The European Foundation for Quality Management (EFQM) excellence Model, a non prescriptive framework based on nine criteria, has been used to assess an organization's progress towards excellence. It is based on the premise that: Excellent results with respect to performance, customers, people and society are achieved through leadership driving policy and strategy, that is delivered through people, partnerships and resources and processes. Figure 1 present the EFQM excellence model.
This model does not cover the clinical aspects or the specifics of this field.
For that reason, Vallejo et al. (2006) in their
article aimed to bring the EFQM fundamental concepts of excellence closer to
health care, using a specific model as a reference to this field. Also Mehrmanesh
and Taghavi (2010) have designed an assessment model based on EFQM Model
for quality management. They found some criticisms to EFQM model that are measuring
qualitative variables by numbers and assessing activity without offering any
People and people result, criteria 3 and 7 of the EFQM Model contain job satisfaction
and work motivation. Several studies have shown that job satisfaction is not
the only high performance but it includes high motivation too (Ehrlich,
||The EFQM excellence model
The researchers has developed an instrument that contains the motivation potentials
of the JDS (the job diagnostic survey) Based on an expectancy-value approach.
Also, Kirk (1999) has suggested a new quality management
excellence model to improve organizations performance base on the EFQM model.
In this model customer and people satisfaction and impact on society are achieved
through leadership driving policy and strategy, people management and resources.
Stahr (2001) has explained an approach to implementation
and integrate a culture of quality within the United Kingdom healthcare system.
In an effort to achieve his goal he used the EFQM Excellence Model to provide
one overarching framework for all their quality initiatives. McCarthy
(2005) aimed to determine whether leadership practices vary between German
and UK organizations using self-assessment documents submitted by German and
UK organizations to the European Foundation for Quality Management (EFQM). Rusjan
(2005) has assessed the usefulness of the EFQM excellence model for decision-making
on organizational improvement activities. Researcher has done it by studying
the procedures of the EFQM model in practice and discussed some methodological
issues related to the use of the EFQM model.
Gutierrez et al. (2010) in their article proposed
a criterion for choosing among alternatives, according to the degree of development
required for the elements that structure the alternatives. For this, ANOVA analysis
and mean comparison t-tests have used that concluded that quality control is
the simplest initiative, followed by ISO 9000 and finally, the EFQM model and
Six Sigma methodology. Loh et al. (2010) have
used ANOVA to determine the significant differences of the physical and mechanical
properties of particle board produced from admixtures of rubber wood and Mahang
at different proportion levels.
Chung et al. (2008) have studied the impact
of critical success factors of Total Quality Management (TQM) activities implementation
and the impact of TQM activities implementation on business operational performance.
Ergulen (2009) has tried to determine the affect of
Information Technologies (IT) on the dimensions of TQM in production lines.
The results indicated that IT contributes significantly to TQM and to each dimension
of TQM. Jain et al. (2010) have developed a multidimensional
scale to measure service quality of higher education using exploratory factor
analysis. It has been concluded that service quality in higher education setting
comprises of twelve factors such as visual appeal, outcome, inter personal relationships,
curriculum, academic facilities and processes, etc. Ouattara
et al. (2011) have developed methods for measuring quality of fruit.
It has been shown that the image analysis of histological sections is full of
potential solutions allowing understanding the differences in texture and firmness
or crispness among the three varieties of apples.
This study has analysis the level of excellence in a construction company in each criteria of the EFQM excellence model. To achieve this objective, section one introduces the problem to be solved and in section two model of problem has been design based on model assumptions.
DESIGN OF MODEL
This company has begun its movement for excellence using the organizational improvement model. It has been assessed by EFQM model including two external assessments by INQA (Iranian National Quality Award) and IPHRD (Institute for Productivity and Human Resource Development) assessors and one period of self assessment. Using the result of these three periods of assessment, in the present study, it is explored that whether there is a significant difference in the amount of excellence of this company in any of nine EFQM criteria.
For this, nine criteria of EFQM excellence model are considered as treatments and the purpose is to analyze significant differences among the scores of these nine criteria. The μi shows the mean of the each criterion and the τi defines each criteria affect. Hypotheses of model are as below:
In other words:
Since it is expected that assessments be heterogeneous, randomized complete block design is used. Two external assessments (IPHRD and INQA assessors) and one period of internal self assessment are taken as blocks (nuisance factors). Thus the statistical model is formulated as follows:
||Indicating significant difference in amount of companys
Excellence in criteria
||Nine criteria of EFQM
||Three periods of assessment
||The scores gained in each of the criteria in a period of assessment
Table 1 shows the score of criteria in three different assessment,
self assessment IPHRD and INQA assessors. Also, Fig. 2 presents
the differences between three assessments. In the Fig. 2 we
report the assessors, on the x axis and the score of criteria, on the y axis.
As it is shown in Fig. 2, INQA assessment result shows the
higher level of excellence.
||Result of assessments by three assessors
||Score of criteria by three assessors
|1Iranian National Quality Award, 2Institute
for Productivity and Human Resource Development
But which assessment is presenting the real score of company? This is the
main question that in this paper tried to answer it. Figure 2
also shows that the score of enables in the company is more than results. It
means that this company couldnt use of its ability in a good way.
For solving the model, Minitab 15 software has been used. Result of the three periods of assessment is given to the software as entry and the residuals which are considered the main elements of calculations, are calculated.
Model adequacy checking: Before solving the model it is needed to check the main assumptions of the ANOVA modeling.
Independence assumption: Since, no disciplined and pattern is observed in residuals in time order plot, it can be inferred that observations are independent. Figure 3 shows residuals versus the order of the data.
The normality assumption: Using the normal hypothesis test and normal
probability plot of residuals and the histogram of residuals, the normality
assumption is checked. Results show that the assumption is met. Figure
4 and 5 show the result of normality test.
||Residuals versus the order of the data
||Normal probability plot of residuals
||Histogram of residuals
Equality of variance assumption: This assumption can be tested both
using the Bartletts test and the Levenes test. The statistics of
these tests is t student. The results show that the assumptions are met:
Table 2 presents the result of test for equal variance and Fig. 6 shows the residuals histogram with 95% Bonferroni confidence intervals for standard deviations.
Model results: After making sure that the main assumptions are met,
model adequacy, the significance of the difference between different criteria
of EFQM model is checked. Using randomized complete blocks design and Minitab
software, Table 3 presents the output of the model. The results
indicate that there is a significant difference between the companies
excellence in different criteria (treatment means). Also, the block design model
is a correct choice because there is a significant difference between different
periods of assessment.
||Test of equality of variance
|S = 10.49, R-Sq = 68.63%, R-Sq (adj) = 54.68%
||RCBD for assessing company excellence
|S = 8.879, R-Sq = 80.04%, R-Sq (adj) = 67.56%
After realizing the significant difference between EFQM criteria, discovering
different criteria and analyzing its reasons is important.
RECOGNIZING DIFFERENT CRITERIA
For determining different criteria, the means comparisons methods are used. Figure 7 illustrates the results obtained from paired Analysis of Means (ANOM).
Individual 95% CIs for mean based on pooled StDev are show as:
Pooled StDev = 10.49
It is concluded from Fig. 7 that there is a significant difference
between criteria 4, 5, 6 and 9 (top of axis) and criteria 1, 2, 3, 7 and 8 (bottom
of axis). This difference can be interpreted in this way that company has gained
higher scores in first set of criteria (4, 5, 6 and 9) in comparison with the
second set (1, 2, 3, 7 and 8). It means that the company has had a good status
in the partnership and resources? processes, customer results criteria and key
performance results but in leadership, strategy and policy, people and people
result criteria is still in the first stages of the excellence journey and needs
to develop and improve these criteria for the sake of approaching its goal,
namely an excellence organization. This result is more close to the INQA result.
It means that INQA assessment presented the real image of company in excellence
Appendix presents the results of all Pair wise comparisons among Levels of Criteria Individual confidence level = 99.75% using Tukey 95% Simultaneous Confidence Intervals.
||One way ANOM for response by criteria
In this study, the level of excellence in a construction company in each criteria
of the EFQM excellence model has been analyzed. Data which is collected from
three periods of assessment has been used. Result show that there is a significant
difference in the condition of assessments such as different specializations
of assessors, how to present the organization in site-visits, the quality of
declaration preparation, etc., Randomized Complete Blocks Design (RCBD) in Analysis
of Variance (ANOVA) has been used to homogenize the conditions of experiment.
The results of experiments show a significant difference between model criteria
in the amount of companys excellence. Using the paired Analysis of Means
(ANOM), different criteria have been recognized and results have presented at
the end of the paper.
Tukey 95% simultaneous confidence intervals: All Pair wise Comparisons
among Levels of Criteria Individual confidence level = 99.75%.
|Criteria = 1 subtracted from:
|Criteria = 2 subtracted from:
|Criteria = 3 subtracted from:
|Criteria = 4 subtracted from:
|Criteria = 5 subtracted from:
|Criteria = 6 subtracted from:
|Criteria = 7 subtracted from:
|Criteria = 8 subtracted from: