Applying Self-Assessment against the EFQM Excellence · PDF file©Sheffield Hallam University 2003 1 Applying Self-Assessment against the EFQM Excellence Model® in Further and Higher

1©Sheffield Hallam University 2003

Applying Self-Assessment againstthe EFQM Excellence Model® in Further and Higher Education

Consortium for Excellence in Higher Education

©Sheffield Hallam University 2003

Enablers

Innovation and Learning

Results

Leadership Policy &Strategy Processes

KeyPerformance

Results

People

Partnerships& Resources

CustomerResults

PeopleResults

SocietyResults

Published on behalf of the Consortium for Excellence in HigherEducation by Sheffield Hallam University. All Rights Reserved. Nopart of this publication may be reproduced in any form withoutthe permission of the copyright owner. © Sheffield HallamUniversity 2003.

The views expressed in this publication are those of the particularcontributor concerned, and are not necessarily shared bySheffield Hallam University or any other contributor.

This publication has been written as a way of sharing learningfrom practical experiences within the Higher and FurtherEducation sectors. It does not review the concepts from anacademic theory perspective, but introduces the managementpractices and learning which have emerged from detailedpractical research undertaken within the sector.

This is one in a series of publications that have been produced toshare the learning from our work, in both a practical andstrategic way. The other publications cover the following topics:

• Embracing Excellence in Education. A summary of the learninggained from applying the EFQM Excellence Model® in Furtherand 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.

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? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20

Using the outputs from self-assessments to make improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .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

2 ©Sheffield Hallam University 2003

Introduction

1 Overview of the Programme

The Consortium for Excellence in Higher Education has been ledby Sheffield Hallam University and has included the Universitiesof Cranfield, Durham, Salford, Ulster and Dearne Valley College(FE representative). The GMP143 Programme has been partfunded under the Developing Good Management Practice HEFCEinitiative (99/54). The University for Ulster was funded andsupported by the Department for Employment and Learning(DEL). The programme (which contained 18 projects) had a lifespan of three years. Its main aim was to evaluate the benefits ofintroducing and implementing the EFQM Excellence Model® intothe Higher Education Sector.

Funding for the programme was awarded by HEFCE on 14 April2000. The Programme commenced in May 2000 and concludedin May 2003. The 18 projects undertaken fall into four mainareas, which can be summarised as follows:

Self-assessment projectsSix projects covering each institution (Sheffield Hallam, theUniversities of Cranfield, Durham, Salford, Ulster and DearneValley College) tested the implementation of self-assessmentactivities against the EFQM Excellence Model®. Assessments tookplace in range of areas – schools, departments, researchinstitutes, cross college and faculty wide. Each institution testeddifferent self-assessment methodologies, rather than just usingone. This added greatly to the richness of the learning. Work hasalso been undertaken in some areas to investigate the integrationand alignment potential with other aspects of quality assuranceand performance management.

Mapping and research projectsThe five projects in this area sought to address the relationship,inter-relationship, synergy and gaps between the EFQMExcellence Model® and other management tools, models,concepts and auditing frameworks that are used within an HEand FE environment. These aimed to reduce confusion across thesector about where each may fit within an organisationcompared to another.

Benchmarking projectsThe two benchmarking projects aimed to compare the work thatwe were undertaking, with educational institutions internationallywho are exemplars of excellence, and with other private andpublic sector organisations within the UK who have won qualityawards. These projects have allowed us to develop, enhance andevolve our methodologies and approaches to ensure that they areas excellent as they can be when compared to the best.

Communication projectsThe five communication projects included Mirror of Truthconferences for each year of the programme, the developmentand maintenance of a programme website(http://excellence.shu.ac.uk), and a final programme reportwhich has brought together the findings of the programme overthe three years.

The Programme overall, and each project, has been planned andmanaged using a light-touch project management method, basedon PRINCE2 project management methodology.(http://www.ogc.gov.uk/prince/). This has helped to provideclarity, direction and purpose to each of the projects, as well asenabling linkages to be made and learning to be transferredmore easily.

Header


Overview

1 Aim and structure of this publication

This publication introduces the concepts, practices andexperiences of self-assessment using the EFQM ExcellenceModel®. It aims to share the learning gained from Consortiummembers within FE and HE who have, using variousmethodologies, introduced the EFQM Excellence Model® into theirinstitutions. The core aim in each case has been to use self-assessment as a catalyst for driving continuous improvement. It ishoped that this publication will be a useful guide for practitionerswho 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 self-

assessment method, and some of the outcomes experienced- The knowledge and skills needed by those involved in self-

assessment- How outputs from self-assessments were used to improve

operations- Issues which created barriers to successful introduction of self-

assessment, and the difficulties encountered that lessened therate of success

• Conclusions and recommendations- Summarising the key points learned, and the impact using

self-assessments has had for the HE and FE institutionsinvolved, and giving recommendations to help otherorganisations ease their own implementation of self-assessments

2 Background to the EFQM Excellence Model®and self-assessment

The European Foundation for Quality Management (EFQM) wascreated in 1988 by 14 leading European businesses. The EFQMExcellence Model® was formally launched in 1991 with the aimto make ‘European Businesses more competitive through theapplication of TQM philosophy’. A detailed description of theEFQM Excellence Model® is set out in the accompanying

Summary Publication (Embracing Excellence In Education) and inthe EFQM Model Guidelines. In essence, the model is a non-prescriptive framework based on nine criteria.

The Model was initially used as a way of recognisingachievement, with self-assessment being undertaken byorganisations who needed to show continuous improvement overtime in order to apply for the European Quality Award. After itsintroduction, however, it was discovered that the Model and self-assessment were proving to be valuable for driving continuousimprovement activity within organisations that were not planningon applying for the award. It was also noticed that the Modelwas being applied in a wider range of organisations than theprivate sector for which it had originally been written. As a resultof this, further versions of the Model were produced. Thisincluded in 1999 the Public and Voluntary Sector Model. This hassince been refreshed and updated in 2003. It is this Model thatthe Consortium has been using.

3 Summary of the key benefits of using self-assessment

Self-assessment has been likened to holding up a mirror andfacing the truth: we don’t always like what we see, but we needto acknowledge what we see to be able to make improvements.

The impact that undertaking self-assessment can have oninstitutions is both tangible and intangible. When implementedsuccessfully 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 clarityof focus and more resourceful and strategically focused plans.

• Improvement activities which are planned, undertaken andreviewed.

• Identification and mapping of processes leading to greaterefficiency 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.

Header


Introduction to the Excellence Model and Self-Assessment

2 The EFQM Excellence Model®

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 frameworkbased on nine criteria - five ‘Enablers’ and four ‘Results’. TheEnablers cover what the organisation does, and the Results coverwhat the organisation achieves; ‘Enablers’ cause ‘Results’.

Figure 2 The EFQM Excellence Model® (EFQM 2003)

Each of the nine criteria have a number of criterion parts, andthese are the only prescriptive parts to the model.

Enablers

Innovation and Learning

Results

Leadership Policy &Strategy Processes

KeyPerformance

Results

People

Partnerships& Resources

CustomerResults

PeopleResults

SocietyResults

1 The Fundamental Concepts of Excellence

The EFQM Excellence Model® is ‘a non- prescriptiveframework that recognises there are many approaches toachieving sustainable excellence’ (EFQM 1999a). In the 2003EFQM booklet on the Model, Excellence is defined as:

‘Outstanding practice in managing the organisation and

achieving results based on a set of Fundamental Concepts’

The eight Fundamental Concepts of Excellence underpinningthe 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

Figure 1 Fundamental Concepts of Excellence (EFQM 2003)

Details of how these fundamental concepts have beeninterpreted and applied to a higher and further educationcontext can be found in the publication EFQM ExcellenceModel® Higher Education Version 2003(http://integralexcellence.shu.ac.uk)

It is upon these eight concepts that the Excellence Model hasbeen based.

The Enabler CriteriaThe five Enablers assess and question whether an organisationhas the appropriate approaches in place to achieve the targets ithas set. The detail of the Model provides a framework forrigorous analysis that questions whether, in each area, theorganisation can demonstrate that chosen approaches andstrategies:

• 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, withguidance points within these criterion parts to help develop andsupport knowledge and learning in that particular area.

Figure 3 The Enabling Criteria (EFQM)

The Results Criteriathe four Results criteria question whether there are comprehensivemeasures in place that can monitor and track performance, andassess whether objectives have been met. The Results criteria alsoquestion the extent to which benchmarking against the best inclass is undertaken and used to enhance learning and improveperformance. The criteria challenge to what extent anorganisation can show that the chosen indicators:

• comprehensively measure what is important to customers andothers who receive a service from the organisation

• demonstrate continuous improvement against target andresults.

Each of the Results are broken down into criterion parts, withguidance points within these criterion parts to help develop andsupport knowledge and learning in that particular area.

Figure 4 The Results Criteria (EFQM)



9a9b

6a6b

6Customer Results

Criterion parts

Areas to address

Criterion parts

Areas to address

9Key

PerformanceResults

Criteria

5a5b

5c5d

5e

1a1b

1c1d

1e

1Leadership

Criterion parts

Areas to address

Areas to address

Criterion parts5Processes

Criteria



Criteria and criterion partsEach of the nine criteria has a definition, which provides a highlevel explanation of the particular criterion. To develop the highlevel meaning each criterion is supported by a number ofcriterion parts (EFQM 2003) which an organisation assesses itselfagainst, and from this determines strengths and areas forimprovement, from which continuous improvement actions can betaken.

Criterion partsThere are 32 criterion parts within the EFQM Excellence Model®,24 within the Enablers and 8 within the Results. These criterionparts pose a series of questions that should be considered duringthe self-assessment process. Within each criterion part is a listthat contains possible areas to address. These areas to addressare not a checklist, exhaustive or mandatory. The intention is toprovide further explanation and meaning for each particularcriterion part.

An example of the leadership criterion and criterion parts isgiven here:

Leadership (Criterion 1)‘Excellent Leaders develop and facilitate the achievement of themission and vision. They develop organisational values andsystems required for sustainable success and implement these viatheir actions and behaviours. During periods of change theyretain a constancy of purpose. Where required, such leaders areable to change the direction of the organisation and inspireothers to follow.’

Leadership covers five criterion parts (1a – 1e) thatshould 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 theorganisation’s management system is developed,implemented and continuously improved

1c Leaders interact with customers, partners and representativesof society

1d Leaders reinforce a culture of Excellence with theorganisation’s 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 relevantcriterion part is contained within the Public and Voluntary Sectorsversion of the EFQM Excellence Model® (EFQM 2003), can befound in Appendix 1.

Details of the Higher Education version of the criteria andcriterion parts can be found in the publication EFQM ExcellenceModel® Higher Education Version 2003.(http://integralexcellence.shu.ac.uk)

3 Excellence Model Dynamics

The Model is dynamic in nature and has many linkages. Thelinks between each of the criteria of the Model suggest that it isinterlinked 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.

4 Introducing self-assessment

Self-assessment against the Excellence ModelSelf-assessment is seen as a key driver for improvingperformance in an organisation and is a key concept of theEFQM Excellence Model®. The majority of organisations thatemploy the Model, use it as a way of finding out where they arenow, considering where they want to improve, and then makingdecisions on how to get there. This is illustrated simply in Figure6.

Figure 6 Simple assessment concept (EFQM)

Self-assessment is a method of looking across an organisation ata specific point in time to see where it is in relation to achievingits performance outcomes. In the initial stages, self-assessmentcan be used as a ‘health check’ - a starting point for focusingattention and action.

The EFQM (1999b) define self-assessment as:

‘A comprehensive, systematic and regular review of an

organisation’s activities and results referenced against the EFQM

Excellence Model.’

In other words organisations need to have in place cyclic, ratherthan absent or ad-hoc, measurement and review processes.

Where am I nowHow to get there

Where do I want to go?

quality concepts and frameworks, just starting the journey, orsomewhere in between the two. Some methods require muchmore effort than others; the choice of method is therefore alsodependent 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 ofhow much they are based on rigour and evidence.

Figure 8 The five self-assessment options



It is recognised that assessment against all nine criteria is bothdesirable and accepted as good management practice.Organisations that are applying for the European Quality Awardneed to demonstrate evidence in each of the criterion part areas.The primary objective of self-assessment, however, is to identifyan organisations strengths and areas for improvement and todevelop action plans to improve organisational performance(EFQM 1999b), as illustrated in Figure 7.

Figure 7 The inputs and outputs of a self-assessment process

An overview of the different methods of self-assessmentThere are a number of methods of self-assessment against theExcellence Model which can be used. It is recognised that eachone can deliver different benefits and involve different resourcesand risks. Further detail on each is given in the next section, butan overview is given here. The five key self-assessment methodsare:

• Questionnaire• Matrix chart• Workshop• Pro-forma• Award simulation

Before a method is chosen it is important to consider what theorganisation is hoping to achieve from using the EFQMExcellence Model®. For instance, if the aim is to secure a ‘quickfix’ to a specific problem then this may not be achieved given thelong-term nature of the Model. Alternatively, if the organisation islooking to achieve an EFQM or British Quality Foundation (BQF)quality award it must be realised that the RADAR scoring matrixawards higher scores to organisations that can demonstratepositive trends for more than 3 years in a wide scope of resultareas. This means that continuous improvement efforts need to bein place for several years prior to embarking upon using theExcellence Model for attaining an award.

FE and HE institutions can choose to use any or all of the fiveself-assessment methods, and their choice will depend in partupon whether they are well on the way with the application of

Assessment

Model Evidence

Areas forImprovement

Score

Copyright BQF

Strengths ActionPlans

QUESTIONNAIRE

MATRIX

Copyright EFQM

WORKSHOP

PRO-FORMA

AWARD ENTRY

Supported by Evidence

Low HighPROCESSRIGOUR

DATA

Based on Opinion



The different methods also vary in terms of requirement of resource and skill, and outcomes from the process undertaken. Figures 9and 10 indicate some of these differences, although all are subject to change if the assessment processes are enhanced, developed orcombined in any way.

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

Figure 10 Self-assessment summary table

Starting on the Journey towards ExcellenceIt 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 providesinformation and evidence, from which improvements can be made. As learning and understanding progresses, use of the Modelbecomes more integrated into the way of working.

MATURE ORGANISATION Appropriate QuestionnaireProforma supported by peer

validationAward Simulation

DEVELOPINGORGANISATION

Questionnaire and Workshop

Matrix and Workshop

Pro-Forma

Facilitated Workshop

Pilot Award Simulation

Pro-Forma & Workshop

STARTING ON THEEXCELLENCE JOURNEY

Elementary Questionnaire

Standard MatrixStandard Questionnaire

Very detailed Questionnaire orTailored Matrix

LOW EFFORT MEDIUM EFFORT HIGH EFFORT

Strengths/Areas for

improvement

Accuracy ofScore

Knowledge ofModel

Site VisitTrainedAssesors

ResourceImplication

Questionnaire NO LOW NO NO NO LOW/MEDIUM

Matrix NO LOW NO NO NO LOW/MEDIUM

Workshop YES MEDIUM YES NO FACILITATOR MEDIUM

Pro-Forma YES MEDIUM/HIGH YES OPTIONAL YES MEDIUM/HIGH

AwardSimulation

YES HIGH YES OPTIONAL YES HIGH


Figure 11 The Excellence Journey – the beginning

Irrespective of the method chosen, there are eight generic stepsfor carrying out a self-assessment. These steps are illustrated inFigure 12 and, although they are shown as sequential, someactivities may overlap others.

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

There is no one prescribed way of developing the self-assessmentprocess, 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

Excellence

Self-AssessmentAction Plans

Health check

Develop Commitment

Plan self-assessment

Establish teams to performself-assessment and educate

Communicate self-assessment plansReview Progress

Conduct self-assessment

Establish action plan

Implement action plan

Header


1 Self-assessment methods

A brief explanation is given here regarding each method. More information can be found in the EFQM publication Assessing forExcellence: A Practical guide for Self-Assessment (EFQM 1999). The methods are discussed here from a generic point of view, but inthe following section they are considered in terms of their applicability to FE and HE.

Questionnaire methodThis 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 ofthe questionnaire, it can collect information on a very wide range of issues. Given a full distribution, it can obtain the views fromeveryone in an organisation.

Self-Assessment Concepts and Methods

Benefits Risks and Issues

Quick and easy to apply Strengths and areas for improvement cannot be ascertained

Can involve all the organisation’s people Accuracy of feedback is dependent upon the phrasing of the original questions

Supports communication efforts There may be questionnaire fatigue within the organisation

Can be used in conjunction with other methods Expectations can be raised and unfulfilled if timely, appropriate actions do not occur

The questions asked can be customised to suitthe organisation

Questionnaires tell you what people think, not why they think it

Enables the organisation to receive feedback which can be segmented by functionand by level

Does not allow for direct comparison with scoring profiles of European QualityAward applicants

Can give a good visual reference if results aregraphed

Scores can be derived, but can only be used realistically as trend data, rather thanreal scores

Figure 13 Leadership Matrix Chart (Source: EFQM Practical Guide to Self-Assessment, 1999)

Matrix chart methodThe matrix chart method requires an organisation to create a series of statements that can be assigned a rating. These statements haveto be identified for all the nine criteria of the Model. The chart can be used by teams to self-assess where their organisation is inrelation 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 developits 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 owneffectiveness as leaders.

Statement with a rating of 7 – The MIS management team is proactive in valuing, recognising and rewarding all employees forcontinuous improvement.

Statement with a rating of 10 – The MIS management team is proactive in promoting creativity, new ideas and motivation in orderto sustain continuous improvement and to foster a culture of Customer Focus.



Workshop methodThe 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 theFacilitator. It is possible to undertake a self-assessment in one or two workshop sessions which are carefully planned, managed andfacilitated. Usually these phases will be undertaken throughout the session, although the Review process may need to follow later inorder to check progress against actions.

Benefits Risks and issues

It is simple and fairly quick to use Dependant on the type of matrix used, a list of strengths andareas for improvement are not necessarily produced

Requires minimal training It does not always allow comparisons against EQA applicants

Can involve as few or as many of the organisation’s people asnecessary

Not necessarily direct cross-reference between the matrixstatements and the sub-criteria of the model

Supports team discussion Time consuming if you develop your own matrix chart

Clearly demonstrates progress and the lack of progress in relationto all the nine criteria of the EFQM Excellence Model®

Scoring using the RADAR concept is not usually possible,depending on the matrix chart used

Provides a practical way of understanding the fundamentalconcepts of the Model

Enables teams to assess and display progress, shows gaps andpossible next steps

Good for facilitating team discussions and team building

Involving the management team of an organisation in developingtheir own matrix can be a powerful process

Can give a good visual reference of gaps between current andfuture state if these are represented pictorially


An excellent way to familiarise teams with the Model It is less robust than some of the other methods, as theinformation is based mainly on the opinion of those in theworkshop

Supports team building Requires expert facilitation, preparation, planning andmanagement

An agreed list of strengths and areas for improvement isproduced which helps drive improvement actions

Evidence of assessment, review and deployment can be difficult toassess

Allows for discussion and agreement regarding the strengths andareas for improvement, allowing a common view to be agreed

Can result in unrealistic, often over generous scoring

Encourages ownership and motivation towards taking theoutcomes forward and ensure improvement actions areundertaken

Pro-forma methodThe pro-forma approach involves using a template (paper based or electronic), which contains all the 32 criterion parts of theExcellence Model. An example is given in Figure 14.




Provides factual information and real evidence The process is dependent upon good data collection

Delivers a list of strengths, areas for improvement and can alsorecord actions, depending on the template used

The pro-forma can stifle recognition of the full story relating toexcellence development if it is not used openly and honestly – cangive the opportunity for ‘creative writing’!

Can involve a range of the organisation’s people The output provides only a summary of the current position

Provides a reasonably accurate indication of an awardapplication score (if scoring is used)

Can be challenging for managers to collect the right data,particularly in areas where no data may exist

The output from the assessment is clearly documented Some time and resource required, although not as much as forAward simulation approach

Scoring profiles can be close to the Award simulation approachin terms of accuracy

Less resource required than the Award simulation approach

Criterion 1 LeadershipExcellent Leaders develop and facilitate the achievement of the mission and vision. They develop organisational values and systemsrequired for sustainable success and implement these via their actions and behaviours. During periods of change they retain aconstancy of purpose. Where required, such leaders are able to change the direction of the organisation and inspire others to follow.

Criterion part 1aLeaders 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 thecreation of the organisation’s 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 wouldhave particular relevance to its activities

Strengths• The senior management team has developed a management

competencies model that supports the organisation’s ethics andvalues

• Effectiveness of leaders is assessed by employee survey and 360degree appraisals

• Department executives ensure their people participate in crossdivisional improvement projects

Areas for improvement• Leaders are not personally involved in improvement activities

Evidence• Competencies model available on organisation’s intranet• Staff survey data from surveys of 1996, 1998, 2000 and 2002 appropriately segmented and individual leader’s improvement actions

included in their appraisement process• All cross-divisional projects, and team membership, are documented on the organisation’s Intranet

Figure 14 Extracts from example given in EFQM booklet ‘Assessing for Excellence: A Practical Guide for Self-Assessment’ (EFQM1999) 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 usuallydiscussed at a facilitated workshop.



2 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 undertakenThere needs to be a clear and agreed rationale for undertaking a self-assessment, with a defined remit and scope. The desiredoutcome from the process needs to be identified, and what it is intended should happen with the desired outcome i.e. the results of theassessment process, should be agreed. This could impact on the type of methodology used. The key driver for the assessment musttherefore be identified.

Determining what to focus the assessment onApplying self-assessment means that improvement efforts can be aligned across the areas that matter most to the institution and/or thepeople who work within them. A range of symptoms may be evident across the institution, such as poor student recruitment, studentretention, a financial crisis or concerns with staff morale. If looked at in isolation the root cause of the issue may not be discovered, soit is recommended that self-assessment is undertaken across the full range of criteria in the first instance.

Award simulation methodThe Award simulation approach is in essence a replication of the process for entering for the European Quality Award. It involvespreparing a full submission document in accordance with the criteria laid down in the EFQM Award Application brochure (EFQM2000). Subsequently a team of trained assessors, either internal or external to the organisation, scores the application and provides afeedback report containing a list of strengths and areas for improvement.


Provides a list of strengths and areas for improvement Less involvement of managers because the task is usuallydelegated

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

Is resource intensive with the need for a dedicated team to pull theevidence together over a period of months (can be between 3 and6 months)

Subsequent reports become easier to write Only provides a snapshot of the organisation at that time

Provides an opportunity to compare performance with otherorganisations

Approach may be too ambitious as a first attempt at self-assessment for new recruits to the Excellence journey because ofthe potentially high volume of areas for improvement produced

Provides a rehearsal for applying for the European Quality Award

Provides a powerful and concise way of reflecting the culture andperformance of the organisation

Provides international recognition if successful in winning anAward or Prize

If unsuccessful in receiving an award, can still receive constructiveand useful comments on which to base further improvement

Good way of benchmarking against other ‘best in class’organisations

Scoring and score relatively robust



It must be agreed at which level self-assessment should beundertaken, whether it be departmental, in academic areas, oracross the whole institution. It could be a mix of these, asindicated in Figure 15.

Level of knowledge required to engage in self-assessmentIt is important to recognise that not everybody in an organisationneeds to have an understanding of the Excellence Model. Thereneeds to be a balance of knowledge between thechampion/facilitator and team members.

The champion/facilitator responsible in an organisation forimplementing the Excellence Model needs to have a soundunderstanding of the Model, its potential benefits, differentmethods of self-assessment, and how to use them flexibly andsensitively. A team member should be able to identify and accessthe key evidence base that is needed to undertake theassessment, but does not necessarily need to have an in-depthknowledge of the Excellence Model, although some knowledge ishelpful.

Implementation of the Excellence Model is much more successfulwhen there is commitment from senior leaders. It has beenshown that commitment is significantly greater where seniorleaders are personally engaged in improvement and learningactivities using the Excellence Model. Ensuring senior leaders areconversant with the business benefits of the model, its basicconcepts and structure, is therefore very important.

Implementing improvement plansFollowing any self-assessment activity, it is vital that actions aretaken forward, prioritised and implemented. Without this, theassessment process becomes a paper exercise rather than part ofa continuous improvement cycle. It is significant thatimprovements identified at strategic levels need seniormanagement commitment. If step-change from self-assessment isto be achieved, a balance between strategic and operationalactions needs to be achieved, rather than a focus just onoperational areas.

Embedding self-assessment as part of a cyclicprocess Self-assessment needs to be undertaken at regular intervals. 12monthly intervals appear to be appropriate as this length of timeallows for improvements to occur and trend data to be generatedand reviewed. The generation of action plans, action taken andself-assessment reviewing the improvement in performance,creates a cyclic process of continuous improvement.

The linking of self-assessment to business planning One of the main ways to ensure that self-assessment becomesembedded as part of a natural cycle, is to integrate it as part ofthe business planning cycle. Positioning self-assessment as part ofan integrated planning approach is a key benefit of using theExcellence Model. This does not mean that all business planshave to be written and framed around the Excellence Model, butit does mean that using self-assessment as part of the planningprocess can lead to a greater clarity of focus and moreresourceful and strategically focused plans.

Personal reflection

Team basedself-assessment

School/Departmentstrategic self-assessment

University Wideself-assessment

Act

LeadershipDirection

Key performanceindicators

BenchmarkingStrengths

Areas for Improvement

SystematicReview Strategic Plan

for BusinessExcellence

Process Management

Deploymentof approaches

Benchmarking

Self-assessment

Plan

Check Do

Figure 15 Assessment levels

Figure 16 Self-assessment as part of a continuous improvement process



Figure 17 Integration of the EFQM Excellence Model® withBusiness Planning

Self-assessment offers a snapshot of where an institution or teamis, at a moment in time. Resulting from the self-assessment will bea number of improvement activities, often more activities than anorganisation has the resources to address. It is necessary toidentify and address the vital improvement activities, rather thantrying to implement and resource all of the improvements thathave been identified. Grouping the activities will help theprioritisation and allocation of resources.

It is the self-assessment measurements that inform the learning,which drives the improvement actions. Only when all theseelements are in place, linked to a regular business planning cyclecan an institution, department and/or team claim that they aretruly using the EFQM Excellence Model®. This is the second stageon the journey towards Excellence.

Figure 18 The Excellence Journey - the Second Stage

3 Understanding the RADAR® Scoring Matrix

At the heart of the Excellence Model is a concept known asRADAR® Logic:

Figure 19 RADAR Logic

This philosophy embraces the thinking that an organisation needsto:

• Determine the Results it is aiming to achieve once its policiesand strategies have been implemented;

• Plan and develop an integrated set of sound Approacheswhich will enable the results to be realised;

• Deploy the approaches in a systematic and comprehensiveway throughout the organisation – across its breadth anddepth;

• Assess and Review whether these approaches are effectiveand have been able to provide the planned results, identifying,prioritising and implementing planned improvements as aresult of this analysis.

As part of the self-assessment process it is possible for anorganisation to derive a score, but the decision to use anumerical scoring system should be given careful consideration. Ifusing scoring it should not be seen as a pass or fail indicator butas an indicator of how much improvement has been made andwhere on its journey to Excellence the organisation is currentlystanding (EFQM 1999).

If an organisation wishes to be compare its performance andprogress with other organisations, it is helpful to be able tobenchmark the score from a self-assessment against other scores.Scoring can also be used to highlight where significantimprovements can be made and therefore where priorities couldbe focused.

RADAR is an integral part of the scoring mechanism for the Model.This method of assessment is used by Assessors for assessingapplications for the European Quality Award. This means that anyscores derived from a self-assessment can be benchmarked againstaward winning organisation from across Europe.

IntegratedPlanningProcess

Implementationand review

Vision, missionvalues

Self-assessment

ActionPlanning

Implementationand review

Vision, missionvalues

• Leadership• Maturity• Continuous Improvement• Strategic Integration

BusinessPlanning

StrategicPlanning

Identification ofStakeholders



Maturity of organisation

Excellence

Self-AssessmentAction Plans

Health check

Business Plans &Self-Assessment

Planning tool

Determine the

Resultsrequired

Deployapproaches

Assess &Review

Plan & developApproaches



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

4 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 sectormay by familiar with. For example, the QAA Framework and the EFQM Excellence Model® derive from different starting points andare not viewed as substitutes for each other. However using the Excellence Model can support a HE institution to meet the requirementsof external quality assessments.

Examples of the some of the differences between the QAA framework and the self-assessment using the Excellence Model is given inFigure 20.

A detailed report Mapping the QAA Framework and the Excellence Model (Steed and Arnold, 2001) has been produced and isavailable on http://excellence.shu.ac.uk

Figure 20 Examples of the difference between EFQM and QAA subject review self-assessment

QAA self-assessment (2001 Framework) EFQM self-assessment

The QAA subject review self-assessment is prescriptive andmandatory and strongly linked to public accountability in relationto academic standards and quality assurance, it is less concernedwith academic governance or management.

Organisations choose to use the Model and it can be adopted atany time, using any method, at any level over a time scale, whichsuits the organisation. The EFQM Excellence Model® is for mostorganisations a self-assessment tool intended to encourage andpromote good management practice.

The QAA self-assessment and review occurs on a five-yearlycycle.

Self-assessment and reviews occur at regular intervals, usually inthe range 6 months to two years.

The self-assessment document is submitted to QAA to provide aframework for the review.

The self-assessment documentation can be a short managementreport or a fuller document addressing all the 32 criterion parts ofthe Model.

External QAA reviewers visit the institution to review the subjectarea. The visit can last several days.

There are no external reviewers unless the organisation wishes toundertake a self-assessment using an award simulation approachor to enter a quality award.

The preparation time for assessment is between six months andtwo years.

The time for a self-assessment can be as much as several months,but this task is seen as part of the organisation’s approach tomanaging the organisation rather than adding to day-to-daymanagement responsibilities.

A final report is produced by QAA following the review. The internal team determines strengths and areas forimprovement.

Teams responsible for subject areas are required to produceinternal action plans.

Action plans focusing on improvement activities are developedand reviewed by the people responsible for securing theimprovements.


Application of Self-Assessmentin Further and Higher Education

1 Introduction to self-assessments carried out bymembers of the Consortium

As outlined in the previous section, self-assessment provides asnapshot of an institution or organisation at a specific point intime. This can be used to great effect, but – if poorly used – canresult in little more than a waste of scarce resources. Results fromConsortium members have shown that there are two factors thathave a major impact on the success, or otherwise, of using self-assessment as part of a management and planning process:

• support from the very top of the institution or unit beingassessed

• integration of the outputs from the self-assessment into businessplanning and management processes

Within the Consortium the role of the self-assessment processvaried widely. It ranged from being a core part of the businessprocess – when a Vice Chancellor directed that it should be anintegral part of the business process – through application in anumber of departments and areas, to a ‘let’s see what it can doin one small area’.

This section describes how Consortium members introduced andapplied self-assessment, and draws on these experiences toprovide pointers that may help other institutions to introduce self-assessment successfully.

2 Which self-assessment method?

Selecting a methodThere is seldom a single ‘best choice’ of method for self-assessment. Many factors impact on this selection decision.These may include: the resources available, the culture of theinstitution, the knowledge and understanding within the institutionof the Excellence Model, and the objectives required from theprocess.

Over time, the most appropriate method may change, and it mayalso be appropriate to use more than one method at once.Consortium members found that carefully choosing the mostappropriate method yielded a much greater buy-in to theprocess. It was also found that tailoring the content or intensity ofthe method to reflect the situation of the area it was to be used in,enabled areas to achieve a greater understanding of theExcellence Model than was achieved by simply adopting ablanket ‘one-type fits all’ approach. This also helped to ensurethe best use was made of scarce resources.

There are five basic methods available for self-assessment,described in the previous chapter, and Consortium members usedfour of them: Questionnaire, Matrix, Workshop, and Pro-forma.The only one not used was the Award simulation method.

Using just one methodSome members of the consortium used just one method, but mostused more than one. All four of the methods used by theConsortium were used, at one stage or another, singly.

QuestionnaireSeveral 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 thismethod data, was easy to gather and, especially whencomputerised, easy to collate and analyse. While somequestionnaires were found to be very appropriate, the languageused in several ‘off-the-shelf’ products was off-putting to staff atall levels, and the questions in some did not fit the operation orgroup that it was being used with.

The data gathered using this method identified a much widerrange of issues than would have been identified by several of theother methods, and in some instances it provided managers withfeedback on problems they were not aware of. However,sometimes the output from questionnaires was daunting and off-putting because of the large number of areas for improvementthat were identified. In some cases this led to a raising ofexpectations, where a large number of issues had been raised,which became impossible to priorities in a meaningful way. Thiswas counter-productive and off-putting for the staff engaged inthe process.

Questionnaires provided quantifiable evidence from a widerange of inputs. While the output from questionnaires was usefulfor measuring and identifying changes and improvements, itrarely helped with the identification of underlying causes. In mostcases it helped to yield an understanding of what staff opinionswere in a range of areas, but did not help to explain why, orsuggest any connectivity between the issues.

Experience from the sector therefore suggests that questionnairesused in isolation, must be used carefully, with a clear rationaleand framework for taking actions forward. Communication withstaff and the management of expectations is critical. Theperception base rather than evidence base of the informationcollected should also be considered and balanced against thespeed and relative ease of the process.

Questionnaires were found to be useful and helpful when usedalongside another assessment method, as explained in the nextsection.

MatrixThis method has been used in two institutions, with differingresults. This is partly related to the difference in type of Matrixused, and also partly related to the process through which theMatrix was applied.


Application of Self-Assessment in Further and Higher Education

In one institution a generic matrix has been used to provide agentle introduction to the Excellence Model, with the analysis anddiscussion that surrounded it often leading to the identification ofunderlying causes and the development of action plans. Theissues addressed by this method tended to be restricted to thosedescribed in the contents/statements of the matrix. In anotherinstitution, a generic Matrix was used as part of the training anddevelopment programme for staff, who were then able quicklycomplete a simple self-assessment. In this way, they began to seethe value of the Model, its application potential and its inter-connected nature. This made the theory ‘real’. In the sameinstitution, a more complex Matrix was developed particularly foruse within the HE sector. The Dynamic Matrix for Excellence inHigher Education (contact [email protected] for information) hasbeen written with statements to reflect the different criterion partswithin the Model. Also included is an area for recording,strengths, areas for improvement and actions. As all thestatements relate to the criterion parts of the Model, the scoringmethod allows for the derivation of a benchmark score out of1000 points. This has been used successfully with seniormanagement and other teams across the sector as a way ofidentifying top-level priorities. The process of engagement isusually relatively short and the learning gained from members ofthe team relatively rich.

WorkshopsThese have tended to be used in two ways:

• WITH reference to the Excellence Model. In the first workshopsparticipants were introduced to the model, and then atsubsequent workshops they undertook an assessment againstthe Model, with a score derived where requested, andimprovement plans developed.

• WITHOUT reference to the Excellence Model. In theseworkshops the focus was on key themes, such as stakeholders,the identification and delivery of key results, processes andprocess working, partnerships, culture change and leadershipdevelopment issues. In this was, a general walk around theissues that the Model highlights (as explained in theFundamental Concepts) have been explored and explainedwithout the ‘constraint’ of the Model. In some cases, the Modelwas presented as a summary to bring together the areasdiscussed.

The workshops were found to be effective ways of undertakingdetailed discussion and exploration of issues and problems thatparticipants were aware of. In some instances differentworkshops were used for different categories of staff; someparticipants in the workshops found this to be divisive, but onother occasions – such as when some of the key issues onlyaffected one category of staff – segregated workshops wereconsidered appropriate. Workshops delivered in a series (for

example three morning workshops over three weeks) have beenhelpful in making the concepts accessible to staff (not toointensive in one time period), with time for reflection andconsideration in between adding to the richness of the learning.

Pro-formaThis method was very detailed and rigorous, providing a largevolume of data and yielding a number of strengths, areas forimprovement and actions. The documentation used in this methodvaried significantly in both complexity and length. When it wastailored to meet the situation of the departments or areas it wasbeing used with, there was a greater degree of buy-in fromparticipants.

One consortium member used simplified documentation, withoutscoring, to provide a ‘light introduction’ for staff who wereunfamiliar with the Excellence Model, and this was found to bevery effective. Over time, as understanding of the ExcellenceModel grew, the pro-forma was expanded and the processbecame more rigorous.

Another Consortium member used, very successfully, the reversemethod: they started with a very complex pro-forma and thenused a simplified model later. The rationale was that the complexpro-forma could be used as a vehicle to support learning aboutthe Excellence Model. Its use led to a deeper understanding of theissues and complexity that the Model unlocks, with strategicrather than operational issues surfaced. As a result of using thismethod, significant step-change improvements have been madein a number of academic and administrative areas.

The approach used in both institutions also differed. In the firstinstitution, the pro-forma was populated based on informationgained from a series of interviews. The interviewer used theinformation gathered to populate the pro-forma. It was noted thatthe nature of this approach meant that the results tended torepresent the views of the participants directly involved, and oftenthis was a small number of participants.

In the second institution the pro-forma was populated by a teamfrom within the assessment area who consulted colleagues andgathered a consensus opinion in all criterion areas. In this way,they owned the document and were able to critically self-evaluatethe information, gaining information from a wider representationbase. In both cases, however, the gathering and analysis of theevidence and information was found to be, depending upon thecomplexity of the pro-forma used, time-consuming.

Using more than one methodSometimes an institution used a combination of methods to meetspecific needs; this involved either using different methods toreflect different situations in separate parts of the business, orusing a combination of methods in a specific area because theycomplemented each other. Over time, as the situation in an



institution changed, the most appropriate methods sometimeschanged, and this was the situation for several members of theConsortium.

Different methods in separate parts of the institutionUsing a range of methods offered flexibility. It was possible tomeet the specific needs of different situations, and the differentlevels of learning and understanding. It also enabled the testingof different methods to see if they might be useful in a Higher orFurther Education environment, and provided an opportunity toexplore where richness could be gained through using acombination of methods.

Selecting the most appropriate method for a specific area tooktime. It involved identifying in each area the knowledge, timeavailable, resources, level of commitment, and obtaining a viewas to how the staff in the area saw the method fitting into theirwork. For some staff, a really detailed and rigorous assessmentmethod initially might have put them off for life, but a taster ofwhat it might unlock in a ‘non-threatening and easy to accessway’ could open up opportunities for further rigour later. This iswhat happened when staff in one academic area began by usinga series of workshops, but soon realised that there was actuallyan awful lot that they didn’t know - and they wanted a betterunderstanding – so the department moved on to a moredemanding approach. In contrast to this, in the same institution,another department chose to use a very rigorous approach toreally understand the issues, but are now using the sameapproach in a less intensive way as a checking mechanism.

Using a combination of methodsSelf-assessment methods based on workshops and pro-formascan involve relatively few people within an institution, althoughthis was very much dependant on what the whole assessmentprocess looked like. For example, the number of people engagedin one workshop, or on one assessment team may have onlybeen 9 or 10, but they may have been considering the collectedevidence from 30 or 40 people which they have collected as partof the assessment process. Several Consortium members usedquestionnaires to provide extra data from a much wider baseand thereby support either the pro-forma or workshop method.

The combination of pro-forma and workshops was found veryuseful. Pro-formas gathered a lot of detail, and this – whencarefully collated and presented – formed a good basis forworkshops where the issues and supporting detail could be fullyexplored. It was also found that follow-on workshops were usefulways of supporting team building, and encouraged teamdiscussions of strengths and areas for improvement.

One Consortium member used questionnaires to support othermethods to give the general staff in the school or department ‘avoice’ in the process. This also enabled a comparison to be madebetween the perceptions of staff and managers where two

questionnaire types were used. The information from thequestionnaires was used as a cross-check to ensure that theevidence collected (usually from managers) using the pro-formabased approach really did reflect what all staff thought.Questionnaires also acted as a communication tool with staff sothat the process and ethos of what was being undertaken couldbe communicated in a useful and inclusive way.

Ways of supporting self-assessmentsIt was generally found that the success of self-assessments grewas people began to understand the model more, and applied itmore effectively. By continually developing staff, and fine-tuningor changing the approaches used, the self-assessments becamemore effective. The use of process maps (which provideddirection and focus to the assessment process), mentoring for staffinvolved, and the provision of training and support throughworkshops all helped with this process.

Modifications to self-assessment processesThis was found useful as it enabled the process to reflect thelearning of the assessment team and the incorporation oflearning from other parts of an institution. Where a method wasnot successful, a new process or approach was devised andtested in an attempt to improve the experience. It was foundimportant to learn from the feedback and incorporate it intofuture self-assessment activities.

Champions and AmbassadorsSeveral Consortium members made use of Champions andAmbassadors, some from within their organisations and othersfrom outside. Used at the right time and with the right peoplethey were very helpful in gaining support or commitment for theself-assessment, and in convincing others to start the journey.

MentoringThis was found to be a very useful way of supporting all thosetaking leading roles in the self-assessment process. It also helpedto ensure that everyone had a common understanding of theprocess and followed the same methodology.

Process mapsOne Consortium member developed process maps for each areaundertaking a self-assessment. Instead of simply using the sameprocess map in each area, maps were modified as appropriateto reflect both the area and the people involved, and this wasfound to increase the effectiveness of the process, as well as thelevel of understanding and engagement with the assessment.



3 What knowledge and skills are needed bythose involved in self-assessments?

For an activity to be successful, those involved need to have thecorrect skills and knowledge – and the self-assessment process isno different. This section looks at the skills and knowledgeneeded by the principal groups of people who have beeninvolved in the assessment processes, and how those skills andknowledge were developed.

The range of people involved in the project across the Consortiumwas extensive, but they tended to fall into the followingcategories:

• Assessment Leaders external to the area being assessed.Responsible for agreeing the assessment method, as well assetting up and leading the assessment process. They oftenprovided 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 self-assessment activities, and facilitating at meetings.

• Senior Management Champions. Responsible for supportingand driving through the assessment process, encouraging staffto engage and commit the time and resource necessary. A keyaspect of this role was the requirement to support and agreethe implementation of actions, and the championing of theprocess amongst other senior colleagues.

• Participants within the areas being assessed. Took part in thevarious self-assessment activities, including filling inquestionnaires, discussions at workshops, developing andimplementing improvement plans and taking forward resultantactions.

Assessment Leaders external to the assessment area

Knowledge of the Excellence Model and the HigherEducation (HE) sectorIt was found that External Assessment Leaders with extensiveknowledge of both the Excellence Model and the HE sectortended to be more successful with their application of self-assessment than those with limited knowledge. Although limitedknowledge of the HE sector was sometimes an advantage – itmade the asking of ‘silly but pertinent questions’ much easier andmore likely – on occasions it put them at a distinct disadvantagewhen engaged in discussions with senior staff in the organisation.What was essential, however, was a thorough and detailedknowledge of the Model, self-assessment tools and techniquesand the interventions that the Model suggests might be useful. Inthose areas where External Assessment Leaders where able tosupport teams in not just identifying areas for action, but couldthen support the investigation and solution of these, a greaterdegree of integration was achieved.

SkillsConsortium members found that the ideal External AssessmentLeader possessed the wide range of skills normally expected ofsomeone managing a project: planning and scheduling, timemanagement, ability to keep projects to budgets and timescales,communication skills, persuasion, facilitation, diplomacy,motivation, and team-working. The ability to work with seniorpeople to set the scene and gain support – in terms of actionsand resources and not just words – was invaluable. The need toexpertly facilitate workshops and seminars was also a skill whichwas highlighted as crucial.

TrainingIt was found that these individuals needed a good grounding inthe Model through detailed Assessor Training. After this, theirknowledge and understanding of the Model and its applicationcould be extended through networking, and by acting as awardassessors for organisations like the British Quality Foundation orthe EFQM. External experts, such as members of the AdvisoryBoard or other Consortium members were also able to providesupport and guidance. Training in specific areas, such as the useof e-Pathways system, was sometimes necessary.

Assessment Leaders internal to the assessment area

Knowledge of the Excellence Model and the HigherEducation (HE) sectorIt was found that Internal Assessment Leaders needed areasonable degree of knowledge of both the Excellence Modeland the HE sector. When supported by an External Leader (an‘EFQM specialist’), a greater knowledge of the HE sectorprovided a beneficial balance. What was essential, however, wasa thorough understanding of how the assessment process fittedinto the day-to-day activity in the area being assessed. It wascritical for the Internal Assessment Leader to be able to put theprocess into a local and relevant context.

SkillsConsortium members found that the ideal Internal AssessmentLeader possessed a range of skills including those of projectplanning and management, time management, communicationskills, persuasion, diplomacy, motivation, and team-working. Theability to work with colleagues at all levels across their workingarea was also a significant benefit, building trust and support inall academic, administrative and technical areas as appropriate.

TrainingIt was found that it helped these individuals to have a goodoverview of the Model. Those who had undertaken AssessorTraining found it beneficial, although others attended lessintensive training courses. Training in the use of specificassessment methods was also critical to enable this individual tosupport others within their area should the need arise.



Senior Management Champions

Knowledge of the Excellence ModelIt was evident that a sound understanding of the ExcellenceModel helped Champions, and this was very much the preferredoption. However, the depth of knowledge required wasdependent upon the type of self-assessment approach used: forthe questionnaire, especially computerised ones, Championscould get by with relatively little knowledge. For more complexmethods, a greater degree of understanding was required toensure commitment to the process could be gained.

External Assessment Leaders found it was much harder to workwith Champions who had not received much exposure to theModel. Champions who had been assessor-trained and wereexperienced with a range of self-assessment activities generallyfound it easier to engage with and support successful outcomesfrom the assessment activities.

As one institution began to make more use of the ExcellenceModel and self-assessment, Champions have needed a greaterunderstanding of the Excellence Model and the concepts within itto support the further development, integration and embedding ofExcellence concepts into routine management activities. This typeof engagement has been viewed in some areas as key toLeadership and Management development initiatives.

Knowledge of the Higher Education (HE) sectorIt was found useful to have a good understanding of the HEsector as this gave the Champion credibility with participants. Atrusting and open working relationship with the Internal andExternal Assessment Leaders was also important.

When self-assessments were carried out in central departmentsonly, there was little need for any knowledge of the HE sector. Insuch situations it was found very beneficial if the Champions hadan understanding of how large institutions operate, had someknowledge of funding arrangements, and were familiar withdepartment-specific issues.

Successful integration of the self-assessment process intoacademic quality systems was helped by a good knowledge ofthe HE sector, its constraints and likely future direction. In thissituation it was important to have both knowledge of theExcellence Model and an understanding of the structure andconcepts of the HE Sector.

SkillsA 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 topersuade and interest other senior colleagues was alsosignificant, particularly in terms of gaining commitment to theimplementation and integration of actions.

TrainingA very useful introduction for Champions to the Excellence Modeland self-assessment was found to be either the 2-day EFQMAssessor Training course or the Ambassador for ExcellenceCourse (run by Sheffield Hallam University). Additionalexperience, such as being involved in external awardassessments, was very valuable. A range of further developmentareas was also identified as helpful, in areas such as processmanagement, benchmarking, partnership working, andintegration with planning.

Self-Assessment participants

Knowledge of the Excellence ModelThe need to have good working knowledge of the ExcellenceModel was dependent upon the self-assessment approachchosen. Some approaches required an understanding of theModel and the nine criteria, whilst others required littleunderstanding of the Model, but more about the methodology.Most Consortium members found that, even if they could gatherdata without participants being familiar with the Model, the self-assessment activities were more effective if participants had thisknowledge. Choosing a self-assessment method that supportedthis active learning was also seen as beneficial.

Formal training, ranging from a 1/2 day to a 2-day workshop onthe Excellence Model and self-assessment, was the type oftraining provided. Some Consortium members made thiscompulsory, but others offered it on a voluntary basis. OneConsortium member reported that as the institution began to usethe Model more rigorously, it was found beneficial if allparticipating staff attended the 2-day EFQM Assessor Trainingworkshop, and in this institution it was actively being asked forby participants who were interested in gaining a more detailedunderstanding in the area.

Knowledge of the Higher Education (HE) SectorAn understanding of the HE sector was found to be beneficial butnot essential. What was more important was that participantshad an understanding of how they and their department, schoolor group fitted into the institution.

In some institutions, self-assessments were undertaken mainlyusing cross-functional teams that included academics,administrators, managers and technical staff. At workshops withthese mixed groups - generally with varying degrees of interestand knowledge of the HE sector - it was found that the sharingthrough discussion minimised the need for additional training inHE Sector issues.

22


SkillsWhen dealing with small numbers of participants - such as with the workshop or pro-forma approach - care needed to be taken whenselecting staff. What was required was not only an ability to criticise the current situation and identify problems, but also the skills towork with others to explore root-causes and develop improvement plans. It was therefore important that participants had not only theability to articulate their views, but also the confidence to fight for their views in discussions. The ability to work in teams was alsoimportant.

TrainingMany of the self-assessment approaches involved working in teams, and the provision of specific training in team-working was foundto 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.

4 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 tomake improvements. This sub-section looks at approaches identified by Consortium members as being key factors in realising thebenefits from self-assessments.

Incorporating self-assessments into the business planning cycleIt was found that the greatest benefits were achieved from self-assessment outputs when they were incorporated into the businessplanning cycle. This required carrying out the self-assessment in time for the results to be available as inputs for the business planningprocess; the two activities had to be synchronised, with self-assessment becoming an integral part of the beginning of the planningprocess. When the self-assessment outputs were integrated into business plans, they tended to become either key strategic objectives intheir own right, or were grouped under a general objective ‘to improve the management and excellence of the department’. Anexample of how this has been achieved can be seen in Figure 21, which shows how one Department integrated self-assessment withinthe business planning process.

Figure 21 Integration of self-assessment with business planning in one Central Department

Senior Management monitor and evaluate

output from performanceindicators and realignplanning objectives

Board of Governors approveBusiness Plan

July

Senior Management approve Business Plan at

designated Planning MeetingJune

Submit Draft Business Planto Senior Management for

alignment with available resourcesApril

University Planning Statement issuedDecember

Executive Strategy DaysOctober/November

Local Planning ProcessCorporate Planning Process

Mid Year Review with UniverstySenior Management

February

Planning Assumptions and Risk Analysis based on management

information, self-assessment priorityactions and outcomes

September/October

Management Group Strategy DayConsider all issues.

Build corporate & operational objectives and business plan framework

October

Planning Groups(meet and report)

Half Year ReviewsJanuary

2nd Management Group Strategy Meeting

Issue Corporate ObjectivesDecember

• Planning Exchange Meetings (sections & Divisions)• Spring Budget Review (with Senior Mgt)• Ensure integrated planning in University• Staff Appraisal proces

Actual self-assessment activity

Flow of informationfrom assessment process

January - March

©Sheffield Hallam University 2003



Within the Consortium the frequency of the review of businessplans and objectives varied, sometimes it was annually,sometimes 6-monthly, and sometimes once a term. Self-assessments were carried out on a 6-monthly or 12-monthlybasis, although one institution carried them out every 2 years.

While the integration of self-assessments with business planstended to produce the best results, it was noted that not alldepartments or groups had business plans. At least onedepartment within the Consortium seemed to focus purely onfinances, with management only reacting when something wentwrong or when there was a realisation that a change wasneeded. In such instances, the outputs from the self-assessmentprocess had to be used in isolation.

Selecting action plans for implementation The normal procedure for developing action plans during the self-assessment was to review areas for improvement from theEnablers and the Results, linking them where appropriate, andthen develop Enabler-based action plans to make improvements.Within the Consortium the number of actions that emerged fromthe self-assessment process ranged from a handful to over 75.Where numbers were high the actions were grouped together bytheme, prioritised, and reduced to a manageable number –usually no more than 15.

An approach used by some Consortium members to helpprioritise and select action plans for implementation was to scoreeach action on two factors: ease of resolution, and importance tothe area. Other Consortium members used a more detailedapproach to the prioritisation task, taking account of impact,difficulty, resource and timescale. Using these approaches helpedto identify action plans that offered ‘quick wins’, as well as thosethat could make a major impact. The action plans that offeredmajor benefits tended to be longer term, and focused more onstrategic rather than operational issues.

Quick fixes’ helped to reinforce the validity and credibility of theExcellence Model approach. This was very advantageous whenthe Excellence Model was being implemented in an unreceptiveenvironment. It was also very useful to be able to demonstratethat the self-assessment is a useful management tool that candeliver positive results quickly.

Engaging self-assessment participants andChampionsIt was found that the best way to ensure that improvement planswere implemented successfully was to make individualsaccountable for the actions in the improvement plan. Often asenior manager was made accountable for top-level objectives;when there was a lot of work to achieve for an objective, it wasoften split into a series of smaller objectives with action plans thathad to be achieved at lower levels.

Within the Consortium – and, it is believed, within the Sectorgenerally – a significant number of people were found inmanagement posts for whom the notion of being responsible formaking something happen was not a notion they were familiarwith, nor was it one they warmed to. Selecting the right person tomanage an improvement plan was therefore very important.Ownership of improvement plans was generally much greaterwhen the whole process was fully embedded into the planningprocess, and actions were monitored as part of this process – theideal route.

In some instances, objectives for a department were split intolower-level objectives for sections within the department, and splitfurther and passed down the institution as appropriate. Onlonger-term projects, when individuals were responsible forspecific objectives, it was found effective to include the actionareas as part of their personal objectives in the appraisalprocess.

Monitoring progress of improvement plans was undertaken inmany different ways. Where the plan was an integral part of anareas activities, it was done though the normal managementprocess; where it was carried out as a stand-alone activity ittended to be overseen by the External Assessment Leader. In onecase, the output report from the self-assessment exercise, with allthe plans for action, was sent to the Dean’s Review Team; thisgroup reviewed all the plans, actions to date, and agreed onfurther improvement plans. Within the Consortium the frequencyof reviews varied upwards from monthly.

It was also found important for External Assessment Leaders toreview rigorously all plans against implementation timetables,and quickly investigate delays. As well as the role of ‘PoliceOfficer’, these individuals adopted a range of other roles -including mentor, guide, and director - to help keep projects ontrack.

5 Factors that did not support self-assessmentimplementation

Trained, competent and committed individuals cannot always, bythemselves, produce excellent results. Often the environment theywork in, or the activities they are involved in, work against them;this situation was very evident among many Consortiummembers. This sub-section looks at some of the factors that madeit more difficult to achieve success when using self-assessments.

A weak management cultureMost Consortium members found, in parts of their institutions, amanagement culture of ‘muddling through’ that was morereactive rather than proactive. The Excellence Model involvesforward thinking and planning, and thus the reactive culture of



HE management was a major barrier to the self-assessmentprocess; changing the culture of management is not a task thatcan be achieved quickly.

All too often senior staff failed to display leadership qualities. Thisculture pervaded several organisations: in the absence of anytraining or good role models, junior managers had little idea ofwhat they could – or should – be doing. In such situations,support for the self-assessment approach was invariablylukewarm, with a lack of leadership commitment and intention.With this background it was difficult to gain support and buy-inat all levels.

A significant number of managers were found who did not seethemselves as needing or using management methodologies suchas the Excellence Model. For many of these managers, theconcept of ownership of results and responsibility forimprovement actions was alien. Without an acceptance ofresponsibility, it was difficult to make the process work.

Sometimes there was a culture of ‘initiative chasing’ –undertaking something (such as self-assessment) because it wasseen as something that might help, or it was considered a goodthing to do. Without real commitment to the self-assessment,results were often disregarded and the potential benefits of theapproach were lost.

Negative perceptionsIn many institutions a range of perceptions existed that made theself-assessment process unattractive. These included:

• it was a bureaucratic exercise that would not help to alleviatethe ‘here and now’ pressures of achieving targets anddelivering teaching and learning

• it provided a ‘quick fix’ in some areas; this perception led tounrealistic 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 bolt-on management tool; this perception resulted in the self-assessment being seen as yet more work to do, but withoutany 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, appropriateengagement with and positioning of self-assessment is needed tomanage and deal with these perceptions.

The basic nature of self-assessmentsThere is no simple off-the-shelf package or ‘silver bullet’ thatsolves management problems at a stroke, yet managers that seeksuch a solution can be found in most organisations – includingthe HE sector. The self-assessment approach is a long-term one,and one that can involve extensive analysis and a lot ofimprovement activities.

The self-assessment is rigorous and logical, and when correctlyapplied can lead to the identification of action plans to correctareas for improvement. In addition, it can lead to animprovement in the performance of managers: accurateassessment of weaknesses and appropriately developed actionplans can help deal with the issue of managers who have beeninadequately trained or inappropriately selected.

Most Consortium members found within their institutionsmanagers were put off when they realised the long-term natureof the process, or who were daunted by the range of areas forimprovement that were identified. Sustaining commitment fromsuch 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-assessmentsSeveral self-assessment approaches produced a great deal ofdata and a significant number of areas for improvement andactions. In order to be successful in such situations, it wasnecessary to focus on the issues that were most important.Without careful management – of both the data and the resultingimprovement plan – the outcome of the self-assessment sometimeswas often despondency amongst those involved, with few benefitsbeing realised.

6 The impact of using self-assessment

Most Consortium members have seen their business resultsimprove as a result of carrying out self-assessments on a regularbasis. In these cases the self-assessment process has also led toincreased understanding, improved business focus, and co-operation – all of which are fundamental to making lastingimprovements - and it is these changes that will help to ensurethat the business improvements are maintained. This sub-sectiondescribes these changes.

Increased understandingThe use of a common language across institutions has helped thedevelopment of a better understanding of the business drivers inan academic environment. This enabled many departments andHE institutes to identify what was important to them.

The rigorous and structured approach of the Excellence Modelenabled relationships between Enablers and Results to beestablished clearly. This helped with an understanding of the linksbetween business plans and self-assessment results. SomeConsortium members found this understanding a valuablecatalyst in encouraging a change in the way people thought andoperated.

One Consortium member found that increased understanding ledto two departments starting to question the validity of the



information that they themselves had written in their businessplans the year before. These departments began to identify andunderstand the connections between strategic objectives,processes and the Results criteria.

Improved business focusSelf-assessment has encouraged individuals to focus on targetsand results, and review trends. This focus often led to a review ofroles and ways of working, and that led to the development ofimprovement plans that have helped with the attainment oftargets.

Consortium members noted that before the introduction of self-assessments many groups and departments would do whateverthey wished with little regard to the overall benefit to theirorganisation. With increased understanding, these groups anddepartments began to look at themselves as businesses –operating within the HE sector - and considered how to managethemselves more effectively. This activity often led to a re-prioritising of activities, which in turn resulted in better businessplans.

Improved co-operation and consensusThe common language and increased understanding of theExcellence Model enabled academic areas, administrativedepartments and other groups to work together in a co-ordinatedfashion to make improvements. Within the Consortium thisresulted, for the first time in some instances, in managers workingtogether and obtaining a consensus on ‘corporate’ matters; andoften these managers even accepted ownership of the Resultsareas. Thus the self-assessment approach helped individuals andgroups to work effectively together.

Prior to the introduction of self-assessments, one Consortiummember identified several Faculty Teams that were not acting asteams and that did not proactively address problems. Afterimplementation of self-assessments, the teams – now with anunderstanding of how they could work together successfully to setand achieve appropriate results – began to meet regularly todevelop and implement improvement plans.

When a new institution head took the whole senior managementoff site for a day to look at their operations, it was discoveredthat the team had never before sat down and explored togetherthe issues facing them. During the day, members of the teamwere able to discover how the outcomes of their own individualactions could work with – or against – the outcomes of theactions of the others. Now these team members have a betteridea of each other’s situations, and are working together as ateam – for the benefit of the whole organisation.

Header


Conclusions and Recommendations

1 Conclusions and Recommendations

This section looks at some of the key points learned, and drawstogether the key conclusions that Consortium members havereached based on their experiences of introducing andimplementing the Excellence Model in further and highereducation, along with recommendations to support others whoare embarking on their Excellence Journey.

Gain Senior staff commitment at the beginning – thisis vitalSupport and commitment from senior staff makes implementationof self-assessments very much easier. This is sometimes hard toachieve, but it is worth focussing on and making use of whateverresources are available to gain this support. Use whatevercombination of ambassadors and champions, presentations ortraining, is necessary to make top management aware of therichness and potential of the Excellence Model and self-assessment and thereby gain their unequivocal support.

Agree the scope of the self-assessment at thebeginningA successful self-assessment is undertaken where the scope andpositioning of the assessment activity has been agreed at thebeginning with senior managers. This will ensure that resourcesare appropriately allocated, that the assessment process chosen isappropriate, and that communication with staff is planned toensure awareness is raised and expectations are managed.

Recognise the barriers to implementationThere are a great number of barriers to implementing a self-assessment 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 ofchange. Do not expect instant results. Work with areas where thesignificance of self-assessment is recognised, and start showingresults.

Provide a gentle introduction to the ExcellenceModelIn the early stages of self-assessment implementation, the use of a‘very light’ introduction to the Excellence Model, or even notmentioning it at all, is sometimes the most appropriate approach.Too much jargon can be very counterproductive. Make sure thatany communication is in a language that those involved canunderstand and relate to. A more detailed understanding of theModel can follow later for those who wish to find out more.

Ensure staff have the appropriate skillsIntroducing self-assessments in an environment not used tochange is a very difficult task. Make sure that those leading theself-assessment activities have the appropriate skills. If they fail towin top-level support, do not meet project targets, communicate

badly, or do not work effectively with participants then thechances of successfully implementating self-assessment issignificantly reduced.

Apply self-assessments flexiblyBe flexible in applying self-assessment: one size does not fit all.The most appropriate method may vary, especially in the earlystages; make time to ensure that the method that is mostappropriate is always used. If the culture does not accept a‘formal’ or rigorous self-assessment, begin by accessing thelearning of the Excellence Model through another route. Alwaysremember that even if an initial method is successful, there is aneed to critically review its use in the future. If a light-touchmethod is used, should a more rigorous one follow, or vice-versa?

Be as rigorous as possibleUse the most rigorous self-assessment method that can beresourced and understood by the institution. The more rigorousthe method used the more meaningful the outcomes, and thegreater the opportunity for the development of improvement plansthat will deliver change that is right for the institution.

Focus on strategic issues rather than operationalareasSignificant improvements have been made when self-assessmentshave focused on the strategic drivers behind operational issues.In many instances, a number of operational issues have arisen asa result of the lack of one strategic driver (e.g. a coherentstrategy has not been in place). If only operational issues areaddressed, this usually provides a short term solution. By focusingon the strategic issues, step-change improvements can be madeacross a range of areas. A small number of ‘quick wins’ can beidentified and worked on immediately to allow immediatebenefits to be recognised.

Prioritise actions identified and group them bythemeA list of no more than 15 action areas should be taken forwardfrom a self-assessment activity. Any more than this suggests thatactions are operationally focused, rather than strategicallyfocused. Although useful, the potential for longer-termsustainability is reduced. By grouping operational actionstogether by theme, strategic solutions can often be identified. Forexample, a range of communications issues are often evident asthere is no coherent Communications Plan in place. By writing aCommunications Plan that takes into account a group of actionsthat have been identified, one action could pull together 10others. Using themes rather than grouping actions under thenine criteria also helps to identify cross cutting areas, such ascommunications.


Conclusions and Recommendations

Incorporate self-assessment into the managementprocessWork to have the self-assessment process embedded intomanagement processes as quickly as possible. The sooner self-assessment is linked in formally to the business planningframework, the earlier positive results should appear; it will thenbe much easier to sustain the approach. The next stage is to linkthis integrated framework into the academic quality system.

Understand the Excellence Model system and itsstrategic potentialIt has been clearly seen that the Excellence Model is a systemwhich contains a number of interconnected aspects - Figure 22. Ithas also been seen that self-assessment using the ExcellenceModel can yield a number of significant outcomes - Figure 23.From this there is significant opportunity for strategicimprovements to take place - Figure 24.

Plan each stage of the journey carefullyWhen moving through the three key stages on the journeytowards excellence – Figure 25, it is critical that it is understoodwhich stage is being entered. Each must be planned andmanaged carefully, with a view of where the whole journey willlead. The shift from using self-assessment as an initial checkingtool to a strategic tool takes time and effort, but has beendemonstrated as being very rewarding. The link into planningenables self-assessment to continue to be used as a health check,but positioned as part of a continuous improvement cycle.

And finally, expect to work hard, and be patient

Be prepared to put in a lot of effort, especially at the start of theself-assessment journey. Do not be surprised, or discouraged, ifresults take some time to appear, they will be worth waiting for!

CriteriaSub-criteria

Areas toaddress

Fundamental

RADAR

Concepts

Self-assessment

EFQM Excellence Model® System

Self-evaluationStrengthsAreas for improvementPotential actionsPrioritised actionsInput to business planBenchmark score


TheExcellenceModel®

System Maturity of organisation

Excellence

Personal Development

Customer and Supplier Relationship

Management

Partnership & Collaboration

Learning Organisation

Organisational Development

Process Management

Corporate Scorecard

Goal Deployment

Business Plans & Self-Assessment

Self-AssessmentAction plans

Strategic toolPlanning toolHealth check

Integration & alignment

Figure 22 The Excellence Model System

Figure 23 The Excellence Model System Outcomes


TheExcellenceModel®

System

Leadership DevelopmentBusiness PlanningProcess ManagementRisk ManagementProcess ExcellenceBenchmarkingKPI Development

Figure 24 The Excellence Model System Strategic Potential

Figure 25 The Journey towards Excellence – third stage

Header


References

EFQM (1999a) The EFQM Excellence Model. Public andVoluntary Sectors. EFQM. Brussels

EFQM (1999b) Assessing for Excellence. A Practical Guide forSelf-Assessment. EFQM. Brussels

EFQM (2000) Award Application Brochure. EFQM. Brussels

EFQM (2003) EFQM Excellence Model. Public and VoluntarySector Version. EFQM. Brussels

PricewaterhouseCooopers (2000) Report on the Evaluation of thePublic Sector Excellence Programme. PricewaterhouseCoopers

Steed et al (2003) Embracing Excellence in Education. ASummary Report of the learning gained from applying the EFQMExcellence Model® in Further and Higher Education. SheffieldHallam University

Steed, Carol (2003) EFQM Excellence Model, Higher EducationVersion 2003. Sheffield Hallam University

Steed and Arnold (2001) Mapping the QAA Framework and theEFQM Excellence Model®. Sheffield Hallam University

Header


Appendix

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.’

Criterion partsLeadership covers five criterion parts (1a – 1e) that should beaddressed.

1a Leaders develop the mission, vision, values and ethicsand are role models of a culture of Excellence

1b Leaders are personally involved in ensuring theorganisation’s management system is developed, implemented and continuously improved

1c Leaders interact with customers, partners andrepresentatives of society

1d Leaders reinforce a culture of Excellence with theorganisation’s people

1e Leaders identify and champion organisational change

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 partsPolicy and Strategy covers four criterion parts (2a – 2d) thatshould be addressed.

2a Policy and Strategy are based on the present andfuture needs and expectations of stakeholders

2b Policy and Strategy are based on information fromperformance measurement, research, learning andexternal related activities

2c Policy and Strategy are developed, reviewed andupdated

2d Policy and Strategy are communicated and deployedthrough a framework of key processes

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 beaddressed.

3a People resources are planned, managed andimproved

3b People’s knowledge and competencies are identified,developed and sustained

3c People are involved and empowered

3d People and the organisation have a dialogue

3e People are rewarded, recognised and cared for


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’.

Criterion partsPartnerships and Resources covers five criterion parts (4a-4e) thatshould be addressed.

4a External partnerships are managed

4b Finances are managed

4c Buildings, equipment and materials are managed

4d Technology is managed

4e Information and knowledge are managed

Processes (Criterion 5)

‘Excellent organisations design, manage and improve processes

in order to fully satisfy, and generate increasing value for,

customers and other stakeholders’.

Criterion partsProcesses covers five criterion parts (5a-5e) that should beaddressed.

5a Processes are systematically designed and managed

5b Processes are improved, as needed, using innovationin order to fully satisfy and generate increasing valuefor customers and other stakeholders

5c Products and Services are designed and developedbased on customer needs and expectations

5d Products and Services are produced, delivered andserviced

5e Customer relationships are managed and enhanced

Customer Results (Criterion 6)

‘Excellent organisations comprehensively measure and achieve

outstanding results with respect to their customers’.

Criterion partsCustomer Results covers two criterion parts (6a-6b) that shouldbe addressed.

6a Perception MeasuresThese measures are of the customers’ perceptions of theorganisation (obtained, for example, from customersurveys, focus groups, vendor ratings, compliments andcomplaints).

6b Performance IndicatorsThese measures are the internal ones used by theorganisation in order to monitor, understand, predictand improve the performance of the organisation andto predict perceptions of its external customers.

People Results (Criterion 7)


outstanding results with respect to their people’.

Criterion partsPeople Results covers two criterion parts (7a-7b) that should beaddressed.

7a Perception MeasuresThese measures are of the people’s perception of theorganisation (obtained, for example, from surveys,focus groups, interviews, structured appraisals).

7b Performance IndicatorsThese measures are the internal ones used by theorganisation in order to monitor, understand, predictand improve the performance of the organisation’speople and to predict their perceptions.


Society Results (Criterion 8)


outstanding results with respect to society’.

Criterion partsSociety Results covers two criterion parts (8a-8b) that should beaddressed.

8a Perception MeasuresThese measures are of the society’s perception of theorganisation (obtained, for example, from surveys,reports, public meetings, public representatives,governmental authorities).

8b Performance IndicatorsThese measures are the internal ones used by theorganisation in order to monitor, understand, predictand improve the performance of the organisation andto predict perceptions of society.

Key Performance Results (Criterion 9)


outstanding results with respect to the key elements of their policy

and strategy’.

Criterion PartsKey Performance Results covers the following two criterion partsthat should be addressed. Depending on the purpose andobjectives of the organisation some of the measures contained inthe guidance for Key Performance Outcomes may be applicableto Key Performance Indicators and vice versa.

9a Key Performance OutcomesThese measures are key results planned by theorganisation and agreed in their policies and strategies.

9b Key Performance IndicatorsThese measures are the operational ones used in orderto monitor, understand, predict and improve theorganisation’s likely key performance outcomes.

Appendix

Notes

________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________


AcknowledgementsThis publication draws on the experience and knowledge gainedby a range of institutions from with the Higher and FurtherEducation sectors, bringing together aspects of learning from theHEFCE funded Good Management Practice (GMP143)Programme that was undertaken between May 2000 and May2003.

The programme was led and directed by Mike Pupius, Directorof Organisational Excellence, Sheffield Hallam University, andmanaged 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, andCarol Steed, Organisational Excellence Manager, SheffieldHallam University have been the main authors of this publication.

Representatives from the other Consortia institutions have criticallyreviewed and added to the development of this publication. Theyare:

Sally Blunt, Assistant Principal (Curriculum and Quality), DearneValley College

Claire Browning, (former) EFQM Project Manager, University ofUlster

Tony De’Ath, 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, SheffieldHallam University

The programme has benefited from a range of other valuablecontributions from across all of our institutions. Members of stafffrom academic, administrative and technical backgrounds havecontributed their time, expertise and experience in a wide varietyof ways, which has proved invaluable in generating the richnessof evidence that can be found in our publications.

We also acknowledge and give thanks for the support fromcolleagues within our respective institutions, who have helped usto acquire, further develop and extend our collective learning, forthe benefit of others across the sector.

Acknowledgement is also given to our Advisory Board members,who have supported the programme directly and indirectly on avoluntary 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 EducationalDevelopment, 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 CabinetOffice Public Sector Benchmarking and Excellence ModelProgrammes)

Frank Steer, Director General the Institute of Quality Assuranceand 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 SectorBenchmarking Service

Header


For further copies of this publication, please contact

Centre for Integral ExcellenceSheffield Hallam UniversityHoward StreetSheffield S1 1WB

Tel: 0114 225 3344/2044Fax: 0114 225 4207E-mail: [email protected] or [email protected]

Documents

Applying Self-Assessment against the EFQM Excellence · PDF file©Sheffield Hallam University 2003 1 Applying Self-Assessment against the EFQM Excellence Model® in Further and Higher