Volume 4 Number 2 July 2011 Page 1

International Journal of Excellence

In Education

Quality and Excellence Models in Higher Education

Soumaya Koubâa Postgraduate Student, Faculté des Sciences Economiques et de Gestion,

Department of Quantitative Methods, Sfax, Tunisia

Raoudha Kammoun Assistant Professor, Faculté des Sciences Economiques et de Gestion,

Department of Management Sciences, Sfax, Tunisia

ISSN 19938675

VOLUME 4 – Issue 2

July 2011

© Hamdan Bin Mohammed e-University, 2011

Page 2 International Journal of Excellence in Education

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this article is to examine the

concept of quality education within higher

education institutions and universities, and

explore the use of Total Quality Management

models, which were originally implemented

in business sector, as a means for higher

education excellence.

Methodology/Approach

This paper presents an overview of literature

showing the growing concern for quality

concept and excellence models in higher

education either in the developed or

developing countries.

This paper is divided into two major sections.

The first part presents the main motivations

for the adoption of quality in higher

education, the different insights provided by

researchers and academics about this

concept as it is applied to higher education,

and the degree of quality evolution until the

application of excellence models in the

higher education institutions.

The second part introduces the most well

known excellence models such as the

Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award

(MBNQA) and the European Foundation of

Quality Management (EFQM) Excellence

Model, which embrace the philosophy of

Total Quality Management and have been

modified for the higher education

environment. This section provides also the

literature on empirical studies and previous

experiences with the adoption of these

models in higher education.

Findings

The paper highlights the evidence for

integrating quality concept in higher

education and proves the relevance of some

business excellence models such as the

MBNQA and the EFQM Excellence Model to

this sector. The literature shows that both

models aim to provide the institutions with a

means to measure their position against a set

of universal criteria, and to identify their

strengths and weakness in the key areas of

business in order to guide them in their path

to excellence.

Originality/Value

The paper sensitizes different members such

as higher education leaders and managers,

academics and scholars with the importance

of embedding quality culture and

implementing excellence models in higher

education. This study will help the

universities and institutions to learn from

empirical studies and other experiences, and

will serve as a further reference for managers

to enhance academic outcomes.

Keywords: Quality, higher education, higher

education institutions, excellence models,

Total Quality Management, Malcolm Baldrige

National Quality Award, EFQM Excellence

Model.

Volume 4 Number 2 September 2011 Page 3

Introduction

Over the last decades, quality has occupied

more and more a central role within

manufacturing companies and business

organizations. One of the major motivators

for the quality movement in industry has

been the issue of survival. This same issue

has become increasingly important to

educational organizations as well. The

emphasis on quality has led higher education

institutions into constant pressure to

improve their practices and performance,

measure themselves against world-class

standards and focus their efforts on the

customer for them to reach a total quality

(Anyamele, 2004).

For many higher education institutions, the

selling point for implementing a quality

program was a leaner budget, as well as the

promise of higher efficiency and productivity

inherent in certain quality systems (Cyert,

1993). The idea of quality and transformation

is not a new concept to the world of higher

education. The application of business

models is also evident in higher education, as

these institutions have historically strived for

excellence and quality in academics

(Dettmann, 2004).

1. Emergence of quality in higher education

In this section, we will review the major

reasons for the concern with quality in higher

education, the different perceptions related

to quality in this sector and the evolution of

this concept until the application of

excellence models in the higher education

institutions.

1.1. Major reasons for the concern with

quality in higher education

Since the early 1980s, the concept of quality

has been a central focus of attention in the

debate of higher education. Within this

period, many countries have experienced a

growing concern for quality in higher

education, though the manifestations of this

concern and the reasons for it vary from

country to country (Anyamele, 2004).

Accordingly, there has been a good deal of

research into the subject of quality in higher

education, with well-recognized

contributions from some developed

countries such as the United Kingdom (UK),

Australia, Norway, and the United States of

America (USA), amongst others (Becket and

Brookes, 2005). Anyamele (2004) declared

that quality becomes among the most

frequently appearing concepts in scholarly

and practitioners’ discussions, and articles

and books published on quality (e.g. Garvin,

1998; Green, 1999; Oakland, 1997; Peterson,

et al., etc).

Harvey (1998), Anyamele (2004), Becket and

Brookes (2005) argue that the concern with

quality has emerged in higher education

because of the rapid changes in the higher

education environment characterized by

increased enrolments. A committee reporting

to the Commission of the European

Communities has also addressed the

question of concern for quality. The report

pointed out five factors that explain the

attention to quality in higher education. The

first factor is the societal concern about the

increase of public expenditure in general and

consequently the necessity of defining

Page 4 International Journal of Excellence in Education

priority of education relative to other socially

desired activities.

The second factor is about the expansion of

higher education system and rapid growth in

the student body (e.g. in Norway the number

of students in higher education has grown

from below 100.000 to more than 160.000 in

five years). The third factor concerns the

increased openness in most sectors of

modern societies. In other words, higher

education institutions must show the society

at large what they are doing and how well

they are doing it. The fourth factor concerns

the increased international mobility of

teachers, researchers and students and

internationalization of the European labor

market. The last factor is that extrinsic values

of higher education, the service provided by

higher education to society, have come into

focus relative to the intrinsic values, such as

search for truth and pursuit of knowledge

(UNESCO, 1998).

In summary, quality has not appeared in

higher education for nothing; it has emerged

in response to the several factors that

translate the enormous and rapid changes in

the higher education landscape.

1.2. Perceptions of quality in higher

education

The concept of quality has been essentially a

contested issue in higher education and

there are competing voices and discourses on

the concept. Quality concept in higher

education is complex (Horsburgh, 1999,

Becket and Brookes, 2005) and multifaceted

(Fazer, 1994, Horsburgh, 1999). Fazer (1994)

pointed out that quality concept has many

faces and embraces three broad aspects:

goals, the process deployed for achieving

goals, and how far goals are achieved. In the

same way, UNESCO (1998) defined higher

education quality as “a multidimensional

concept, which should embrace all its

functions, and activities: teaching and

academic programs, research and

scholarship, staffing, students, buildings,

facilities, equipment, services to the

community and the academic environment”.

Judyth (1994) and Anyamele (2004) argue

that quality in higher education is a pervasive

and elusive concept. This shows that there is

no single way to define or measure quality.

Defining quality in higher education has

proved to be a challenging task and despite

the abundance of research on the subject,

there is no universal consensus on how best

to measure quality in higher education

(Becket and Brookes, 2005).

Rowley (1996) stated that “quality in higher

education can be viewed in the form of

service quality as its dimensions or attributes

are those attributes, which contribute to the

customer’s evaluation of servicing”. Cheng

and Tam (1997) added that higher education

quality can be viewed also as a set of

elements that constitute the inputs (e.g.

students, faculty and staff members,

buildings, psychological climate, etc),

processes (e.g. programs, services, activities,

etc) and outputs of the education system

(e.g. graduate students, better learning

environment, better research and

publications, etc). This set of elements

provides services that completely satisfy both

internal and external stakeholders by

Volume 4 Number 2 September 2011 Page 5

meeting their explicit and implicit

expectations. The authors also identify both

internal and external stakeholders of a higher

education institution. Current students and

front line staff are internal constituents

whereas employers, government bodies,

prospective students, and professional

bodies are external.

Banta (1988) believed that quality in higher

education should be based on student

performance on specified measures of

development, program strengths and

weaknesses, and institutional effectiveness.

According to Anyamele (2004) quality must

be about scholarship and learning. The

author claimed that one approach to quality

in higher education should reflect the quality

of education that graduates have acquired.

Mashhadi et al., (2008) highlighted the vital

role of quality in higher education and

counted it as one of the elements of strategic

plans in such area. Scholars and other

frontline academics and managers view

quality differently. However, what is common

among these competing voices is the

recognition that quality makes the difference

between success and failure (Sallis, 1993).

The increasing attention paid by

organizational scholars to quality as a key

organizational attribute changed the focus of

quality. Therefore, quality began to take on

the appearance of the ‘highest good’ in

organizational performance. Leaders and

managers of both educational institutions

and industrial organizations became

converted to the pursuit of quality as the

single most important organizational and

institutional objectives (Anyamele, 2004).

1.3. Evolution of quality concepts in higher

education

Although the adoption of quality concept

increases more and more in the developed

countries, the concern for quality is rather

little in the developing countries and its

application in higher education is still moving

slowly. For instance, in some academic

institutions in developing countries, systems

of quality assurance and control have been

established but in different degrees of

complexity and effectiveness. In Turkey for

example, Borahan (2002) attempted to

propose a quality criteria checklist for private

academic institutions of higher education.

This checklist was expected to form the basis

for a management strategy that harnesses

the human and material resources of these

organizations in the most effective way to

achieve academic objectives.

Total Quality Management (TQM) as a

management process has equally made its

way into higher education in many developed

countries. By using the process in the 1980s,

such firms were able to improve their

business positions by overcoming threats

from global competition and other changes in

the business environment (Kanji and Tambi,

1999).

The success of the firms and others in using

TQM to bring them out of crisis encouraged

many US higher education institutions to

adopt it (Kanji and Tambi, 1999). The first

application of TQM in US higher education

was at Fox Valley Technical College in 1986.

As a result of this application, the College has

become more efficient in areas such as

placement of graduates, employer

Page 6 International Journal of Excellence in Education

satisfaction with contracted training

programs, acceptance of college credits at

receiving institutions and improvement in its

learning environment (Narasimhan, 1997).

Later, there were other US institutions which

began to implement TQM, including

University of Wisconsin-Madison, North

Dakota University System, Delaware

community College and Oregon State

University. In UK higher education the

progress of TQM is rather slow, with

examples represented by only a few new

universities. However, these institutions have

benefited from a TQM process similar to

their counterparts in the US, such as

improved student performance, better

services, reduced costs and customer

satisfaction (Kanji and Tambi, 1999).

In the early 1990s, TQM was adopted by

institutions in many developed countries and

have been successful. For example, South

Bank University, one of the largest higher

education institutions in London, has been

committed since 1992 to a TQM initiative and

recognized it as a part of its annual strategic

planning processes (Mashhadi, 2008). Since

1993, there are signs of rapid growth of

interest in TQM in higher education. This

growing interest encouraged more and more

higher education institutions to adopt TQM

models often known as “excellence models”

to excel, e.g. to achieve balanced

stakeholders satisfaction.

Some excellence models, as shown in the

following section, are adopted in higher

education context in spite of their initial

implementation in business sector. This

proves that some models have been

successfully modified for the higher

education sector.

2. Application of excellence models in

higher education

The success of the excellence models

application common in industry has attracted

the attention of theorists and practitioners of

higher education (Anyamele, 2004). Based

upon extensive researches, it has been

proven that higher education institutions

may use models based on quality awards,

such as the Deming Prize in Japan, the

Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award

(MBNQA) in America and the EFQM

Excellence Model in Europe. These models

were initially available to business

organizations only, but more recently their

scope has been extended to service and

public sector organizations, including

education. All the mentioned models provide

the basis for organizational self-assessment

and strive to adopt a comprehensive

approach to ensure continuous improvement

(Rosa and Amaral, 2007).

However, the published literature regarding

the adoption of Deming Prize in higher

education is remarkably small. Indeed, this

prize has been criticized for focusing too

much on manufacturing organizations and

thereby overlooking services organizations

(Kanji, 2002).

As the literature on the application of

Deming Prize in higher education is rare, it

would be inevitable to put the light on the

other mentioned excellence models and deal

with their application in higher education.

Volume 4 Number 2 September 2011 Page 7

2.1. Malcolm Baldrige National Quality

Award (MBNQA)

a) Presentation of the model

The MBNQA is the first well structured TQM

model that was launched by the National

Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)

under the US Department of Commerce in

1987 (Conti, 2007). The objectives of

launching the award are to recognize the

companies who are doing an excellent job in

quality management, to increase awareness

of quality as an important element in

competitiveness, to share information on

successful quality strategies and on the

benefits derived from implementation of

these strategies, and to promote

understanding of the requirements for

quality excellence (Rafikul, 2007).

During the period 1988–1998, MBNQA was

awarded to only three types of business

companies, namely Manufacturing, Service,

and Small Business. In order to achieve

performance excellence, these business

companies adopted the Baldrige criteria

known as “Baldrige Criteria for Performance

Excellence” (Rafikul, 2007). Since 1999, 161

applications have been submitted in the

education category (NIST, 2010).

Participation is open to for-profit and

nonprofit public and private organizations,

government organizations, and some

subunits, including U.S. subunits of foreign

organizations that provide educational

services in the United States and its

territories (NIST, 2009).

The “Education Baldrige” framework called as

“The Baldrige Education Criteria for

Performance” framework is organized

around seven categories of criteria:

leadership, strategic planning, customer

focus, measurement, analysis, and

knowledge management, workforce focus,

process management, and results. Each of

these categories is subdivided into a number

of items. At present, altogether, there are 18

Items, each focusing on a major requirement.

Items consist of one or more Areas to

Address (Areas). Organizations should

address their responses to the specific

requirements of these Areas (NIST, 2009).

The Education criteria are designed to help

organizations use an integrated approach to

organizational performance management in

order to try to improve education quality in

terms of delivery of ever improving value to

students and stakeholders, improvement of

overall organizational effectiveness and

capabilities, and increased organizational and

personal learning (NIST, 2009). The education

criteria provide guidelines on conducting an

institutional self-assessment based on a

detailed organizational profile and

developing a strategic plan linked to clearly

identified goals and reinforced by an

information and analysis system to collect

data and monitor progress towards those

goals (Stecher and Kirby, 2004).

The Education criteria are built upon a set of

core values and concepts: visionary

leadership, learning-centered education,

organizational and personal learning, valuing

workforce members and partners, agility,

focus on the future, managing for innovation,

management by fact, social responsibility,

focus on results and creating value, and

systems perspective. These values and

Page 8 International Journal of Excellence in Education

concepts are embedded beliefs and

behaviors found in high-performing

organizations. They are the foundation for

integrating key performance and operational

requirements within a results-oriented

framework that creates a basis for action and

feedback (NIST, 2009).

b) Adoption of MBNQA in higher education

The causal structure in the Baldrige

Education Criteria for Performance

framework is highlighted by the research of

Badri, et al. (2006). This research uses a

sample of 220 respondents from 15 United

Arab Emirates (UAE) universities and colleges

in order to empirically test the causal

relationships in the MBNQA Education

Performance Excellence Criteria.

The results of regression analysis and

confirmatory structural equation modeling

show that all of the hypothesized causal

relationships in the Baldrige model are

statistically significant. Leadership is

identified as a driver for all components in

the Baldrige System, including measurement,

analysis and knowledge management,

strategic planning, faculty and staff focus and

process management. All Baldrige

components (categories) are significantly

linked with organizational outcomes as

represented by the two categories of

organizational performance results, and

customer focus.

A number of institutions have utilized the

“Education Baldrige” framework among them

Belmont University, University of Missouri-

Rolla and Northwest Missouri State

University. In 2001, the University of

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

supported universities in the University of

Wisconsin System in the US, was the first

recipient in the area of higher education

(Dettmann, 2004). Arif and Smiley (2004)

found that UW-Stout included inputs from all

stakeholder groups as a regular part of their

strategic planning. They found that this

increased the “sense of ownership” and

reduced the resistance to change.

In late 2004, the Monfort College of Business

(MCB) located in the US (Greeley, Colorado),

became the first business school to receive

the MBQNA. So as the College began to

embrace the Baldrige Model in late 2002, its

accountability approach changed to focus

more on the needs and expectations of the

external stakeholders. As this new model

evolved, the College then began educating

these outside groups of its goals and its

progress, making sure to note that while that

group may have expected a certain level of

performance, MCB was actually thinking of a

performance level much higher. As part of

the engagement process, a UW-Stout leader

was invited to MCB’s campus in 2002 to

discuss the Baldrige system and to help

faculty, staff, and leaders evaluate the

potential impact of a Baldrige journey on the

College (Alexander, et al. 2007).

The value of adapting the Baldrige framework

to specialized needs in education has been

recognized. One example is “Excellence in

Higher Education” (EHE); a version of the

Baldrige framework especially for higher

education developed at Rutgers University

which is the largest institution for higher

education in the state of New Jersey. EHE was

Volume 4 Number 2 September 2011 Page 9

designed to address the needs of colleges and

universities, and utilizes language that is

familiar to the culture of such institutions. It is

intended for use as an assessment, strategic

planning and quality education tool for

administrative or academic units within a

college or university, or with an entire

institution. The approach incorporates many

of the dimensions typically included in higher

education assessment methodologies, such as

self-studies, external reviews, management

audits, accreditation reviews and strategic

planning.

EHE can be used to integrate or complement

these strategies. Acknowledging the benefits

of the EHE, the University of California-

Berkeley has adopted the EHE program; thus

far, it has been implemented in eight units.

EHE programs have also been conducted for

units at the University of Wisconsin-Madison,

Howard University, California State

University-Fullerton, the University of

Pennsylvania and the University of San Diego

(Ruben, 2000).

Ruben, et al. (2007) studied the value of the

Baldrige program, and more specifically the

impact of the EHE approach in six

independent university departments that

participated in separate Baldrige/EHE

assessment workshops. Through a web-

based survey and in-person interviews, the

researchers were interested to discover

participants’ perceptions of the assessment

process, the extent of knowledge acquisition,

and the extent of organizational change.

Findings suggest that self-assessment does

result in the acquisition of a knowledge and

theory base, and leads to the identification of

strengths and improvement needs. Results

also indicate that in a majority of the

departments, the assessment program

initiated a genuine commitment to

organizational change, one that led to a

number of tangible improvements.

In summary, the literature shows that the

MBNQA has been successfully applied to the

higher education context. This model is

especially used as a tool for self-assessment

with the aim of providing organizational

performance. It is also useful when it comes

to undertaking strategic planning and

achieving quality improvements within the

institutions.

2.2. EFQM Excellence Model

a) Presentation of the model

The EFQM Excellence Model is launched by

the European Foundation for Quality

Management (EFQM) in 1991. The model

was introduced at the beginning of 1992 as

the framework for assessing organizations for

the European Quality Award (EQA). It is now

the most widely used organizational

framework in Europe and it has become the

basis for the majority of national and regional

Quality Awards (EFQM, 2003). The EFQM

Excellence Model drew its basic elements

from the Japanese model, the Deming

Award, which has been in existence for

almost sixty years, and the American MBNQA

model (Nuland, et al. 2000).

The EFQM Excellence Model is a non-

perspective framework built around nine

criteria: the first five elements are addressed

as “Enablers” (leadership, strategy, people,

partnerships and resources, and processes,

Page 10 International Journal of Excellence in Education

products and services). They show the

structural preconditions of superior

performance. The other four elements are

“Results” (customer results, people results,

society results, and key results) to measure

the organization’s performance and success

from different stakeholders’ perspectives

(EFQM, 2009). These nine criteria are further

divided into 32 sub-criteria that form the

basis for the assessment and validation tool.

Each sub-criterion is a list of possible areas to

address (EFQM, 2003).

The EFQM Excellence Model is underpinned

by what is termed the ‘eight essentials of

excellence’, or the fundamental concepts.

This model believes that the achievement of

excellence requires total management

commitment and acceptance of these

concepts: achieving balanced results, adding

value for customers, leading with vision,

inspiration and integrity, managing by

processes, succeeding through people,

nurturing creativity and innovation, building

partnerships, and taking responsibility for a

sustainable future (EFQM, 2009).

b) Adoption of the EFQM Excellence Model

in higher education

The growing concern with quality and

excellence, the need to be accountable

towards society and the increasing presence

of the market in higher education systems

have made quality assessment, management,

assurance and improvement an

unquestionable reality, covering teaching,

research, services and institutional-level

approaches. Within this challenging

environment, the higher education sector

started to consider the application of the

EFQM Excellence Model as a framework for

continuous improvement (Rosa and Amaral,

2007).

In 2003, Sheffield Hallam University in the

UK, supported by a grant from the Higher

Education Funding Council for England’s

(HEFCE) ‘Good Management Practice’

program and working with a small group of

other UK educational institutions, produced a

higher education version of the EFQM

Excellence Model (Sheffield Hallam

University, 2003b). Recently, many higher

education institutions in UK, Germany, and

Turkey, and the second round of institutional

accreditation in Hungary implemented this

model and adapted it to local needs

(Campbell and Christina, 2002). It is proposed

that the primary purpose for all users of the

EFQM Excellence Model is to achieve an

outcome that is excellent in the eyes of all

relevant stakeholders (Sheffield Hallam

University, 2003b).

The EFQM Excellence Model has been tested

and applied within higher education, but

much more than this, it offers a means by

which other management techniques can be

held and knitted together in an integrated

way (Sheffield Hallam University, 2003a).

Some institutions have been recognized for

their application to the EFQM Excellence

Model. For instance, an Engineering Faculty

in a Turkish university reached in 2000 the

final of the European Quality Awards and

Runshaw College in UK won in 2003 the UK

Quality Award (EFQM).

Other institutions are applying the EFQM

Excellence Model such as Yaroslavl State

Volume 4 Number 2 September 2011 Page 11

University (YSU). This university, which

becomes one of the pioneers in Russia,

initiated the international Project “Raising

Management Quality in a Russian University”

(MANRU). The Project is run in partnership

with Sheffield Hallam University (UK), which

has been engaged in projects aimed at

enhancing institutional effectiveness for over

six years and the EFQM (Brussels) within the

framework of the European Program

Tempus. The main project goal is the

fundamental reorientation of university

management, focusing towards “customers”,

i.e. students, their parents, and employers.

The first stage for joint collaboration

between YSU and Sheffield Hallam University

was in June 2003. During this first visit to YSU

a self-assessment using the EFQM Excellence

Model was undertaken by the Rectorate. The

use of the EFQM Excellence Model ensured

the development of a clear quality assurance

system for the management of the university

at a strategic and operational level. This

showed a real need to make fundamental

changes to the management system

(Maslow, D., et al. 2006).

Many researches undertake the EFQM

Excellence Model applied as a tool for self-

assessment in higher education. Zairi (2003)

evaluated the benefits of implementing

EFQM Excellence Model in six UK colleges

and universities based on the self-assessment

aspect. The research concluded, on the one

hand, that commitment from senior

management levels and customer delivery

were the major area of concern. On the other

hand, it was concluded that implementing

the EFQM Excellence Model aided the

institutional management.

The work of Hides et al., (2004) focused also

on the implementation of EFQM Excellence

Model self-assessment in the UK higher

education sector. Otherwise, this research

described the specific issues in implementing

the model in UK higher education, with a

particular focus on the choice of self-

assessment methodology, compares and

contrasts these with self-assessment issues in

the wider public sector. The early signs are

that the EFQM Excellence Model self-

assessment can help to produce a more

customer-oriented culture in higher

education institutions, providing that the

lessons learned from the wider public sector

are put into practice.

Another research, conducted by Tari (2006),

studied the EFQM Excellence Model self-

assessment in a Spanish university. A case

study methodology was used based on five

services provided by a public university in

Spain. The findings of the research showed

the steps that one university can follow in

order to apply the self-assessment exercise in

a successful manner, its benefits, its

obstacles and its key factors such as

management and employee commitment,

and the support to self-assessment teams

(e.g. training, review). The research provides

also lessons for managers from other

universities who wish to develop a self-

assessment exercise.

Rosa and Amaral (2007) explored the use of

the EFQM Excellence Model as a self-

assessment tool for higher education

Page 12 International Journal of Excellence in Education

institutions, using as an example the results

of research conducted in Portuguese higher

education institutions. The researchers

believed, on the one hand, that despite the

apparent success of the model’s

implementation it needs to be recognized

that the scores obtained for Portuguese

higher education institutions probably

present a too-positive picture for these

organizations regarding the internal

implementation of the set of quality

assurance and improvement practices

included in the research instrument (the

questionnaire). On the other hand, the

researchers believed that the EFQM

Excellence Model is sufficiently demanding in

terms of quality practices so as to not allow

Portuguese higher education institutions to

have such a positive global score.

Another bunch of researches have exploited

the EFQM Excellence Model as a quality-

oriented approach towards environmental

assessment for analyzing higher education

institutions. For instance, the research

conducted by Mashhadi et al., (2008) has

deployed the EFQM Excellence Model for

strategic scanning of the environment of six

top Iranian business schools and positioning

them in their strategic context. This was

measured by the questionnaire and checklist

and applied for these schools. The six

institutions have been assessed in each

criterion of the EFQM Excellence Model in

both areas and their position among their

competitors has been defined. Regarding all

the research findings, it can be inferred that

the primary reason that has brought about

the high position of the first three institutions

is their customer-oriented approach and high

scores in the customer results, which is of the

greatest importance in the EFQM Excellence

Model.

Similarly to MBNQA, the EFQM Excellence

Model has been successfully adapted to

higher education sector and recognized as an

assessment, strategic planning and quality

improvement tool. The most important

difference between the two models is the

complete separation between enablers and

results in the EFQM framework.

When compared to MBNQA, the logical

model (connection between criteria) of the

EFQM model is more apparent (Kanji, 2002).

Indeed, the first element which is leadership

drives people management, strategy,

partnerships and resources. These, in turn

drive all processes and services which drive

people satisfaction, customer satisfaction

and impact on society. These three drive

business results.

It is worth noting that the EFQM Excellence

Model has a particular strength since it is a

process-oriented approach, which focuses on

student results and explicitly addresses the

performance of higher education institutions

in meeting the needs of all their

stakeholders.

Conclusion

At the end of the 1980s and the beginning of

the 1990s, the concern for quality concept in

higher education has more and more

increased and became an interesting subject.

The major reasons for the emphasis on

quality are related to the changing landscape

Volume 4 Number 2 September 2011 Page 13

of higher education environment, and

especially the growing climate of increasing

accountability.

The concept of quality in higher education is

complex and multifaceted as it depends upon

different stakeholders’ perspectives. In some

academic institutions in developing

countries, systems of quality assurance and

control have been established but in

different degrees of complexity and

effectiveness. In contrast, many developed

countries acknowledge the benefits of the

implementation of TQM within their

institutions.

Implementing TQM in higher education is the

result of the success of this philosophy in the

industrial sector. This success encouraged

higher education institutions worldwide to

adopt excellence models, which embrace the

philosophy of TQM and were originally

implemented in business or industrial sector.

MBNQA and EFQM Excellence Model are the

most popular models that have been adapted

to higher education context. An extensive

literature shows the relevance of both

models to higher education sector, and

highlights the benefits that many institutions

worldwide have drawn from their

implementation.

In addition to being used as a pure self-

assessment tool, the MBNQA can be viewed

as a set of values, framework, and criteria of

items that work as robust system for

performance improvement. In short, the

MBNQA provides higher education

institutions the ability to assess and improve

their performance. The EFQM Excellence

Model is a novel approach to do this but with

a more clear framework that distinguishes

between “Enablers” and “Results”. This

separation generally improves the use of

TQM framework in self-assessment and aids

understanding by its specific focus on ‘how’

(Enablers) and Results.

Further research could be conducted to

present the usefulness of the combination of

the MBNQA and the EFQM Excellence Model

integrated into the new quality management

model. The synergetic effects of the

interactions of the combination between

both models will have a positive effect on

increasing universities competitiveness.

References

Alexander, J. F., et al. (2007), “Performance

Excellence in Higher Education: One Business

School’s Journey”, Palmetto Review, Vol. 10,

pp. 34–45.

Anyamele, S. C. (2007), “Applying Leadership

Criterion of the European Excellence Model

for achieving Quality Management in Higher

Education Institutions”, Academic Leadership

Online Journal, Vol. 5, No. 2, July 31.

Anyamele, S. C. (2004), “Institutional

Management in Higher Education: A study of

Leadership Approaches to Quality

Improvement in University Management–

Nigerian and Finnish cases, Research Report

195, Helsinki.

Arif, M. and Smiley, F. M. (2004), “Baldrige

theory into practice: a working model”, in Joe

F. A., Timothy E. J. and John R. L. (2007),

Page 14 International Journal of Excellence in Education

“Performance Excellence in Higher

Education: One Business School’s Journey”,

Palmetto Review, Vol. 10, pp. 34–45.

Badri, M. A., et al. (2006), “The Baldrige

Education Criteria for Performance

Excellence Framework: Empirical test and

validation”, The International Journal of

Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 23,

Issue 9, pp. 1118–1157.

Banta, T. W. (1988), “Implementing

Outcomes Assessment”, in Dettmann, P. E.

(2004), “Administrators, Faculty, and

Staff/Support Staff’s Perceptions of MBNQA

Educational Criteria Implementation at the

University of Wisconsin Stout”, Dissertation,

Faculty of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute

and State University.

Becket, N., and M. Brookes (2005),

“Analysing Quality Audits in Higher

Education”, Brookes e-Journal of Learning

and Teaching, Vol. 1, No. 2.

Borahan, N. G. and Ziarati, R. (2002),

“Developing Quality Criteria for Application in

Higher Education Sector in Turkey”, Total

Quality Management, Vol. 13, No. 7, pp.

913–926.

Campbell, C. and Christina, R. (2002),

“Quality Assurance and the Development of

Course Programmes”, Papers on Higher

Education, UNESCO.

Cheng, Y. C. and Tam, W. M. (1997), “Multi-

models of Quality in Education”, in Becket,

N., and M. Brookes (2005), “Analysing Quality

Audits in Higher Education”, Brookes e-

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

2.

Conti, T. A. (2007), “A history and Review of

the European Quality Award Model”. The

TQM

Magazine, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 112–128.

Cyert, R. M. (1993), “The Ivy Leaguers”, in

Dettmann, P. E. (2004), “Administrators,

Faculty, and Staff/Support Staff’s Perceptions

of MBNQA Educational Criteria

Implementation at the University of

Wisconsin Stout”, Dissertation, Faculty of the

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State

University.

Dettmann, P. E. (2004), “Administrators,

Faculty, and Staff/Support Staff’s Perceptions

of MBNQA Educational Criteria

Implementation at the University of

Wisconsin Stout”, Dissertation, Faculty of the

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State

University.

EFQM – European Foundation for Quality

Management (2003) “Introducing

Excellence”, Brussels.

Available on

<www.efqm.org/en/PdfResources/PUB0723_

InEx_en_v2.1.pdf>

EFQM – European Foundation for Quality

Management, “European Quality Award –

Winners’ History”, Brussels.

Available on

<www.qualityaustria.ru/downloads/History_

of_past_winners_EEA_01.pdf>

Volume 4 Number 2 September 2011 Page 15

EFQM – European Foundation for Quality

Management (2009), “Introducing the EFQM

Excellence Model 2010”, Brussels.

Available on

<www.efqm.org/en/PdfResources/EFQMMo

del_Presentation.pdf>

Fazer, M. (1994), “Quality in Higher

Education: An International Perspective”, in

Anyamele, S. C. (2004), “Institutional

Management in Higher Education: A study of

Leadership Approaches to Quality

Improvement in University Management–

Nigerian and Finnish cases”, Research Report

195, Helsinki.

Garvin, D. A. (1998), “Managing Quality: The

Strategic and Competitive Edge”, New York:

Free Press.

Green, M. F. (1999), “Transforming Higher

Education: Views From Leaders Around the

World”, in Anyamele, S. C. (2004),

“Institutional Management in Higher

Education: A study of Leadership Approaches

to Quality Improvement in University

Management–Nigerian and Finnish cases”,

Research Report 195, Helsinki.

Harvey, L., (1998), “An Assessment of Past

and Current Approaches to Quality in Higher

Education”, Australian Journal of Education,

Vol. 42.

Hides, M. T., et al. (2004), “Implementation

of EFQM excellence model self-assessment in

the UK higher education sector–lessons

learned from other sectors”, The TQM

Magazine, Vol. 16, No. 3, pp. 194–201.

Horsburgh, M. (1999), “Quality Monitoring in

Higher Education: the impact on student

learning”, Quality in Higher Education, Vol. 5,

Issue 1, pp. 9–25.

Kanji, G. K. (2002), “Measuring Business

Excellence”, Routledge.

Kanji, G. K. and Tambi, A. M. (1999), “Total

Quality Management in U.K. Higher

Education Institutions”, Total Quality

Management, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 129–153.

Mashhadi, M. M., Mohajeri, K. and Nayeri, M.

D. (2008), “A Quality-Oriented Approach

toward Strategic Positioning in Higher

Education Institutions”, Proceedings of World

Academy of Science, Engineering and

Technology, Vol. 27, pp. 338–342.

Maslow, D., et al. (2006), “A Journey towards

Excellence: A University Case Study”, EFQM.

Narasimhan, K. (1997), “Organizational

climate at the University of Braunton in

1996”, in Jourdan, L. F., Jr.; Haberland, C.;

Deis, M. H. (2004), “Quality in Higher

Education: The Student’s Role”, Academy of

Educational Leadership Journal, Vol. 8, No. 2,

pp. 17–28.

NIST – National Institute of Standards and

Technology (2010), “Malcolm Baldrige

National Quality Award: “Application Data—

1988-2010”, Gaithersburg.

Available on

<http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factshee

t/nqa_appdata.cfm>

Page 16 International Journal of Excellence in Education

NIST – National Institute of Standards and

Technology (2009), Baldrige National Quality

Program 2009 – 2010, “Education Criteria for

Performance Excellence”, Gaithersburg.

Available on

<www.nist.gov/baldrige/publications/.../200

9_2010_Education_Criteria.pdf>

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

guide for the implementation of the EFQM-

Excellence model”, Environment friendly

paper.

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

Cooperation: The Essentials of Total Quality

Management”, Total Quality Management,

Vol. 8, Nos. 2 & 3, pp. 31–35.

Peterson, M., et al. (1995), “Total Quality

Management in Higher Education: From

Assessment to Improvement”, 3rd Edition,

Ann Arbor: Centre for the Study of Higher

Education and Postsecondary Education,

University of Michigan.

Rafikul, I. (2007), “MBNQA criteria in

education: Assigning weights from a

Malaysian perspective and proposition for an

alternative evaluation scheme”, International

Transactions In Operational Research”, Vol.

14, pp. 373–394.

Rosa, M., and Amaral, A. (2007), “A Self-

assessment of Higher Education Institutions

from the Perspective of the EFQM Excellence

Model”, Quality Assurance in Higher

Education, Vol. 20, pp. 181–207.

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

Higher Education”, in Kachakoch K. (2008),

“Composite Indicators for Educational Quality

Management for a Masters Degree Program

in Educational Administration in Private

Higher Education Institutions in Thailand”,

Dissertation, School of Education, Faculty of

Arts, Education and Human Development,

Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia.

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

impact of organizational self-assessment in

higher education: The Malcolm

Baldrige/Excellence in Higher Education

framework”, Leadership & Organization

Development Journal, Vol. 28, No. 3, pp. 230–

250.

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

Baldrige Framework for Self-Assessment and

Improvement in Education: The Rutgers

Excellence in Higher Education Program”,

Higher Education Forum, The center for

organizational Development and Leadership,

Rutgers University.

Sachs, J. (1994), “Control or Empowerment:

Quality in Higher Education in Australia”,

paper presented at the 34th Annual Forum of

the Association for Institutional Research,

New Orleans, Louisiana, May 29–1 June.

Sallis, E. (1993), “Total Quality Management

in Education”, in Anyamele, S. C. (2004),

“Institutional Management in Higher

Education: A study of Leadership Approaches

to Quality Improvement in University

Management–Nigerian and Finnish cases”,

Research Report 195, Helsinki.

Sheffield Hallam University (2003a), “EFQM

Excellence Model Higher Education Version

Volume 4 Number 2 September 2011 Page 17

2003 (Adapted from the EFQM Excellence

Model 2003 Public and Voluntary Sector

version)”, Sheffield Hallam University.

Available on

<www.csuchico.edu/vpaa/.../EFQM_Version_

2003_Model.pdf>

Sheffield Hallam University (2003b),

“Embracing Excellence in Education: A

summary of Learning Gained from Applying

the EFQM Excellence Model in Further and

Higher Education”, Sheffield Hallam

University.

Available at:

<http://excellence.shu.ac.uk/publications/pu

blications.asp>

Stecher, B. and Kirby, S. N. (2004),

“Organizational Improvement and

Accountability: Lessons for Education from

Other Sectors”, Rand Corporation, Rand

Education (Institute).

Tarí, J. J. (2006), “An EFQM model self-

assessment exercise at a Spanish university”,

Journal of Educational Administration, Vol.

44, Issue 2, pp. 170–188.

UNESCO (1998), “Higher Education in the

Twenty-First Century: Vision and Action”,

Proceedings of World Conference on Higher

Education, Paris: UNESCO.

Zairi, M. (2003), “The European Excellence

Model: Its Applicability in a Higher Education

Context”, The International Journal of

Excellence in Education, Vol. 1, Issue 1.