Implementation Of European Foundation Quality Management (EFQM) Model In Higher Education Institution: Benefits And Difficulties

Author(s):

Anneli Lorenz(presenting / submitting)Toomas Haldma

Conference:

ECER 2014

Network:

11. Educational Improvement and Quality Assurance

Format:

Paper

Session Information

11 SES 05 B, External and Internal Evaluation of Educational Effectiveness

Paper Session

Time:

2014-09-03

11:00-12:30

Room:

B232A/B Sala de Aulas

Chair:

Andra Fernate

Contribution

The European Foundation Quality Management Excellence Model (further referred as EFQM) is the most popular quality tool in Europe used by more than 30,000 organisations from different fields (e.g. within private as well as public sector, including higher education institutions, further HEI’s) to improve organisation`s performance. For example, in different contexts EFQM has been used as a self-assessment tool, a way to benchmark with other organisations and/or as a guide to identify areas of improvement. The implementation of the EFQM enables to reach a holistic view about an institution’s functions, as well as its strengths and weaknesses, which in turn allow identifying bottlenecks and therefore improve the organisation’s processes. In order to improve the results of an organisation, self-assessment and continuous improvement must be approached in a systematic and sustainable way.

When implementing the EFQM it is important to assure the whole organisation staff involvement. This allows enhancing employees’ awareness of the importance of quality, raises understanding and awareness of quality-related issues, improves organisation`s results, promotes understanding about the importance of self-assessment. Participation in implementation process also helps to develop organisational learning within the organisation, giving the organisation feedback on its strengths and areas for improvement (Ritchie and Dale 2000, Dale 2003, Leonard and McAdam 2003b, Farana 2007). In sum, to get positive results and implement EFQM successfully, commitment of the organisation's top management, leadership and teamwork is required (Tari 2010, Oakland 2003).

Despite the model that is going to be used difficulties arise so it is important to understand the areas that need to be addressed at early stage of implementation. According to former studies main highlighted difficulties could be; large variation in assessment procedures within the organization, (accreditation, auditing, etc.) (Martinez-Lorente et al. 2000); lack of staff commitment, time consumed in the process, not knowing where to start, lack of resources, support by the quality unit, and lack of commitment by the management (Ritchie and Dale 2000, Osseo-Asare and Longbottom 2002). In addition, the model is incomprehensible at first sight (albeit in philosophy but not in methods or techniques used), and prior knowledge as well as deliberate strategy required for its successful implementation is needed; (Osseo-Asare and Longbottom 2002). Moreover, if no framework for strategic quality management exists, it is difficult to develop a beneficial and functional quality assurance system (Leonard and McAdam 2003a). Stringham (2004) emphasised that organisational quality management should be a lifestyle that is connected to organisational culture and this starts with the management taking the lead.

In sum, it could be concluded/summarised that the focus of the EFQM model implementation should not be achieving high organisational performance score, but how the implementation process is executed. Therefore, today the questions is not whether the EFQM should be implemented as a base of to higher education quality management model, but how the implementation is executed from the very beginning and what benefits and difficulties are associated with the implementation process.

Following this line of thought, the aim of this presentation is to compare the benefits and difficulties that were risen from the usage of EFQM model among 17 HEI’s in Estonia. Based on the case study methodology, the paper shows that despite the size of organization, benefits and difficulties can be the same, but it’s influence can be different, so it is important to take the size of HEIs into account. The results of present study will be presented through the feedback of participating institutions team and assessor on the implementation process of EFQM.

Method

Context From year 2009 till 2012, the three-year long project was carried through in Estonia (Quality Management in Higher Education Institutions funded by EU), during what the development of quality management system was supported (reason was the implementation of institutional accreditation that started in 2011) and which was based on the model of EFQM. Sample 17 HEIs (three universities, five structural units of the universities and nine applied science university) took part in the project. Altogether, more than 150 representatives from HEI’s participated. Every HEI had its own assessor team which consisted of 5 to 11 people. 102 assessors took part in the project. Altogether, feedback was given by 141 people, who all participated in the project. Method A multiple-case study has been used to highlight the most important results from the project. In this case study we use qualitative and quantitative evidence (Johnson & Christensen, 2010; Tari, 2010; Tari & Madeleine, 2010; Yin 2009). Data was collected by using feedback questionnaires (from the representatives of HEI’s and the assessors) as well as written feedback that was received from the staff (HEI’s and assessors teams) at the final seminars. The feedback questionnaire comprised both closed questions with feedback given on a 5-point Likert scale (1 being the lowest and 5 the highest level of satisfaction) and open questions giving the respondent an opportunity to explain his/her views. 5-point Likert scale was used to evaluate the satisfaction of the participants of the processes. For making conclusions and generalisations the average scores of answers were used. Also, open questions that gave answers to our research questions were analysed. The questionnaires were carried out via Internet after the end of the processes. The feedback, that was written by the representatives at the final seminars, consisted of two open questions – what was the most and least beneficial sides of the implementation of model during the project. In this study all the feedback from representatives of HEI and assessors are collected and HEIs results were compared to one another. Questions that were presented to the representatives of HEIs and assessors were comparable to one another and were connected to the implementation of EFQM, – addressing what were difficulties and benefits for using this model and does it depends on the size of the organization. Project was based on the EFQM Excellence Model Award simulation and had similar structure.

Expected Outcomes

One of the most important result of the project was, that the representatives of the HEI’s and assessors considered the same factors (e.g. training to understand the terms and basics of quality management; leading of the organisation's top management is the key for implementation; outer support from experts who know the model; the adjustment of model according to the specific needs of HEI) to be important in the implementation of EFQM. The difficulties of implementation of EFQM were brought out as follows: application of EFQM is time-consuming, uses a lot of resources (human as well as financial), does not have suitable vocabulary for higher education, and the leaders have the lack of knowledge and dedication. Differences of implementation can be brought out depending on the size of HEI. In smaller HEIs (the total number of students 300-1500) the movement of information was much faster and the understanding and implementation of EFQM was considered much easier. It can be said, that most managers from HEIs’ took part in the project (12 out of 17), which was really important for the implementation of model. But it can be marked, that more substantial and targeted participation of managers were among smaller HEIs. The key in implementation of EFQM in HEIs was the outer support from experts and the trainings in terminology of quality management. In larger HEIs (with more than 10 000 students), a question was risen, how to reach everybody, since every members’ knowledge and contribution is important. In conclusion, it can be said that knowing all the benefits and difficulties of different quality management systems or implementation of models, allows us to create systems that work in higher education institutions.

References

1. Dale, B. (2003). Managing Quality (4th ed.), UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Oxford. 2. Farana, R. (2007). The Excellence System Application in Higher Education. Coimbra. International Conference on Engineering Education (ICEE). 3. Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. (Eds.). (2010). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches. Retrieved from http://books.google.ee/books?id=b2ujHWrRpVQC&pg=PA607&lpg=PA607&dq=Johnson,+B.+and+Christensen,+L.&source=bl&ots=ip23e37caZ&sig=iRmk-8EIyhy0jAXU0RvZ2vxNeJg&hl=et&ei=q7qZTfiPH9GeOuStnLQH&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CFUQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=Johnson%2C%20B.%20and%20Christensen%2C%20L.&f=false 4. Leonard, D., McAdam R. (2003)a. An evaluative framework for TQM dynamics in organizations. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 23(6), pp. 652-677. 5. Leonard D., McAdam, R. (2003)b. Impacting organizational learning: the training and experiences of quality award examiners and assessor. Journal of European Industrial Training, 27(1), pp. 16-21. 6. Ritchie, L., Dale, B.G. (2000). Self-assessment using the business excellence model: a study of practice and process.. International Journal of Production Economics, 66(3), pp. 241-254. 7. Martinez-Lorente, A.R., Dewhurst, F.W., Gallego-Rodriguez, A. (2000). Relating TQM, marketing and business performance: an exploratory study. International Journal of Production Research, 38(14), pp. 3227-3246. 8. Oakland, J.S. (2003). Total Quality Management, text with cases (3rd ed.),. Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann. Oxford pp. 483. 9. Osseo-Asare, E., Longbottom, D. (2002). The need for education and training in the use of the EFQM model for quality management in UK higher education institutions. Quality Assurance in Education, 10(1), pp. 26–36. 10. Ritchie, L., Dale, B.G. (2000). Self-assessment using the business excellence model: a study of practice and process. International Journal of Production Economics, 66(3), pp. 241-254. 11. Stringham, S. H. (2004). Does quality management work in the public sector. Public Administration and Management: An Interactive Journal, 9(1), pp. 182-211. 12. Tari, J. J. (2010). Self-assessment processes: The importance of follow-up for success. Quality Assurance in Education: An International Perspective, 18(1), 19-33. 13. Tari, J. J., & Madeleine, C. (2010). The EFQM self-assessment processes in HEIs in Spain and in Jordan. Online Submission, US-China Education Review,7(7), 65-74. 14. Yin, R.K. (2009). Case Study Research. Design and Methods (4th ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc.

Author Information

Anneli Lorenz (presenting / submitting)

University of Tartu

Tartu

Toomas Haldma

University of Tartu, Estonia

Search the ECER Programme

Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
Search for authors and in the respective field.
For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.