International Journal of Excellence

In Education

Quality and Excellence Models in Higher Education

Soumaya Kouba
Postgraduate Student, Facult des Sciences Economiques et de Gestion,
Department of Quantitative Methods, Sfax, Tunisia
Raoudha Kammoun
Assistant Professor, Facult des Sciences Economiques et de Gestion,
Department of Management Sciences, Sfax, Tunisia

ISSN 19938675

VOLUME 4 Issue 2
July 2011

Hamdan Bin Mohammed e-University, 2011

Volume 4

Number 2

July 2011

Page 1

Quality Management (EFQM) Excellence

Model, which embrace the philosophy of
Total Quality Management and have been
modified for the higher education
environment. This section provides also the
literature on empirical studies and previous
experiences with the adoption of these
models in higher education.
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this article is to examine the
concept of quality education within higher
education institutions and universities, and
explore the use of Total Quality Management
models, which were originally implemented
in business sector, as a means for higher
education excellence.
Methodology/Approach
This paper presents an overview of literature
showing the growing concern for quality
concept and excellence models in higher
education either in the developed or
developing countries.
This paper is divided into two major sections.
The first part presents the main motivations
for the adoption of quality in higher
education, the different insights provided by
researchers and academics about this
concept as it is applied to higher education,
and the degree of quality evolution until the
application of excellence models in the
higher education institutions.
The second part introduces the most well
known excellence models such as the
Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award
(MBNQA) and the European Foundation of

Page 2

Findings
The paper highlights the evidence for
integrating quality concept in higher
education and proves the relevance of some
business excellence models such as the
MBNQA and the EFQM Excellence Model to
this sector. The literature shows that both
models aim to provide the institutions with a
means to measure their position against a set
of universal criteria, and to identify their
strengths and weakness in the key areas of
business in order to guide them in their path
to excellence.
Originality/Value
The paper sensitizes different members such
as higher education leaders and managers,
academics and scholars with the importance
of
embedding quality culture and
implementing excellence models in higher
education. This study will help the
universities and institutions to learn from
empirical studies and other experiences, and
will serve as a further reference for managers
to enhance academic outcomes.
Keywords: Quality, higher education, higher
education institutions, excellence models,
Total Quality Management, Malcolm Baldrige
National Quality Award, EFQM Excellence
Model.

International Journal of Excellence in Education

Introduction
Over the last decades, quality has occupied
more and more a central role within
manufacturing companies and business
organizations. One of the major motivators
for the quality movement in industry has
been the issue of survival. This same issue
has become increasingly important to
educational organizations as well. The
emphasis on quality has led higher education
institutions into constant pressure to
improve their practices and performance,
measure themselves against world-class
standards and focus their efforts on the
customer for them to reach a total quality
(Anyamele, 2004).
For many higher education institutions, the
selling point for implementing a quality
program was a leaner budget, as well as the
promise of higher efficiency and productivity
inherent in certain quality systems (Cyert,
1993). The idea of quality and transformation
is not a new concept to the world of higher
education. The application of business
models is also evident in higher education, as
these institutions have historically strived for
excellence and quality in academics
(Dettmann, 2004).
1. Emergence of quality in higher education
In this section, we will review the major
reasons for the concern with quality in higher
education, the different perceptions related
to quality in this sector and the evolution of
this concept until the application of
excellence models in the higher education
institutions.

Volume 4

Number 2

1.1. Major reasons for the concern with

quality in higher education
Since the early 1980s, the concept of quality
has been a central focus of attention in the
debate of higher education. Within this
period, many countries have experienced a
growing concern for quality in higher
education, though the manifestations of this
concern and the reasons for it vary from
country to country (Anyamele, 2004).
Accordingly, there has been a good deal of
research into the subject of quality in higher
education,
with
well-recognized
contributions
from
some
developed
countries such as the United Kingdom (UK),
Australia, Norway, and the United States of
America (USA), amongst others (Becket and
Brookes, 2005). Anyamele (2004) declared
that quality becomes among the most
frequently appearing concepts in scholarly
and practitioners discussions, and articles
and books published on quality (e.g. Garvin,
1998; Green, 1999; Oakland, 1997; Peterson,
et al., etc).
Harvey (1998), Anyamele (2004), Becket and
Brookes (2005) argue that the concern with
quality has emerged in higher education
because of the rapid changes in the higher
education environment characterized by
increased enrolments. A committee reporting
to the Commission of the European
Communities has also addressed the
question of concern for quality. The report
pointed out five factors that explain the
attention to quality in higher education. The
first factor is the societal concern about the
increase of public expenditure in general and
consequently the necessity of defining

September 2011

Page 3

priority of education relative to other socially

desired activities.
The second factor is about the expansion of
higher education system and rapid growth in
the student body (e.g. in Norway the number
of students in higher education has grown
from below 100.000 to more than 160.000 in
five years). The third factor concerns the
increased openness in most sectors of
modern societies. In other words, higher
education institutions must show the society
at large what they are doing and how well
they are doing it. The fourth factor concerns
the increased international mobility of
teachers, researchers and students and
internationalization of the European labor
market. The last factor is that extrinsic values
of higher education, the service provided by
higher education to society, have come into
focus relative to the intrinsic values, such as
search for truth and pursuit of knowledge
(UNESCO, 1998).
In summary, quality has not appeared in
higher education for nothing; it has emerged
in response to the several factors that
translate the enormous and rapid changes in
the higher education landscape.
1.2. Perceptions of quality in higher
education
The concept of quality has been essentially a
contested issue in higher education and
there are competing voices and discourses on
the concept. Quality concept in higher
education is complex (Horsburgh, 1999,
Becket and Brookes, 2005) and multifaceted
(Fazer, 1994, Horsburgh, 1999). Fazer (1994)
pointed out that quality concept has many

Page 4

faces and embraces three broad aspects:

goals, the process deployed for achieving
goals, and how far goals are achieved. In the
same way, UNESCO (1998) defined higher
education quality as a multidimensional
concept, which should embrace all its
functions, and activities: teaching and
academic
programs,
research
and
scholarship, staffing, students, buildings,
facilities, equipment, services to the
community and the academic environment.
Judyth (1994) and Anyamele (2004) argue
that quality in higher education is a pervasive
and elusive concept. This shows that there is
no single way to define or measure quality.
Defining quality in higher education has
proved to be a challenging task and despite
the abundance of research on the subject,
there is no universal consensus on how best
to measure quality in higher education
(Becket and Brookes, 2005).
Rowley (1996) stated that quality in higher
education can be viewed in the form of
service quality as its dimensions or attributes
are those attributes, which contribute to the
customers evaluation of servicing. Cheng
and Tam (1997) added that higher education
quality can be viewed also as a set of
elements that constitute the inputs (e.g.
students, faculty and staff members,
buildings, psychological climate, etc),
processes (e.g. programs, services, activities,
etc) and outputs of the education system
(e.g. graduate students, better learning
environment,
better
research
and
publications, etc). This set of elements
provides services that completely satisfy both
internal and external stakeholders by

International Journal of Excellence in Education

meeting their explicit and implicit

expectations. The authors also identify both
internal and external stakeholders of a higher
education institution. Current students and
front line staff are internal constituents
whereas employers, government bodies,
prospective students, and professional
bodies are external.
Banta (1988) believed that quality in higher
education should be based on student
performance on specified measures of
development, program strengths and
weaknesses, and institutional effectiveness.
According to Anyamele (2004) quality must
be about scholarship and learning. The
author claimed that one approach to quality
in higher education should reflect the quality
of education that graduates have acquired.
Mashhadi et al., (2008) highlighted the vital
role of quality in higher education and
counted it as one of the elements of strategic
plans in such area. Scholars and other
frontline academics and managers view
quality differently. However, what is common
among these competing voices is the
recognition that quality makes the difference
between success and failure (Sallis, 1993).
The
increasing
attention
paid
by
organizational scholars to quality as a key
organizational attribute changed the focus of
quality. Therefore, quality began to take on
the appearance of the highest good in
organizational performance. Leaders and
managers of both educational institutions
and
industrial
organizations
became
converted to the pursuit of quality as the
single most important organizational and
institutional objectives (Anyamele, 2004).

Volume 4

Number 2

1.3. Evolution of quality concepts in higher

education
Although the adoption of quality concept
increases more and more in the developed
countries, the concern for quality is rather
little in the developing countries and its
application in higher education is still moving
slowly. For instance, in some academic
institutions in developing countries, systems
of quality assurance and control have been
established but in different degrees of
complexity and effectiveness. In Turkey for
example, Borahan (2002) attempted to
propose a quality criteria checklist for private
academic institutions of higher education.
This checklist was expected to form the basis
for a management strategy that harnesses
the human and material resources of these
organizations in the most effective way to
achieve academic objectives.
Total Quality Management (TQM) as a
management process has equally made its
way into higher education in many developed
countries. By using the process in the 1980s,
such firms were able to improve their
business positions by overcoming threats
from global competition and other changes in
the business environment (Kanji and Tambi,
1999).
The success of the firms and others in using
TQM to bring them out of crisis encouraged
many US higher education institutions to
adopt it (Kanji and Tambi, 1999). The first
application of TQM in US higher education
was at Fox Valley Technical College in 1986.
As a result of this application, the College has
become more efficient in areas such as
placement
of
graduates,
employer

September 2011

Page 5

satisfaction
with
contracted
training
programs, acceptance of college credits at
receiving institutions and improvement in its
learning environment (Narasimhan, 1997).
Later, there were other US institutions which
began to implement TQM, including
University of Wisconsin-Madison, North
Dakota
University
System,
Delaware
community College and Oregon State
University. In UK higher education the
progress of TQM is rather slow, with
examples represented by only a few new
universities. However, these institutions have
benefited from a TQM process similar to
their counterparts in the US, such as
improved student performance, better
services, reduced costs and customer
satisfaction (Kanji and Tambi, 1999).
In the early 1990s, TQM was adopted by
institutions in many developed countries and
have been successful. For example, South
Bank University, one of the largest higher
education institutions in London, has been
committed since 1992 to a TQM initiative and
recognized it as a part of its annual strategic
planning processes (Mashhadi, 2008). Since
1993, there are signs of rapid growth of
interest in TQM in higher education. This
growing interest encouraged more and more
higher education institutions to adopt TQM
models often known as excellence models
to excel, e.g. to achieve balanced
stakeholders satisfaction.
Some excellence models, as shown in the
following section, are adopted in higher
education context in spite of their initial
implementation in business sector. This
proves that some models have been

Page 6

successfully modified
education sector.

for

the

higher

2. Application of excellence models in

higher education
The success of the excellence models
application common in industry has attracted
the attention of theorists and practitioners of
higher education (Anyamele, 2004). Based
upon extensive researches, it has been
proven that higher education institutions
may use models based on quality awards,
such as the Deming Prize in Japan, the
Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award
(MBNQA) in America and the EFQM
Excellence Model in Europe. These models
were initially available to business
organizations only, but more recently their
scope has been extended to service and
public sector organizations, including
education. All the mentioned models provide
the basis for organizational self-assessment
and strive to adopt a comprehensive
approach to ensure continuous improvement
(Rosa and Amaral, 2007).
However, the published literature regarding
the adoption of Deming Prize in higher
education is remarkably small. Indeed, this
prize has been criticized for focusing too
much on manufacturing organizations and
thereby overlooking services organizations
(Kanji, 2002).
As the literature on the application of
Deming Prize in higher education is rare, it
would be inevitable to put the light on the
other mentioned excellence models and deal
with their application in higher education.

International Journal of Excellence in Education

2.1. Malcolm Baldrige National Quality

Award (MBNQA)
a) Presentation of the model
The MBNQA is the first well structured TQM
model that was launched by the National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
under the US Department of Commerce in
1987 (Conti, 2007). The objectives of
launching the award are to recognize the
companies who are doing an excellent job in
quality management, to increase awareness
of quality as an important element in
competitiveness, to share information on
successful quality strategies and on the
benefits derived from implementation of
these
strategies,
and
to
promote
understanding of the requirements for
quality excellence (Rafikul, 2007).
During the period 19881998, MBNQA was
awarded to only three types of business
companies, namely Manufacturing, Service,
and Small Business. In order to achieve
performance excellence, these business
companies adopted the Baldrige criteria
known as Baldrige Criteria for Performance
Excellence (Rafikul, 2007). Since 1999, 161
applications have been submitted in the
education
category
(NIST,
2010).
Participation is open to for-profit and
nonprofit public and private organizations,
government organizations, and some
subunits, including U.S. subunits of foreign
organizations that provide educational
services in the United States and its
territories (NIST, 2009).
The Education Baldrige framework called as
The Baldrige Education Criteria for
Performance framework is organized

Volume 4

Number 2

around seven categories of criteria:

leadership, strategic planning, customer
focus,
measurement,
analysis,
and
knowledge management, workforce focus,
process management, and results. Each of
these categories is subdivided into a number
of items. At present, altogether, there are 18
Items, each focusing on a major requirement.
Items consist of one or more Areas to
Address (Areas). Organizations should
address their responses to the specific
requirements of these Areas (NIST, 2009).
The Education criteria are designed to help
organizations use an integrated approach to
organizational performance management in
order to try to improve education quality in
terms of delivery of ever improving value to
students and stakeholders, improvement of
overall organizational effectiveness and
capabilities, and increased organizational and
personal learning (NIST, 2009). The education
criteria provide guidelines on conducting an
institutional self-assessment based on a
detailed
organizational
profile
and
developing a strategic plan linked to clearly
identified goals and reinforced by an
information and analysis system to collect
data and monitor progress towards those
goals (Stecher and Kirby, 2004).
The Education criteria are built upon a set of
core values and concepts: visionary
leadership, learning-centered education,
organizational and personal learning, valuing
workforce members and partners, agility,
focus on the future, managing for innovation,
management by fact, social responsibility,
focus on results and creating value, and
systems perspective. These values and

September 2011

Page 7

concepts are embedded beliefs and

behaviors
found
in
high-performing
organizations. They are the foundation for
integrating key performance and operational
requirements within a results-oriented
framework that creates a basis for action and
feedback (NIST, 2009).
b) Adoption of MBNQA in higher education
The causal structure in the Baldrige
Education
Criteria
for
Performance
framework is highlighted by the research of
Badri, et al. (2006). This research uses a
sample of 220 respondents from 15 United
Arab Emirates (UAE) universities and colleges
in order to empirically test the causal
relationships in the MBNQA Education
Performance Excellence Criteria.
The results of regression analysis and
confirmatory structural equation modeling
show that all of the hypothesized causal
relationships in the Baldrige model are
statistically
significant.
Leadership
is
identified as a driver for all components in
the Baldrige System, including measurement,
analysis and knowledge management,
strategic planning, faculty and staff focus and
process
management.
All
Baldrige
components (categories) are significantly
linked with organizational outcomes as
represented by the two categories of
organizational performance results, and
customer focus.
A number of institutions have utilized the
Education Baldrige framework among them
Belmont University, University of MissouriRolla and Northwest Missouri State
University. In 2001, the University of

Page 8

Wisconsin-Stout (UW-S), one of 13 publicly

supported universities in the University of
Wisconsin System in the US, was the first
recipient in the area of higher education
(Dettmann, 2004). Arif and Smiley (2004)
found that UW-Stout included inputs from all
stakeholder groups as a regular part of their
strategic planning. They found that this
increased the sense of ownership and
reduced the resistance to change.
In late 2004, the Monfort College of Business
(MCB) located in the US (Greeley, Colorado),
became the first business school to receive
the MBQNA. So as the College began to
embrace the Baldrige Model in late 2002, its
accountability approach changed to focus
more on the needs and expectations of the
external stakeholders. As this new model
evolved, the College then began educating
these outside groups of its goals and its
progress, making sure to note that while that
group may have expected a certain level of
performance, MCB was actually thinking of a
performance level much higher. As part of
the engagement process, a UW-Stout leader
was invited to MCBs campus in 2002 to
discuss the Baldrige system and to help
faculty, staff, and leaders evaluate the
potential impact of a Baldrige journey on the
College (Alexander, et al. 2007).
The value of adapting the Baldrige framework
to specialized needs in education has been
recognized. One example is Excellence in
Higher Education (EHE); a version of the
Baldrige framework especially for higher
education developed at Rutgers University
which is the largest institution for higher
education in the state of New Jersey. EHE was

International Journal of Excellence in Education

designed to address the needs of colleges and

universities, and utilizes language that is
familiar to the culture of such institutions. It is
intended for use as an assessment, strategic
planning and quality education tool for
administrative or academic units within a
college or university, or with an entire
institution. The approach incorporates many
of the dimensions typically included in higher
education assessment methodologies, such as
self-studies, external reviews, management
audits, accreditation reviews and strategic
planning.
EHE can be used to integrate or complement
these strategies. Acknowledging the benefits
of the EHE, the University of CaliforniaBerkeley has adopted the EHE program; thus
far, it has been implemented in eight units.
EHE programs have also been conducted for
units at the University of Wisconsin-Madison,
Howard
University,
California
State
University-Fullerton, the University of
Pennsylvania and the University of San Diego
(Ruben, 2000).
Ruben, et al. (2007) studied the value of the
Baldrige program, and more specifically the
impact of the EHE approach in six
independent university departments that
participated in separate Baldrige/EHE
assessment workshops. Through a webbased survey and in-person interviews, the
researchers were interested to discover
participants perceptions of the assessment
process, the extent of knowledge acquisition,
and the extent of organizational change.
Findings suggest that self-assessment does
result in the acquisition of a knowledge and
theory base, and leads to the identification of

Volume 4

Number 2

strengths and improvement needs. Results

also indicate that in a majority of the
departments, the assessment program
initiated a genuine commitment to
organizational change, one that led to a
number of tangible improvements.
In summary, the literature shows that the
MBNQA has been successfully applied to the
higher education context. This model is
especially used as a tool for self-assessment
with the aim of providing organizational
performance. It is also useful when it comes
to undertaking strategic planning and
achieving quality improvements within the
institutions.
2.2. EFQM Excellence Model
a) Presentation of the model
The EFQM Excellence Model is launched by
the European Foundation for Quality
Management (EFQM) in 1991. The model
was introduced at the beginning of 1992 as
the framework for assessing organizations for
the European Quality Award (EQA). It is now
the most widely used organizational
framework in Europe and it has become the
basis for the majority of national and regional
Quality Awards (EFQM, 2003). The EFQM
Excellence Model drew its basic elements
from the Japanese model, the Deming
Award, which has been in existence for
almost sixty years, and the American MBNQA
model (Nuland, et al. 2000).
The EFQM Excellence Model is a nonperspective framework built around nine
criteria: the first five elements are addressed
as Enablers (leadership, strategy, people,
partnerships and resources, and processes,

September 2011

Page 9

products and services). They show the

structural
preconditions
of
superior
performance. The other four elements are
Results (customer results, people results,
society results, and key results) to measure
the organizations performance and success
from different stakeholders perspectives
(EFQM, 2009). These nine criteria are further
divided into 32 sub-criteria that form the
basis for the assessment and validation tool.
Each sub-criterion is a list of possible areas to
address (EFQM, 2003).
The EFQM Excellence Model is underpinned
by what is termed the eight essentials of
excellence, or the fundamental concepts.
This model believes that the achievement of
excellence requires total management
commitment and acceptance of these
concepts: achieving balanced results, adding
value for customers, leading with vision,
inspiration and integrity, managing by
processes, succeeding through people,
nurturing creativity and innovation, building
partnerships, and taking responsibility for a
sustainable future (EFQM, 2009).
b) Adoption of the EFQM Excellence Model
in higher education
The growing concern with quality and
excellence, the need to be accountable
towards society and the increasing presence
of the market in higher education systems
have made quality assessment, management,
assurance
and
improvement
an
unquestionable reality, covering teaching,
research, services and institutional-level
approaches.
Within
this
challenging
environment, the higher education sector
started to consider the application of the

Page 10

EFQM Excellence Model as a framework for

continuous improvement (Rosa and Amaral,
2007).
In 2003, Sheffield Hallam University in the
UK, supported by a grant from the Higher
Education Funding Council for Englands
(HEFCE) Good Management Practice
program and working with a small group of
other UK educational institutions, produced a
higher education version of the EFQM
Excellence
Model
(Sheffield
Hallam
University, 2003b). Recently, many higher
education institutions in UK, Germany, and
Turkey, and the second round of institutional
accreditation in Hungary implemented this
model and adapted it to local needs
(Campbell and Christina, 2002). It is proposed
that the primary purpose for all users of the
EFQM Excellence Model is to achieve an
outcome that is excellent in the eyes of all
relevant stakeholders (Sheffield Hallam
University, 2003b).
The EFQM Excellence Model has been tested
and applied within higher education, but
much more than this, it offers a means by
which other management techniques can be
held and knitted together in an integrated
way (Sheffield Hallam University, 2003a).
Some institutions have been recognized for
their application to the EFQM Excellence
Model. For instance, an Engineering Faculty
in a Turkish university reached in 2000 the
final of the European Quality Awards and
Runshaw College in UK won in 2003 the UK
Quality Award (EFQM).
Other institutions are applying the EFQM
Excellence Model such as Yaroslavl State

International Journal of Excellence in Education

University (YSU). This university, which

becomes one of the pioneers in Russia,
initiated the international Project Raising
Management Quality in a Russian University
(MANRU). The Project is run in partnership
with Sheffield Hallam University (UK), which
has been engaged in projects aimed at
enhancing institutional effectiveness for over
six years and the EFQM (Brussels) within the
framework of the European Program
Tempus. The main project goal is the
fundamental reorientation of university
management, focusing towards customers,
i.e. students, their parents, and employers.
The first stage for joint collaboration
between YSU and Sheffield Hallam University
was in June 2003. During this first visit to YSU
a self-assessment using the EFQM Excellence
Model was undertaken by the Rectorate. The
use of the EFQM Excellence Model ensured
the development of a clear quality assurance
system for the management of the university
at a strategic and operational level. This
showed a real need to make fundamental
changes to the management system
(Maslow, D., et al. 2006).
Many researches undertake the EFQM
Excellence Model applied as a tool for selfassessment in higher education. Zairi (2003)
evaluated the benefits of implementing
EFQM Excellence Model in six UK colleges
and universities based on the self-assessment
aspect. The research concluded, on the one
hand, that commitment from senior
management levels and customer delivery
were the major area of concern. On the other
hand, it was concluded that implementing

Volume 4

Number 2

the EFQM Excellence Model aided the

institutional management.
The work of Hides et al., (2004) focused also
on the implementation of EFQM Excellence
Model self-assessment in the UK higher
education sector. Otherwise, this research
described the specific issues in implementing
the model in UK higher education, with a
particular focus on the choice of selfassessment methodology, compares and
contrasts these with self-assessment issues in
the wider public sector. The early signs are
that the EFQM Excellence Model selfassessment can help to produce a more
customer-oriented
culture
in
higher
education institutions, providing that the
lessons learned from the wider public sector
are put into practice.
Another research, conducted by Tari (2006),
studied the EFQM Excellence Model selfassessment in a Spanish university. A case
study methodology was used based on five
services provided by a public university in
Spain. The findings of the research showed
the steps that one university can follow in
order to apply the self-assessment exercise in
a successful manner, its benefits, its
obstacles and its key factors such as
management and employee commitment,
and the support to self-assessment teams
(e.g. training, review). The research provides
also lessons for managers from other
universities who wish to develop a selfassessment exercise.
Rosa and Amaral (2007) explored the use of
the EFQM Excellence Model as a selfassessment tool for higher education

September 2011

Page 11

institutions, using as an example the results

of research conducted in Portuguese higher
education institutions. The researchers
believed, on the one hand, that despite the
apparent
success
of
the
models
implementation it needs to be recognized
that the scores obtained for Portuguese
higher education institutions probably
present a too-positive picture for these
organizations
regarding
the
internal
implementation of the set of quality
assurance and improvement practices
included in the research instrument (the
questionnaire). On the other hand, the
researchers believed that the EFQM
Excellence Model is sufficiently demanding in
terms of quality practices so as to not allow
Portuguese higher education institutions to
have such a positive global score.
Another bunch of researches have exploited
the EFQM Excellence Model as a qualityoriented approach towards environmental
assessment for analyzing higher education
institutions. For instance, the research
conducted by Mashhadi et al., (2008) has
deployed the EFQM Excellence Model for
strategic scanning of the environment of six
top Iranian business schools and positioning
them in their strategic context. This was
measured by the questionnaire and checklist
and applied for these schools. The six
institutions have been assessed in each
criterion of the EFQM Excellence Model in
both areas and their position among their
competitors has been defined. Regarding all
the research findings, it can be inferred that
the primary reason that has brought about
the high position of the first three institutions
is their customer-oriented approach and high

Page 12

scores in the customer results, which is of the

greatest importance in the EFQM Excellence
Model.
Similarly to MBNQA, the EFQM Excellence
Model has been successfully adapted to
higher education sector and recognized as an
assessment, strategic planning and quality
improvement tool. The most important
difference between the two models is the
complete separation between enablers and
results in the EFQM framework.
When compared to MBNQA, the logical
model (connection between criteria) of the
EFQM model is more apparent (Kanji, 2002).
Indeed, the first element which is leadership
drives people management, strategy,
partnerships and resources. These, in turn
drive all processes and services which drive
people satisfaction, customer satisfaction
and impact on society. These three drive
business results.
It is worth noting that the EFQM Excellence
Model has a particular strength since it is a
process-oriented approach, which focuses on
student results and explicitly addresses the
performance of higher education institutions
in meeting the needs of all their
stakeholders.

Conclusion
At the end of the 1980s and the beginning of
the 1990s, the concern for quality concept in
higher education has more and more
increased and became an interesting subject.
The major reasons for the emphasis on
quality are related to the changing landscape

International Journal of Excellence in Education

of higher education environment, and

especially the growing climate of increasing
accountability.
The concept of quality in higher education is
complex and multifaceted as it depends upon
different stakeholders perspectives. In some
academic
institutions
in
developing
countries, systems of quality assurance and
control have been established but in
different degrees of complexity and
effectiveness. In contrast, many developed
countries acknowledge the benefits of the
implementation of TQM within their
institutions.
Implementing TQM in higher education is the
result of the success of this philosophy in the
industrial sector. This success encouraged
higher education institutions worldwide to
adopt excellence models, which embrace the
philosophy of TQM and were originally
implemented in business or industrial sector.
MBNQA and EFQM Excellence Model are the
most popular models that have been adapted
to higher education context. An extensive
literature shows the relevance of both
models to higher education sector, and
highlights the benefits that many institutions
worldwide have drawn from their
implementation.
In addition to being used as a pure selfassessment tool, the MBNQA can be viewed
as a set of values, framework, and criteria of
items that work as robust system for
performance improvement. In short, the
MBNQA
provides
higher
education
institutions the ability to assess and improve
their performance. The EFQM Excellence

Volume 4

Number 2

Model is a novel approach to do this but with

a more clear framework that distinguishes
between Enablers and Results. This
separation generally improves the use of
TQM framework in self-assessment and aids
understanding by its specific focus on how
(Enablers) and Results.
Further research could be conducted to
present the usefulness of the combination of
the MBNQA and the EFQM Excellence Model
integrated into the new quality management
model. The synergetic effects of the
interactions of the combination between
both models will have a positive effect on
increasing universities competitiveness.

References
Alexander, J. F., et al. (2007), Performance
Excellence in Higher Education: One Business
Schools Journey, Palmetto Review, Vol. 10,
pp. 3445.
Anyamele, S. C. (2007), Applying Leadership
Criterion of the European Excellence Model
for achieving Quality Management in Higher
Education Institutions, Academic Leadership
Online Journal, Vol. 5, No. 2, July 31.
Anyamele, S. C. (2004), Institutional
Management in Higher Education: A study of
Leadership
Approaches
to
Quality
Improvement in University Management
Nigerian and Finnish cases, Research Report
195, Helsinki.
Arif, M. and Smiley, F. M. (2004), Baldrige
theory into practice: a working model, in Joe
F. A., Timothy E. J. and John R. L. (2007),

September 2011

Page 13

Performance
Excellence
in
Higher
Education: One Business Schools Journey,
Palmetto Review, Vol. 10, pp. 3445.
Badri, M. A., et al. (2006), The Baldrige
Education
Criteria
for
Performance
Excellence Framework: Empirical test and
validation, The International Journal of
Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 23,
Issue 9, pp. 11181157.
Banta, T. W. (1988), Implementing
Outcomes Assessment, in Dettmann, P. E.
(2004), Administrators, Faculty, and
Staff/Support Staffs Perceptions of MBNQA
Educational Criteria Implementation at the
University of Wisconsin Stout, Dissertation,
Faculty of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute
and State University.
Becket, N., and M. Brookes (2005),
Analysing Quality Audits in Higher
Education, Brookes e-Journal of Learning
and Teaching, Vol. 1, No. 2.
Borahan, N. G. and Ziarati, R. (2002),
Developing Quality Criteria for Application in
Higher Education Sector in Turkey, Total
Quality Management, Vol. 13, No. 7, pp.
913926.
Campbell, C. and Christina, R. (2002),
Quality Assurance and the Development of
Course Programmes, Papers on Higher
Education, UNESCO.
Cheng, Y. C. and Tam, W. M. (1997), Multimodels of Quality in Education, in Becket,
N., and M. Brookes (2005), Analysing Quality
Audits in Higher Education, Brookes e-

Page 14

Journal of Learning and Teaching, Vol. 1, No.

2.
Conti, T. A. (2007), A history and Review of
the European Quality Award Model. The
TQM
Magazine, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 112128.
Cyert, R. M. (1993), The Ivy Leaguers, in
Dettmann, P. E. (2004), Administrators,
Faculty, and Staff/Support Staffs Perceptions
of
MBNQA
Educational
Criteria
Implementation at the University of
Wisconsin Stout, Dissertation, Faculty of the
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University.
Dettmann, P. E. (2004), Administrators,
Faculty, and Staff/Support Staffs Perceptions
of
MBNQA
Educational
Criteria
Implementation at the University of
Wisconsin Stout, Dissertation, Faculty of the
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University.
EFQM European Foundation for Quality
Management
(2003)
Introducing
Excellence, Brussels.
Available
on
<www.efqm.org/en/PdfResources/PUB0723_
InEx_en_v2.1.pdf>
EFQM European Foundation for Quality
Management, European Quality Award
Winners History, Brussels.
Available
on
<www.qualityaustria.ru/downloads/History_
of_past_winners_EEA_01.pdf>

International Journal of Excellence in Education

EFQM European Foundation for Quality

Management (2009), Introducing the EFQM
Excellence Model 2010, Brussels.
Available
on
<www.efqm.org/en/PdfResources/EFQMMo
del_Presentation.pdf>
Fazer, M. (1994), Quality in Higher
Education: An International Perspective, in
Anyamele, S. C. (2004), Institutional
Management in Higher Education: A study of
Leadership
Approaches
to
Quality
Improvement in University Management
Nigerian and Finnish cases, Research Report
195, Helsinki.
Garvin, D. A. (1998), Managing Quality: The
Strategic and Competitive Edge, New York:
Free Press.
Green, M. F. (1999), Transforming Higher
Education: Views From Leaders Around the
World, in Anyamele, S. C. (2004),
Institutional Management in Higher
Education: A study of Leadership Approaches
to Quality Improvement in University
ManagementNigerian and Finnish cases,
Research Report 195, Helsinki.
Harvey, L., (1998), An Assessment of Past
and Current Approaches to Quality in Higher
Education, Australian Journal of Education,
Vol. 42.
Hides, M. T., et al. (2004), Implementation
of EFQM excellence model self-assessment in
the UK higher education sectorlessons
learned from other sectors, The TQM
Magazine, Vol. 16, No. 3, pp. 194201.

Volume 4

Number 2

Horsburgh, M. (1999), Quality Monitoring in

Higher Education: the impact on student
learning, Quality in Higher Education, Vol. 5,
Issue 1, pp. 925.
Kanji, G. K. (2002), Measuring Business
Excellence, Routledge.
Kanji, G. K. and Tambi, A. M. (1999), Total
Quality Management in U.K. Higher
Education Institutions, Total Quality
Management, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 129153.
Mashhadi, M. M., Mohajeri, K. and Nayeri, M.
D. (2008), A Quality-Oriented Approach
toward Strategic Positioning in Higher
Education Institutions, Proceedings of World
Academy of Science, Engineering and
Technology, Vol. 27, pp. 338342.
Maslow, D., et al. (2006), A Journey towards
Excellence: A University Case Study, EFQM.
Narasimhan, K. (1997), Organizational
climate at the University of Braunton in
1996, in Jourdan, L. F., Jr.; Haberland, C.;
Deis, M. H. (2004), Quality in Higher
Education: The Students Role, Academy of
Educational Leadership Journal, Vol. 8, No. 2,
pp. 1728.
NIST National Institute of Standards and
Technology (2010), Malcolm Baldrige
National Quality Award: Application Data
1988-2010, Gaithersburg.
Available
on
<http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factshee
t/nqa_appdata.cfm>

September 2011

Page 15

NIST National Institute of Standards and

Technology (2009), Baldrige National Quality
Program 2009 2010, Education Criteria for
Performance Excellence, Gaithersburg.
Available
on
<www.nist.gov/baldrige/publications/.../200
9_2010_Education_Criteria.pdf>

Composite Indicators for Educational Quality

Management for a Masters Degree Program
in Educational Administration in Private
Higher Education Institutions in Thailand,
Dissertation, School of Education, Faculty of
Arts, Education and Human Development,
Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia.

Nuland, Y. V., et al. (2000), Excellent: A

guide for the implementation of the EFQMExcellence model, Environment friendly
paper.

Ruben, B. D., et al. (2007), Evaluating the

impact of organizational self-assessment in
higher
education:
The
Malcolm
Baldrige/Excellence in Higher Education
framework, Leadership & Organization
Development Journal, Vol. 28, No. 3, pp. 230
250.

Oakland, J. S. (1997), Interdependence and

Cooperation: The Essentials of Total Quality
Management, Total Quality Management,
Vol. 8, Nos. 2 & 3, pp. 3135.
Peterson, M., et al. (1995), Total Quality
Management in Higher Education: From
Assessment to Improvement, 3rd Edition,
Ann Arbor: Centre for the Study of Higher
Education and Postsecondary Education,
University of Michigan.
Rafikul, I. (2007), MBNQA criteria in
education: Assigning weights from a
Malaysian perspective and proposition for an
alternative evaluation scheme, International
Transactions In Operational Research, Vol.
14, pp. 373394.

Ruben, B. D., (2000), The Value of the

Baldrige Framework for Self-Assessment and
Improvement in Education: The Rutgers
Excellence in Higher Education Program,
Higher Education Forum, The center for
organizational Development and Leadership,
Rutgers University.
Sachs, J. (1994), Control or Empowerment:
Quality in Higher Education in Australia,
paper presented at the 34th Annual Forum of
the Association for Institutional Research,
New Orleans, Louisiana, May 291 June.

Rosa, M., and Amaral, A. (2007), A Selfassessment of Higher Education Institutions

from the Perspective of the EFQM Excellence
Model, Quality Assurance in Higher
Education, Vol. 20, pp. 181207.

Sallis, E. (1993), Total Quality Management

in Education, in Anyamele, S. C. (2004),
Institutional Management in Higher
Education: A study of Leadership Approaches
to Quality Improvement in University
ManagementNigerian and Finnish cases,
Research Report 195, Helsinki.

Rowley, J., (1996), Measuring Quality in

Higher Education, in Kachakoch K. (2008),

Sheffield Hallam University (2003a), EFQM

Excellence Model Higher Education Version

Page 16

International Journal of Excellence in Education

2003 (Adapted from the EFQM Excellence

Model 2003 Public and Voluntary Sector
version), Sheffield Hallam University.
Available on
<www.csuchico.edu/vpaa/.../EFQM_Version_
2003_Model.pdf>
Sheffield
Hallam
University
(2003b),
Embracing Excellence in Education: A
summary of Learning Gained from Applying
the EFQM Excellence Model in Further and
Higher
Education,
Sheffield
Hallam
University.
Available
at:
<http://excellence.shu.ac.uk/publications/pu
blications.asp>
Stecher, B. and Kirby, S. N. (2004),
Organizational
Improvement
and

Volume 4

Number 2

Accountability: Lessons for Education from

Other Sectors, Rand Corporation, Rand
Education (Institute).
Tar, J. J. (2006), An EFQM model selfassessment exercise at a Spanish university,
Journal of Educational Administration, Vol.
44, Issue 2, pp. 170188.
UNESCO (1998), Higher Education in the
Twenty-First Century: Vision and Action,
Proceedings of World Conference on Higher
Education, Paris: UNESCO.
Zairi, M. (2003), The European Excellence
Model: Its Applicability in a Higher Education
Context, The International Journal of
Excellence in Education, Vol. 1, Issue 1.

September 2011

Page 17