence collected (usually from managers) using the pro-forma based approach really did reflect what all staff thought. Questionnaires also acted as a communication tool with staff so that the process and ethos of what was being undertaken could be communicated in a useful and inclusive way. Ways of supporting self-assessments It was generally found that the success of self-assessments grew as people began to understand the model more, and applied it more effectively. By continually developing staff, and fine-tuning or changing the approaches used, the self-assessments became more effective. The use of process maps (which provided direction and focus to the assessment process), mentoring for staff involved, and the provision of training and support through workshops all helped with this process. Modifications to self-assessment processes This was found useful as it enabled the process to reflect the learning of the assessment team and the incorporation of learning from other parts of an institution. Where a method was not successful, a new process or approach was devised and tested in an attempt to improve the experience. It was found important to learn from the feedback and incorporate it into future self-assessment activities. Champions and Ambassadors Several Consortium members made use of Champions and Ambassadors, some from within their organisations and others from outside. Used at the right time and with the right people they were very helpful in gaining support or commitment for the self-assessment, and in convincing others to start the journey. Mentoring This was found to be a very useful way of supporting all those taking leading roles in the self-assessment process. It also helped to ensure that everyone had a common understanding of the process and followed the same methodology. Process maps One Consortium member developed process maps for each area undertaking a self-assessment. Instead of simply using the same process map in each area, maps were modified as appropriate to reflect both the area and the people involved, and this was found to increase the effectiveness of the process, as well as the level of understanding and engagement with the assessment.
19
What knowledge and skills are needed by those involved in self-assessments?
For an activity to be successful, those involved need to have the correct skills and knowledge and the self-assessment process is no different. This section looks at the skills and knowledge needed by the principal groups of people who have been involved in the assessment processes, and how those skills and knowledge were developed. The range of people involved in the project across the Consortium was extensive, but they tended to fall into the following categories: Assessment Leaders external to the area being assessed. Responsible for agreeing the assessment method, as well as setting up and leading the assessment process. They often provided a range of support such as one-to-one training, mentoring, and facilitation of workshops. Assessment Leaders internal to the areas being assessed. Involved with carrying out and leading many of the selfassessment activities, and facilitating at meetings. Senior Management Champions. Responsible for supporting and driving through the assessment process, encouraging staff to engage and commit the time and resource necessary. A key aspect of this role was the requirement to support and agree the implementation of actions, and the championing of the process amongst other senior colleagues. Participants within the areas being assessed. Took part in the various self-assessment activities, including filling in questionnaires, discussions at workshops, developing and implementing improvement plans and taking forward resultant actions. Assessment Leaders external to the assessment area Knowledge of the Excellence Model and the Higher Education (HE) sector It was found that External Assessment Leaders with extensive knowledge of both the Excellence Model and the HE sector tended to be more successful with their application of selfassessment than those with limited knowledge. Although limited knowledge of the HE sector was sometimes an advantage it made the asking of silly but pertinent questions much easier and more likely on occasions it put them at a distinct disadvantage when engaged in discussions with senior staff in the organisation. What was essential, however, was a thorough and detailed knowledge of the Model, self-assessment tools and techniques and the interventions that the Model suggests might be useful. In those areas where External Assessment Leaders where able to support teams in not just identifying areas for action, but could then support the investigation and solution of these, a greater degree of integration was achieved. 20
Skills Consortium members found that the ideal External Assessment Leader possessed the wide range of skills normally expected of someone managing a project: planning and scheduling, time management, ability to keep projects to budgets and timescales, communication skills, persuasion, facilitation, diplomacy, motivation, and team-working. The ability to work with senior people to set the scene and gain support in terms of actions and resources and not just words was invaluable. The need to expertly facilitate workshops and seminars was also a skill which was highlighted as crucial. Training It was found that these individuals needed a good grounding in the Model through detailed Assessor Training. After this, their knowledge and understanding of the Model and its application could be extended through networking, and by acting as award assessors for organisations like the British Quality Foundation or the EFQM. External experts, such as members of the Advisory Board or other Consortium members were also able to provide support and guidance. Training in specific areas, such as the use of e-Pathways system, was sometimes necessary. Assessment Leaders internal to the assessment area Knowledge of the Excellence Model and the Higher Education (HE) sector It was found that Internal Assessment Leaders needed a reasonable degree of knowledge of both the Excellence Model and the HE sector. When supported by an External Leader (an EFQM specialist), a greater knowledge of the HE sector provided a beneficial balance. What was essential, however, was a thorough understanding of how the assessment process fitted into the day-to-day activity in the area being assessed. It was critical for the Internal Assessment Leader to be able to put the process into a local and relevant context. Skills Consortium members found that the ideal Internal Assessment Leader possessed a range of skills including those of project planning and management, time management, communication skills, persuasion, diplomacy, motivation, and team-working. The ability to work with colleagues at all levels across their working area was also a significant benefit, building trust and support in all academic, administrative and technical areas as appropriate. Training It was found that it helped these individuals to have a good overview of the Model. Those who had undertaken Assessor Training found it beneficial, although others attended less intensive training courses. Training in the use of specific assessment methods was also critical to enable this individual to support others within their area should the need arise.
Senior Management Champions Knowledge of the Excellence Model It was evident that a sound understanding of the Excellence Model helped Champions, and this was very much the preferred option. However, the depth of knowledge required was dependent upon the type of self-assessment approach used: for the questionnaire, especially computerised ones, Champions could get by with relatively little knowledge. For more complex methods, a greater degree of understanding was required to ensure commitment to the process could be gained. External Assessment Leaders found it was much harder to work with Champions who had not received much exposure to the Model. Champions who had been assessor-trained and were experienced with a range of self-assessment activities generally found it easier to engage with and support successful outcomes from the assessment activities. As one institution began to make more use of the Excellence Model and self-assessment, Champions have needed a greater understanding of the Excellence Model and the concepts within it to support the further development, integration and embedding of Excellence concepts into routine management activities. This type of engagement has been viewed in some areas as key to Leadership and Management development initiatives. Knowledge of the Higher Education (HE) sector It was found useful to have a good understanding of the HE sector as this gave the Champion credibility with participants. A trusting and open working relationship with the Internal and External Assessment Leaders was also important. When self-assessments were carried out in central departments only, there was little need for any knowledge of the HE sector. In such situations it was found very beneficial if the Champions had an understanding of how large institutions operate, had some knowledge of funding arrangements, and were familiar with department-specific issues. Successful integration of the self-assessment process into academic quality systems was helped by a good knowledge of the HE sector, its constraints and likely future direction. In this situation it was important to have both knowledge of the Excellence Model and an understanding of the structure and concepts of the HE Sector. Skills A key skill needed by Champions was the ability to engage, motivate and support staff through the assessment process, proving clear leadership direction, but as part of the team rather than from a command and control view. The need to persuade and interest other senior colleagues was also significant, particularly in terms of gaining commitment to the implementation and integration of actions.
Training A very useful introduction for Champions to the Excellence Model and self-assessment was found to be either the 2-day EFQM Assessor Training course or the Ambassador for Excellence Course (run by Sheffield Hallam University). Additional experience, such as being involved in external award assessments, was very valuable. A range of further development areas was also identified as helpful, in areas such as process management, benchmarking, partnership working, and integration with planning. Self-Assessment participants Knowledge of the Excellence Model The need to have good working knowledge of the Excellence Model was dependent upon the self-assessment approach chosen. Some approaches required an understanding of the Model and the nine criteria, whilst others required little understanding of the Model, but more about the methodology. Most Consortium members found that, even if they could gather data without participants being familiar with the Model, the selfassessment activities were more effective if participants had this knowledge. Choosing a self-assessment method that supported this active learning was also seen as beneficial. Formal training, ranging from a 1/2 day to a 2-day workshop on the Excellence Model and self-assessment, was the type of training provided. Some Consortium members made this compulsory, but others offered it on a voluntary basis. One Consortium member reported that as the institution began to use the Model more rigorously, it was found beneficial if all participating staff attended the 2-day EFQM Assessor Training workshop, and in this institution it was actively being asked for by participants who were interested in gaining a more detailed understanding in the area. Knowledge of the Higher Education (HE) Sector An understanding of the HE sector was found to be beneficial but not essential. What was more important was that participants had an understanding of how they and their department, school or group fitted into the institution. In some institutions, self-assessments were undertaken mainly using cross-functional teams that included academics, administrators, managers and technical staff. At workshops with these mixed groups - generally with varying degrees of interest and knowledge of the HE sector - it was found that the sharing through discussion minimised the need for additional training in HE Sector issues.
21
Skills When dealing with small numbers of participants - such as with the workshop or pro-forma approach - care needed to be taken when selecting staff. What was required was not only an ability to criticise the current situation and identify problems, but also the skills to work with others to explore root-causes and develop improvement plans. It was therefore important that participants had not only the ability to articulate their views, but also the confidence to fight for their views in discussions. The ability to work in teams was also important. Training Many of the self-assessment approaches involved working in teams, and the provision of specific training in team-working was found to be very beneficial. Additional training was also provided as required in specific areas such as process management, benchmarking, partnership working, assessment methods, outcomes, integration with planning, and business planning generally.
Using the outputs from self-assessments to make improvements
The self-assessment exercise itself provided a snapshot of the institution/department/school/group at a particular point in time, identifying areas for improvement. What was then needed was the development - and implementation - of a series of action plans to make improvements. This sub-section looks at approaches identified by Consortium members as being key factors in realising the benefits from self-assessments. Incorporating self-assessments into the business planning cycle It was found that the greatest benefits were achieved from self-assessment outputs when they were incorporated into the business planning cycle. This required carrying out the self-assessment in time for the results to be available as inputs for the business planning process; the two activities had to be synchronised, with self-assessment becoming an integral part of the beginning of the planning process. When the self-assessment outputs were integrated into business plans, they tended to become either key strategic objectives in their own right, or were grouped under a general objective to improve the management and excellence of the department. An example of how this has been achieved can be seen in Figure 21, which shows how one Department integrated self-assessment within the business planning process.
Management Group Strategy Day Consider all issues. Build corporate & operational objectives and business plan framework October
Executive Strategy Days October/November
University Planning Statement issued December
2nd Management Group Strategy Meeting Issue Corporate Objectives December
Planning Assumptions and Risk Analysis based on management information, self-assessment priority actions and outcomes September/October
Planning Groups (meet and report)
Planning Exchange Meetings (sections & Divisions) Spring Budget Review (with Senior Mgt) Ensure integrated planning in University Staff Appraisal proces January - March Local Planning Process Half Year Reviews January
Corporate Planning Process Senior Management monitor and evaluate output from performance indicators and realign planning objectives
Actual self-assessment activity
Flow of information from assessment process
Board of Governors approve Business Plan July
Senior Management approve Business Plan at designated Planning Meeting June
Submit Draft Business Plan to Senior Management for alignment with available resources April
Mid Year Review with Universty Senior Management February
Figure 21 Integration of self-assessment with business planning in one Central Department 22
Within the Consortium the frequency of the review of business plans and objectives varied, sometimes it was annually, sometimes 6-monthly, and sometimes once a term. Selfassessments were carried out on a 6-monthly or 12-monthly basis, although one institution carried them out every 2 years. While the integration of self-assessments with business plans tended to produce the best results, it was noted that not all departments or groups had business plans. At least one department within the Consortium seemed to focus purely on finances, with management only reacting when something went wrong or when there was a realisation that a change was needed. In such instances, the outputs from the self-assessment process had to be used in isolation. Selecting action plans for implementation The normal procedure for developing action plans during the selfassessment was to review areas for improvement from the Enablers and the Results, linking them where appropriate, and then develop Enabler-based action plans to make improvements. Within the Consortium the number of actions that emerged from the self-assessment process ranged from a handful to over 75. Where numbers were high the actions were grouped together by theme, prioritised, and reduced to a manageable number usually no more than 15. An approach used by some Consortium members to help prioritise and select action plans for implementation was to score each action on two factors: ease of resolution, and importance to the area. Other Consortium members used a more detailed approach to the prioritisation task, taking account of impact, difficulty, resource and timescale. Using these approaches helped to identify action plans that offered quick wins, as well as those that could make a major impact. The action plans that offered major benefits tended to be longer term, and focused more on strategic rather than operational issues. Quick fixes helped to reinforce the validity and credibility of the Excellence Model approach. This was very advantageous when the Excellence Model was being implemented in an unreceptive environment. It was also very useful to be able to demonstrate that the self-assessment is a useful management tool that can deliver positive results quickly. Engaging self-assessment participants and Champions It was found that the best way to ensure that improvement plans were implemented successfully was to make individuals accountable for the actions in the improvement plan. Often a senior manager was made accountable for top-level objectives; when there was a lot of work to achieve for an objective, it was often split into a series of smaller objectives with action plans that had to be achieved at lower levels.
Within the Consortium and, it is believed, within the Sector generally a significant number of people were found in management posts for whom the notion of being responsible for making something happen was not a notion they were familiar with, nor was it one they warmed to. Selecting the right person to manage an improvement plan was therefore very important. Ownership of improvement plans was generally much greater when the whole process was fully embedded into the planning process, and actions were monitored as part of this process the ideal route. In some instances, objectives for a department were split into lower-level objectives for sections within the department, and split further and passed down the institution as appropriate. On longer-term projects, when individuals were responsible for specific objectives, it was found effective to include the action areas as part of their personal objectives in the appraisal process. Monitoring progress of improvement plans was undertaken in many different ways. Where the plan was an integral part of an areas activities, it was done though the normal management process; where it was carried out as a stand-alone activity it tended to be overseen by the External Assessment Leader. In one case, the output report from the self-assessment exercise, with all the plans for action, was sent to the Deans Review Team; this group reviewed all the plans, actions to date, and agreed on further improvement plans. Within the Consortium the frequency of reviews varied upwards from monthly. It was also found important for External Assessment Leaders to review rigorously all plans against implementation timetables, and quickly investigate delays. As well as the role of Police Officer, these individuals adopted a range of other roles including mentor, guide, and director - to help keep projects on track.
Factors that did not support self-assessment implementation
Trained, competent and committed individuals cannot always, by themselves, produce excellent results. Often the environment they work in, or the activities they are involved in, work against them; this situation was very evident among many Consortium members. This sub-section looks at some of the factors that made it more difficult to achieve success when using self-assessments. A weak management culture Most Consortium members found, in parts of their institutions, a management culture of muddling through that was more reactive rather than proactive. The Excellence Model involves forward thinking and planning, and thus the reactive culture of
23
HE management was a major barrier to the self-assessment process; changing the culture of management is not a task that can be achieved quickly. All too often senior staff failed to display leadership qualities. This culture pervaded several organisations: in the absence of any training or good role models, junior managers had little idea of what they could or should be doing. In such situations, support for the self-assessment approach was invariably lukewarm, with a lack of leadership commitment and intention. With this background it was difficult to gain support and buy-in at all levels. A significant number of managers were found who did not see themselves as needing or using management methodologies such as the Excellence Model. For many of these managers, the concept of ownership of results and responsibility for improvement actions was alien. Without an acceptance of responsibility, it was difficult to make the process work. Sometimes there was a culture of initiative chasing undertaking something (such as self-assessment) because it was seen as something that might help, or it was considered a good thing to do. Without real commitment to the self-assessment, results were often disregarded and the potential benefits of the approach were lost. Negative perceptions In many institutions a range of perceptions existed that made the self-assessment process unattractive. These included: it was a bureaucratic exercise that would not help to alleviate the here and now pressures of achieving targets and delivering teaching and learning it provided a quick fix in some areas; this perception led to unrealistic levels of expectation that were counterproductive, leading to a lack of trust by staff it was a stand-alone, 6-monthly activity that was merely a bolton management tool; this perception resulted in the selfassessment being seen as yet more work to do, but without any significant improvement to management practices it had no relevance to the HE environment it was time-intense and resource-hungry The need for clear communication, commitment, appropriate engagement with and positioning of self-assessment is needed to manage and deal with these perceptions. The basic nature of self-assessments There is no simple off-the-shelf package or silver bullet that solves management problems at a stroke, yet managers that seek such a solution can be found in most organisations including the HE sector. The self-assessment approach is a long-term one, and one that can involve extensive analysis and a lot of improvement activities. 24
The self-assessment is rigorous and logical, and when correctly applied can lead to the identification of action plans to correct areas for improvement. In addition, it can lead to an improvement in the performance of managers: accurate assessment of weaknesses and appropriately developed action plans can help deal with the issue of managers who have been inadequately trained or inappropriately selected. Most Consortium members found within their institutions managers were put off when they realised the long-term nature of the process, or who were daunted by the range of areas for improvement that were identified. Sustaining commitment from such managers was not an easy task. For too many managers, an inability to deliver improvements quickly suggested failure and therefore they withdrew their support and commitment. The volume of output from self-assessments Several self-assessment approaches produced a great deal of data and a significant number of areas for improvement and actions. In order to be successful in such situations, it was necessary to focus on the issues that were most important. Without careful management of both the data and the resulting improvement plan the outcome of the self-assessment sometimes was often despondency amongst those involved, with few benefits being realised.
The impact of using self-assessment
Most Consortium members have seen their business results improve as a result of carrying out self-assessments on a regular basis. In these cases the self-assessment process has also led to increased understanding, improved business focus, and cooperation all of which are fundamental to making lasting improvements - and it is these changes that will help to ensure that the business improvements are maintained. This sub-section describes these changes. Increased understanding The use of a common language across institutions has helped the development of a better understanding of the business drivers in an academic environment. This enabled many departments and HE institutes to identify what was important to them. The rigorous and structured approach of the Excellence Model enabled relationships between Enablers and Results to be established clearly. This helped with an understanding of the links between business plans and self-assessment results. Some Consortium members found this understanding a valuable catalyst in encouraging a change in the way people thought and operated. One Consortium member found that increased understanding led to two departments starting to question the validity of the
information that they themselves had written in their business plans the year before. These departments began to identify and understand the connections between strategic objectives, processes and the Results criteria. Improved business focus Self-assessment has encouraged individuals to focus on targets and results, and review trends. This focus often led to a review of roles and ways of working, and that led to the development of improvement plans that have helped with the attainment of targets. Consortium members noted that before the introduction of selfassessments many groups and departments would do whatever they wished with little regard to the overall benefit to their organisation. With increased understanding, these groups and departments began to look at themselves as businesses operating within the HE sector - and considered how to manage themselves more effectively. This activity often led to a reprioritising of activities, which in turn resulted in better business plans. Improved co-operation and consensus The common language and increased understanding of the Excellence Model enabled academic areas, administrative departments and other groups to work together in a co-ordinated fashion to make improvements. Within the Consortium this resulted, for the first time in some instances, in managers working together and obtaining a consensus on corporate matters; and often these managers even accepted ownership of the Results areas. Thus the self-assessment approach helped individuals and groups to work effectively together. Prior to the introduction of self-assessments, one Consortium member identified several Faculty Teams that were not acting as teams and that did not proactively address problems. After implementation of self-assessments, the teams now with an understanding of how they could work together successfully to set and achieve appropriate results began to meet regularly to develop and implement improvement plans. When a new institution head took the whole senior management off site for a day to look at their operations, it was discovered that the team had never before sat down and explored together the issues facing them. During the day, members of the team were able to discover how the outcomes of their own individual actions could work with or against the outcomes of the actions of the others. Now these team members have a better idea of each others situations, and are working together as a team for the benefit of the whole organisation.
25
Header
Conclusions and Recommendations
This section looks at some of the key points learned, and draws together the key conclusions that Consortium members have reached based on their experiences of introducing and implementing the Excellence Model in further and higher education, along with recommendations to support others who are embarking on their Excellence Journey. Gain Senior staff commitment at the beginning this is vital Support and commitment from senior staff makes implementation of self-assessments very much easier. This is sometimes hard to achieve, but it is worth focussing on and making use of whatever resources are available to gain this support. Use whatever combination of ambassadors and champions, presentations or training, is necessary to make top management aware of the richness and potential of the Excellence Model and selfassessment and thereby gain their unequivocal support. Agree the scope of the self-assessment at the beginning A successful self-assessment is undertaken where the scope and positioning of the assessment activity has been agreed at the beginning with senior managers. This will ensure that resources are appropriately allocated, that the assessment process chosen is appropriate, and that communication with staff is planned to ensure awareness is raised and expectations are managed. Recognise the barriers to implementation There are a great number of barriers to implementing a selfassessment successfully. Hearts and minds have to be won over, and people and processes have to be changed; that takes time, especially in institutions not renowned for their acceptance of change. Do not expect instant results. Work with areas where the significance of self-assessment is recognised, and start showing results. Provide a gentle introduction to the Excellence Model In the early stages of self-assessment implementation, the use of a very light introduction to the Excellence Model, or even not mentioning it at all, is sometimes the most appropriate approach. Too much jargon can be very counterproductive. Make sure that any communication is in a language that those involved can understand and relate to. A more detailed understanding of the Model can follow later for those who wish to find out more. Ensure staff have the appropriate skills Introducing self-assessments in an environment not used to change is a very difficult task. Make sure that those leading the self-assessment activities have the appropriate skills. If they fail to win top-level support, do not meet project targets, communicate
badly, or do not work effectively with participants then the chances of successfully implementating self-assessment is significantly reduced. Apply self-assessments flexibly Be flexible in applying self-assessment: one size does not fit all. The most appropriate method may vary, especially in the early stages; make time to ensure that the method that is most appropriate is always used. If the culture does not accept a formal or rigorous self-assessment, begin by accessing the learning of the Excellence Model through another route. Always remember that even if an initial method is successful, there is a need to critically review its use in the future. If a light-touch method is used, should a more rigorous one follow, or viceversa? Be as rigorous as possible Use the most rigorous self-assessment method that can be resourced and understood by the institution. The more rigorous the method used the more meaningful the outcomes, and the greater the opportunity for the development of improvement plans that will deliver change that is right for the institution. Focus on strategic issues rather than operational areas Significant improvements have been made when self-assessments have focused on the strategic drivers behind operational issues. In many instances, a number of operational issues have arisen as a result of the lack of one strategic driver (e.g. a coherent strategy has not been in place). If only operational issues are addressed, this usually provides a short term solution. By focusing on the strategic issues, step-change improvements can be made across a range of areas. A small number of quick wins can be identified and worked on immediately to allow immediate benefits to be recognised. Prioritise actions identified and group them by theme A list of no more than 15 action areas should be taken forward from a self-assessment activity. Any more than this suggests that actions are operationally focused, rather than strategically focused. Although useful, the potential for longer-term sustainability is reduced. By grouping operational actions together by theme, strategic solutions can often be identified. For example, a range of communications issues are often evident as there is no coherent Communications Plan in place. By writing a Communications Plan that takes into account a group of actions that have been identified, one action could pull together 10 others. Using themes rather than grouping actions under the nine criteria also helps to identify cross cutting areas, such as communications.
26
Incorporate self-assessment into the management process Work to have the self-assessment process embedded into management processes as quickly as possible. The sooner selfassessment is linked in formally to the business planning framework, the earlier positive results should appear; it will then be much easier to sustain the approach. The next stage is to link this integrated framework into the academic quality system. Understand the Excellence Model system and its strategic potential It has been clearly seen that the Excellence Model is a system which contains a number of interconnected aspects - Figure 22. It has also been seen that self-assessment using the Excellence Model can yield a number of significant outcomes - Figure 23. From this there is significant opportunity for strategic improvements to take place - Figure 24. EFQM Excellence Model System
RADAR Fundamental Criteria Sub-criteria Areas to address Concepts Self-assessment
EFQM Excellence Model System
The Excellence Model System
Leadership Development Business Planning Process Management Risk Management Process Excellence Benchmarking KPI Development
Figure 24 The Excellence Model System Strategic Potential Plan each stage of the journey carefully When moving through the three key stages on the journey towards excellence Figure 25, it is critical that it is understood which stage is being entered. Each must be planned and managed carefully, with a view of where the whole journey will lead. The shift from using self-assessment as an initial checking tool to a strategic tool takes time and effort, but has been demonstrated as being very rewarding. The link into planning enables self-assessment to continue to be used as a health check, but positioned as part of a continuous improvement cycle.
Excellence Organisational Development Process Management Corporate Scorecard Goal Deployment Personal Development Customer and Supplier Relationship Management Partnership & Collaboration Learning Organisation Strategic tool
Figure 22 The Excellence Model System EFQM Excellence Model System

Self-Assessment Action plans Health check Business Plans & Self-Assessment Planning tool
The Excellence Model System
Self-evaluation Strengths Areas for improvement Potential actions Prioritised actions Input to business plan Benchmark score
Integration & alignment

Figure 25 The Journey towards Excellence third stage And finally, expect to work hard, and be patient Be prepared to put in a lot of effort, especially at the start of the self-assessment journey. Do not be surprised, or discouraged, if results take some time to appear, they will be worth waiting for!
Figure 23 The Excellence Model System Outcomes
27
Header
References
EFQM (1999a) The EFQM Excellence Model. Public and Voluntary Sectors. EFQM. Brussels EFQM (1999b) Assessing for Excellence. A Practical Guide for Self-Assessment. EFQM. Brussels EFQM (2000) Award Application Brochure. EFQM. Brussels EFQM (2003) EFQM Excellence Model. Public and Voluntary Sector Version. EFQM. Brussels PricewaterhouseCooopers (2000) Report on the Evaluation of the Public Sector Excellence Programme. PricewaterhouseCoopers Steed et al (2003) Embracing Excellence in Education. A Summary Report of the learning gained from applying the EFQM Excellence Model in Further and Higher Education. Sheffield Hallam University Steed, Carol (2003) EFQM Excellence Model, Higher Education Version 2003. Sheffield Hallam University Steed and Arnold (2001) Mapping the QAA Framework and the EFQM Excellence Model. Sheffield Hallam University
28
Appendix
Header
Leadership (Criterion 1) Excellent leaders develop and facilitate the achievement of the mission and vision. They develop organisational values and systems required for sustainable success and implement these via their actions and behaviours. During periods of change they retain a constancy of purpose. Where required, such leaders are able to change the direction of the organisation and inspire others to follow.
Policy and Strategy (Criterion 2) Excellent organisations implement their mission and vision by developing a stakeholder focused strategy that takes account of the market and sector in which it operates. Policies, plans, objectives, and processes are developed and deployed to deliver the strategy.
Criterion parts Leadership covers five criterion parts (1a 1e) that should be addressed. 1a 1b Leaders develop the mission, vision, values and ethics and are role models of a culture of Excellence Leaders are personally involved in ensuring the organisations management system is developed, implemented and continuously improved Leaders interact with customers, partners and representatives of society Leaders reinforce a culture of Excellence with the organisations people Leaders identify and champion organisational change
Criterion parts Policy and Strategy covers four criterion parts (2a 2d) that should be addressed. 2a 2b Policy and Strategy are based on the present and future needs and expectations of stakeholders Policy and Strategy are based on information from performance measurement, research, learning and external related activities Policy and Strategy are developed, reviewed and updated Policy and Strategy are communicated and deployed through a framework of key processes
2c 2d
1c 1d 1e
People (Criterion 3) Excellent organisations manage, develop and release the full potential of their people at an individual, team-based and organisational level. They promote fairness and equality and involve and empower their people. They care for, communicate, reward and recognise, in a way that motivates staff and builds commitment to using their skills and knowledge for the benefit of the organisation.
Criterion parts People covers five criterion parts (3a-3e) that should be addressed. 3a 3b 3c 3d 3e People resources are planned, managed and improved Peoples knowledge and competencies are identified, developed and sustained People are involved and empowered People and the organisation have a dialogue People are rewarded, recognised and cared for
29
Appendix
Partnerships and Resources (Criterion 4) Excellent organisations plan and manage external partnerships, suppliers and internal resources in order to support policy and strategy and the effective operation of processes. During planning and whilst managing partnerships and resources they balance the current and future needs of the organisation, the community and the environment.
Customer Results (Criterion 6) Excellent organisations comprehensively measure and achieve outstanding results with respect to their customers.
Criterion parts Customer Results covers two criterion parts (6a-6b) that should be addressed. 6a Perception Measures These measures are of the customers perceptions of the organisation (obtained, for example, from customer surveys, focus groups, vendor ratings, compliments and complaints). Performance Indicators These measures are the internal ones used by the organisation in order to monitor, understand, predict and improve the performance of the organisation and to predict perceptions of its external customers.
Criterion parts Partnerships and Resources covers five criterion parts (4a-4e) that should be addressed. 4a 4b 4c 4d 4e External partnerships are managed Finances are managed Buildings, equipment and materials are managed Technology is managed Information and knowledge are managed 6b
People Results (Criterion 7) Processes (Criterion 5) Excellent organisations comprehensively measure and achieve Excellent organisations design, manage and improve processes in order to fully satisfy, and generate increasing value for, customers and other stakeholders. Criterion parts People Results covers two criterion parts (7a-7b) that should be addressed. 7a Perception Measures These measures are of the peoples perception of the organisation (obtained, for example, from surveys, focus groups, interviews, structured appraisals). Performance Indicators These measures are the internal ones used by the organisation in order to monitor, understand, predict and improve the performance of the organisations people and to predict their perceptions. outstanding results with respect to their people.
Criterion parts Processes covers five criterion parts (5a-5e) that should be addressed. 5a 5b Processes are systematically designed and managed Processes are improved, as needed, using innovation in order to fully satisfy and generate increasing value for customers and other stakeholders Products and Services are designed and developed based on customer needs and expectations Products and Services are produced, delivered and serviced Customer relationships are managed and enhanced
7b
5c 5d 5e
30
Appendix
Society Results (Criterion 8) Excellent organisations comprehensively measure and achieve outstanding results with respect to society.
Criterion parts Society Results covers two criterion parts (8a-8b) that should be addressed. 8a Perception Measures These measures are of the societys perception of the organisation (obtained, for example, from surveys, reports, public meetings, public representatives, governmental authorities). Performance Indicators These measures are the internal ones used by the organisation in order to monitor, understand, predict and improve the performance of the organisation and to predict perceptions of society.
8b
Key Performance Results (Criterion 9) Excellent organisations comprehensively measure and achieve outstanding results with respect to the key elements of their policy and strategy.
Criterion Parts Key Performance Results covers the following two criterion parts that should be addressed. Depending on the purpose and objectives of the organisation some of the measures contained in the guidance for Key Performance Outcomes may be applicable to Key Performance Indicators and vice versa. 9a Key Performance Outcomes These measures are key results planned by the organisation and agreed in their policies and strategies. Key Performance Indicators These measures are the operational ones used in order to monitor, understand, predict and improve the organisations likely key performance outcomes.
9b
31
Notes
________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________
32
Acknowledgements This publication draws on the experience and knowledge gained by a range of institutions from with the Higher and Further Education sectors, bringing together aspects of learning from the HEFCE funded Good Management Practice (GMP143) Programme that was undertaken between May 2000 and May 2003. The programme was led and directed by Mike Pupius, Director of Organisational Excellence, Sheffield Hallam University, and managed by Carol Steed, Organisational Excellence Manager, Sheffield Hallam University. Andy Johnstone, Lecturer, University of Cranfield, Jill Wild, Senior Lecturer, School of Nursing, University of Salford, and Carol Steed, Organisational Excellence Manager, Sheffield Hallam University have been the main authors of this publication. Representatives from the other Consortia institutions have critically reviewed and added to the development of this publication. They are: Sally Blunt, Assistant Principal (Curriculum and Quality), Dearne Valley College Claire Browning, (former) EFQM Project Manager, University of Ulster Tony DeAth, Head of Human Resources, Dearne Valley College Mick Hides, Research Fellow, University of Salford John Hirst, Bursar, Van Mildert College, University of Durham Ann Kemplay, Head of Staff Development, University of Ulster Mike Pupius, Director of Organisational Excellence, Sheffield Hallam University The programme has benefited from a range of other valuable contributions from across all of our institutions. Members of staff from academic, administrative and technical backgrounds have contributed their time, expertise and experience in a wide variety of ways, which has proved invaluable in generating the richness of evidence that can be found in our publications. We also acknowledge and give thanks for the support from colleagues within our respective institutions, who have helped us to acquire, further develop and extend our collective learning, for the benefit of others across the sector.
Acknowledgement is also given to our Advisory Board members, who have supported the programme directly and indirectly on a voluntary basis for three years. These are: Professor Diana Green (Chair), Vice Chancellor, Sheffield Hallam University Bob Allen-Turl, Former CEO, TNT Award Office Roger Cliffe, Former Corporate Quality Director, Lloyds TSB Steve Dougill, Quality Manager, Xerox UK Sandy Goulding, Head of Quality Assurance and Educational Development, Department of Health Pramod Philip, Consultant, HEFCE Ian Raisbeck, Former Director of Business Excellence, Royal Mail John Rushforth, Director of Widening Participation, HEFCE Dr Martin Samuels, (Formerly Project Director for the Cabinet Office Public Sector Benchmarking and Excellence Model Programmes) Frank Steer, Director General the Institute of Quality Assurance and President of the European Organisation for Quality Ken Watling, Head of Efficiency and Private Finance Unit, HM Customs and Excise Kevin Wyber HM Customs and Excise, Manager Public Sector Benchmarking Service
Header
For further copies of this publication, please contact Centre for Integral Excellence Sheffield Hallam University Howard Street Sheffield S1 1WB Tel: 0114 225 3344/2044 Fax: 0114 225 4207 E-mail: c.steed@shu.ac.uk or m.pupius@shu.ac.uk
34

Self - Assessment As Per EFQM

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Self - Assessment As Per EFQM

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Applying Self-Assessment against the EFQM Excellence Model in Further and Higher Education

Consortium for Excellence in Higher Education

Sheffield Hallam University 2003

Customer Results Society Results

Key Performance Results

Innovation and Learning

Sheffield Hallam University 2003

Sheffield Hallam University 2003

Overview of the Programme

Sheffield Hallam University 2003

Aim and structure of this publication

Summary of the key benefits of using selfassessment

Background to the EFQM Excellence Model and self-assessment

Sheffield Hallam University 2003

Introduction to the Excellence Model and Self-Assessment

The Excellence Model is described by the EFQM as:

Sheffield Hallam University 2003

Introduction to the Excellence Model and Self-Assessment

Criterion parts 6a Areas to address 6 Customer Results

6b Criterion parts Areas to address

Criterion parts Areas to address 9 Key Performance Results 9a

9b Criterion parts Areas to address

Sheffield Hallam University 2003

Introduction to the Excellence Model and Self-Assessment

Excellence Model Dynamics

How to get there

Where do I want to go?

Sheffield Hallam University 2003

Introduction to the Excellence Model and Self-Assessment

Assessment Action Plans Areas for Improvement Score Copyright BQF

WORKSHOP Low MATRIX QUESTIONNAIRE Copyright EFQM High

Figure 8 The five self-assessment options

Sheffield Hallam University 2003

Introduction to the Excellence Model and Self-Assessment

Proforma supported by peer validation Pro-Forma Facilitated Workshop

Questionnaire and Workshop Matrix and Workshop

Pilot Award Simulation Pro-Forma & Workshop

STARTING ON THE EXCELLENCE JOURNEY

Elementary Questionnaire Standard Matrix LOW EFFORT

Very detailed Questionnaire or Tailored Matrix HIGH EFFORT

Figure 9 Maturity of organisation vs effort required for self-assessment

Accuracy of Score LOW LOW MEDIUM MEDIUM/HIGH HIGH

Knowledge of Model NO NO YES YES YES

Trained Assesors NO NO FACILITATOR YES YES

Resource Implication LOW/MEDIUM LOW/MEDIUM MEDIUM MEDIUM/HIGH HIGH

Figure 10 Self-assessment summary table

Sheffield Hallam University 2003

Introduction to the Excellence Model and Self-Assessment

Self-Assessment Action Plans Health check

Establish teams to perform self-assessment and educate

Communicate self-assessment plans

Establish action plan

Implement action plan

Figure 12 Eight steps for carrying out self-assessment (EFQM 1999b)

Sheffield Hallam University 2003

Self-Assessment Concepts and Methods

Sheffield Hallam University 2003

Self-Assessment Concepts and Methods

Sheffield Hallam University 2003

Self-Assessment Concepts and Methods

Sheffield Hallam University 2003

Self-Assessment Concepts and Methods

Issues to be addressed when applying the Model and introducing self-assessment