The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0968-4883.htm

Enablers of the
Using enablers of the EFQM EFQM model
model to manage institutions
of higher education
99
Arturo Calvo-Mora, Antonio Leal and José L. Roldán
Department of Business Administration and Marketing, Faculty of Business
and Economic Science, University of Seville, Sevilla, Spain

Abstract
Purpose – To analyse the implicit relationships among enabler agents of the European excellence
model to serve as a framework for the management and improvement of the quality in higher
education institutions.
Design/methodology/approach – The hypotheses set out are based on the structure and meaning
of the EFQM model and a review of the TQM literature. The empirical study was developed in
111 Spanish public university centres, and used the partial least squares (PLS) technique to test these
hypotheses.
Findings – The results achieved support the relationships hypothesized and indicate the role of enabler
agents as a basis for establishing a management model that leads universities towards excellence.
Research limitations/implications – The main limitation is related to the notion of causality.
Our study has considered a soft modelling approach directed more towards prediction than causality.
Practical implications – The role of senior management stands out among the key activities.
The top management leads the excellence development of key processes in the university through
appropriate leadership, strategy formulation, establishment of partnerships, resource allocation, and
human resources management.
Originality/value – The current work is one of the first studies dealing with the testing of implicit
relationships set out by the EFQM model among enablers. The comprehension of these relationships
provides a guide to implement, develop, assess and improve higher education institutions.
Keywords Total quality management, Higher education,
European Foundation for Quality Management, Least square approximation, Spain
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
Nowadays, higher education institutions face important challenges such as expansion of
systems, necessity of responding to diverse social demands, increase of educational
spending, and the need to adapt to the new age of information and knowledge. Thus, the
universities get an opportunity for showing their ability to adapt, and their social and
intellectual leadership confronting this new environment creatively and innovatively. In
any case, the universities must accept the challenge of developing quality in their
operations in order to be able to accomplish these actions (Quintanilla, 1999).
From the 1990s, being aware of this challenge, one of the emphases of the higher
education policies among most European countries has been to stress quality
improvement. On account of these policies, different approaches have been adopted for Quality Assurance in Education
Vol. 14 No. 2, 2006
the introduction of quality management in universities, such as self-assessment and pp. 99-122
external assessment of the institutions, accreditation and certification systems, and q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0968-4883
different models of TQM (Wiklund et al., 2003). DOI 10.1108/09684880610662006
QAE TQM presents a strategic option and an integrated management philosophy for
14,2 organisations, which allows them to reach their objectives effectively and efficiently,
and to achieve sustainable competitive advantage (Goldberg and Cole, 2002). Their
implementation is based on the European excellence model of the European
Foundation for Quality Management (EFQM) which provides a European context.
In Spain, the First National Plan for the Assessment of Quality in Universities in
100 1995, and the Second Plan in 2002, aimed at establishing a series of indicators that gave
information about the quality level of processes, products and services in the centres of
higher education. Three assessment guides, known as “protocols” emerged from these:
plans for teaching, research and management (the last one clearly inspired by the
EFQM model).
In this context, the current work aims to test and validate the implicit relationships
among the agents that make-up the EFQM excellence model. This relationship
framework lays the foundations for actions that could be developed by the universities
in order to achieve excellence in management. Moreover, this framework can be useful
as an assessment tool, because it offers a profile of strong and weak points in key areas
of the administration of these institutions.
To achieve these objectives, this study begins with a review of the frequently used
TQM implementation frameworks in the higher education field. Subsequently, the
enablers or the key implementation factors that shape the EFQM excellence model are
described, putting forward and justifying the hypotheses or relationships among them.
Subsequently, the empirical work and the methodology are presented, to derive the
main conclusions from the study.

Frameworks for TQM implementation in higher education

There is a body of work that tries to describe and justify how principles and practices
of quality management can help improve universities (Biehl, 2000; Kanji et al., 1999;
Montano and Glenn, 1999; Spanbauer, 1995; Weller, 2000). The main conclusions of
these works centre around two aspects. Firstly, the feasibility of using quality
management in the educational context. Secondly, the effectiveness of this
management approach for the improvement of educational institutions in areas such
as planning, human resources, resource administration, and educational and
administrative process management.
On the other hand, there are other works which tend to lean on the contributions of
quality “gurus” such as Deming, Juran, or Crosby. This is the case with studies such as
Allen (1997), Cullotta and Gonzales (1997), Kosaku (1994), Landesberg (1999) and
Martin (1998). These contributions try to show how the doctrines of the great teachers
can be transferred from the industrial to the education field, helping to transform the
educational institutions.
Finally, there are works attempting either to offer models for TQM implementation
(Grant et al., 2002; Mergen et al., 2000; Michael et al., 1997; Pires Da Rosa et al., 2003)
or to base themselves on existing excellence models, such as the Malcolm Baldrige
National Quality Award or the EFQM excellence model. The works of Detert and
Jenni (2000), Evans (1997), Farrar (2000), Goldberg and Cole (2002), Johnson (1996),
Osseo-Asare and Longbottom (2002), Winn and Cameron (1998) and Zink and Schmidt
(1995) can be considered as examples of excellence models applied to the educational
field. This study is framed in this last research approach.
Relationships between enablers in the EFQM model Enablers of the
The EFQM excellence model is a non-prescriptive framework that establishes nine EFQM model
criteria, which any organisation can use to assess the progress towards excellence.
These nine criteria are divided between enablers and results.
Our model (Figure 1) proposes that there is an inner logic interconnecting the EFQM
model’s agents. Thus, in order to achieve efficient implementation of TQM, it is not
enough to implement actions in isolated areas: there is a need to coordinate efforts that 101
affect the managers, policy and strategy, resources management and alliances, and key
process management.
In the EFQM model, enablers or agents define what organisations do in order to
achieve excellence. Specifically, it is to do with activities related to the leadership of the
directors, the management of human and material resources, as well as process
management. Moreover, these activities are not independent: they must be
implemented together and in a coordinated fashion. Next, the variables that
comprise the model are defined, the relationship (two by two) between these variables
is established by proposing hypotheses, and these hypotheses are supported by the
theoretical and empirical references provided by the TQM literature.

Leadership
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 (EFQM, 2003).
The management’s commitment and leadership in quality must be visible, permanent
and present at all management levels (Dean and Bowen, 1994), since it acts as the guide
and promoter of the TQM implementation process. Nevertheless, to be successful, one
has to move into action. Here, investment in human, material and financial resources
supporting the achievement of the objectives and the development of policies and
strategies becomes indispensable (Pires Da Rosa et al., 2003). Moreover, the involvement

People
Management

H3
H1a
H2a

Leadership & H1b Policy & H2c Process

Commitment Strategy Management

H2b
H1c
H4
Figure 1.
Partnerships
& Resources Research model and
hypotheses
QAE of the entire workforce must be fostered and their efforts directed towards improvement
14,2 recognised.
The above aspects are confirmed by empirical studies conducted by some authors
such as Eskildsen and Dahlgaard (2000) or Flynn et al. (1994), which demonstrate
the significant positive correlation between leadership and the other key TQM
implementation factors. From the above, we can extract the following research
102 hypotheses:
H1a. The leadership of the management has a positive influence on people
management.
H1b. The leadership of the management has a positive influence on policy and
strategy.
H1c. The leadership of the management has a positive influence on partnerships
and resources.

Policy and strategy

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 (EFQM, 2003).
Policy and strategy must be put into practice through the deployment of the key
processes, suitable policy and staff management, and through the establishment of
partnerships (Winn and Cameron, 1998).
The theoretical and empirical literature studied focuses on the development and
implementation of specific quality policies and strategies (Saraph et al., 1989), and on
how these should be integrated into the organisation’s policies and strategies (Wilson
and Collier, 2000). Other studies make no explicit reference to policy and strategy but
analyse it as a fundamental aspect within other dimensions such as the “shared vision”
(Dow et al., 1999). This includes aspects such as the establishment in the organisation
of strategic planning processes encompassing the points of view and requirements of
internal and external customers.
Detert and Jenni (2000) speak of a “system thinking” which requires all members of
the organisation to take into account how their actions affect those of other people in
the university institution. In a centre of higher education, this overall vision may be
demonstrated using clear goals shared by all: professors, students and managers.
These goals must take shape in all the activities of the university via the strategic
planning process (Zink and Schmidt, 1995). From the above, we can extract the
following research hypotheses:
H2a. Policy and strategy have a positive influence on people management.
H2b. Policy and strategy have a positive influence on partnerships and resources.
H2c. Policy and strategy have a positive influence on process management.

People management
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 Enablers of the
way that motivates staff and builds commitment to using their skills and knowledge for the
benefit of the organisation (EFQM, 2003). EFQM model
The importance of this yardstick is emphasised by Ahmad and Schroeder (2002) who
note that human resource management is the cornerstone on which an important part
of the success of TQM rests, since the quality improvement process is one of
organisational learning based on people. Essential activities for people management 103
include appropriate selection, reward and professional development (Flynn et al., 1994),
the establishment of training plans (Gatewood and Riordan, 1997), the commitment to
and involvement with quality (Ahire et al., 1996), or the establishment of an effective
communication system (Zink and Schmidt, 1995). In the education field, Detert and
Jenni (2000) and Osseo-Asare and Longbottom (2002) emphasise the role of training as
a key factor and imply the continuous acquisition of new knowledge and skills by all
employees.
In short, an appropriate personnel recruitment and selection policy, along with a
workforce which is trained, involved and committed to quality and to the improvement
of the activities of the organisation must have an effect on performance and
improvement of the organisation’s key processes. This leads to achievement of better
results.
From the above, we can extract the following research hypothesis:
H3. People management has a positive influence on process management.

Partnerships and resources

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 (EFQM, 2003).
The importance of relationships with suppliers and the management of tangible and
intangible resources is an aspect frequently addressed in the literature on quality
management (Eskildsen and Dahlgaard, 2000). In the field of higher education,
resource and partnership management is not a subject that is particularly discussed in
the literature. In spite of this, universities, like any other organisation, must optimise
the scarce resources they have, and appropriately manage the suppliers of specific
inputs which represent a significant cost in budgetary terms (Osseo-Asare and
Longbottom, 2002; Pires Da Rosa et al., 2003). This will lead to better and more efficient
management of their processes or key activities. Eskildsen and Dahlgaard (2000), in an
empirical analysis of the EFQM model, discovered a significant positive relationship
between partnership management and key process management.
From the above, we can extract the following research hypothesis:
H4. Partnership and resources have a positive influence on process management.

Process management
Excellent organisations design, manage and improve processes in order to fully satisfy, and
generate increasing value for, customers and other stakeholders (EFQM, 2003).
QAE Analysing the structure of the relationships in the EFQM model, process management
14,2 appears to be the link between the other agents and the results. The key processes of a
higher education centre will not be the same as those in other organisations, but once
they have been identified, there should be no differences in terms of their management
and improvement (Zink and Schmidt, 1995). The key processes are considered to
be those that have a significant effect on the critical results for a given organisation
104 (Kanji and Tambi, 1999). In universities, these processes are identified by Zink and
Schmidt (1995) and Pires Da Rosa et al. (2003) as the processes of administration and
service, teaching and learning, and research.

Methodology
The data were obtained using a questionnaire following the self-assessment
philosophy of the EFQM model. The questionnaires were addressed to the senior
staff at the universities. The unit of analysis was the operational centre, i.e. faculties
and university schools, since it groups together administrative and managerial tasks,
along with other aspects related to teaching and the provision of services to the
university community.

Pilot study
A first version of the questionnaire was sent to ten professors with experience in the
quality area and to a dean and deputy-dean who had participated in quality
assessments of their centre. Our objective was to establish the content validity of the
measurement instrument. One week after the questionnaire had been sent, interviews
were conducted to get these individuals’ comments. These were later incorporated into
the final questionnaire (Table II).

Sample
The population studied was formed by 346 centres of Spanish public universities
evaluated under the National Plan for the Assessment of Quality in Universities
executed in 1996, 1998, 1999 or 2000. A random stratified sample was developed, with
the allocation being proportional to the number of centres in each university so as to
obtain representative samples of each stratum. The study considered a confidence level
of 95 per cent, a sample error of 5 per cent and p ¼ q ¼ 0:5:[1] From this, the optimal
sample size ought to be 186 university centres[2]. The number of returned
questionnaires was 119, of which 8 had to be eliminated because they had not
been completed correctly. As a result, the number of valid questionnaires was
111 representing a response rate of a little over 32 per cent of the population. The
sample error obtained with the final sample is 7.76 per cent[3]. The characteristics of
the sample are set out in Table I.

Measures
In order to measure the key implementation factors, we took the EFQM model as a
reference, plus an adaptation of this model for the field of higher education developed
by the Club Gestión de Calidad (Quality Management Club), an EFQM partner in
Spain. In this respect, the information included in the EFQM model is appropriate for
developing measurement scales for the nine criteria included in this framework
(Eskildsen and Kanji, 1998) (Table II).
 Enablers of the
Frequency Percentage
EFQM model
Profile of the surveyed individuals
Dean 53 47.7
Deputy-dean 29 26.1
Director of University School 15 13.5
Other senior positions 14 12.6 105
Total 111 100.0
Type of study
Bio-health or health sciences 11 9.9
Experimental Sciences 16 14.4
Social and legal sciences 32 28.8
Humanities 20 18.0
Technical studies 31 27.9
Non declared 1 0.9
Total 111 100.0
Experience in quality
1-3 years (low experience) 42 37.8
4-6 years (medium experience) 46 41.4
. 6 years (high experience) 23 20.7 Table I.
Total 111 100.0 Sample’s characteristic

Each scale was reviewed using factor analysis in order to establish its
unidimensionality, i.e. that only one trait or latent concept was being measured by
the various indicators (items) that comprised each scale tested (Hair et al., 1998:
glossary; Henard, 2000). Based on the constitutive definition of the EFQM variables
applied to a university context presented earlier, the process management variable was
designed as a second-order factor. This implies that this higher order variable is
measured by a number of first-order latent variables (LV) or dimensions, that is to say,
standards LVs with measured indicators. Therefore, this second-order factor is not
directly connected to any indicators (Chin, 1998b). Consequently, we mapped a group
of first-order factors or dimensions (i.e. educational, research and administrative
processes variables) with respect to this higher level construct (process management
variable) (Figure 2).

Data analysis and results

Partial least squares
The research model shown in Figure 1 was tested using partial least squares (PLS), a
multivariate analysis technique for testing structural models (Wold, 1985). As a
structural equation modelling tool, PLS simultaneously allows the assessing the
reliability and validity of the measures of theoretical constructs and the estimation of
the relationships among these constructs (Barclay et al., 1995). This method is
primarily intended for causal-predictive analysis in which the problems explored are
complex and theoretical knowledge is scarce. PLS is an appropriate technique to use in
a theory development situation (Wold, 1979), such as this research. We have used
PLS-Graph software version 3.00 (Chin, 2003).
Process management has been represented as a second-order factor because it is
measured by three first-order factors or dimensions: educational, research and
administrative processes variables. Following this approach, we have had to make
QAE Agent/enablers and indicators
14,2
Leadership
ld1 They develop the centre’s mission, vision and values
ld2 They communicate the mission, vision and values to all levels of the
centre
ld3 They improve their actions, making them fit in with the centre’s
106 present and future needs
ld4 They design an organisational structure (neither a teaching nor a
research one) suitable for the centre’s policies and strategies
ld5 They implement a system of key processes or activities supporting the
centre’s policy and strategy, and its goals
ld6 They keep intouch with the different stakeholders in order to know
their expectations and opinions
ld7 They encourage student’s and staff’s involvement in the improvement
actions
ld8 They publicly acknowledge the successes of people and groups in
quality improvement actions
Policy and strategy
ps1 The centre’s policies and strategies are in line with its mission, vision
and values
ps2 The centre’s policies and strategies are clearly formulated in writing
ps3 All the areas in the centre are involved in the process of formulating
and communicating the policies and strategies
ps4 There is a formal process of reviewing and updating policies and
strategies
ps5 The centre’s policies and strategies are structured in a Strategic Plan
ps6 The centre’s goals are set out in writing and in a clear and quantifiable
manner
ps7 The goals are communicated at all levels of the organisation
ps8 The principles of quality are incorporated into all of the centre’s
policies, strategies and goals
ps9 There is a procedure allowing for the deployment of the policies and
strategies and for their being turned into short term plans
ps10 The formulation and revision of policies and strategies include the
needs and expectations of the stakeholders
People management
pm1 Identifying the staff’s present and future needs regarding knowledge,
competencies and skills
pm2 Developing training plans for the improvement of the staff’s
knowledge, competencies and skills
pm3 Promoting actions which support the staff’s commitment and
involvement in the improvement actions
pm4 Encouraging the staff’s assumption of responsibilities and
empowerment to carry out improvement actions
pm5 Developing suitable channels for sharing and communicating “better
practices” knowledge and experiences
pm6 Recognising quality improvement related efforts, either at a personal
or group level
pm7 Establishing social benefits and improvement of the staff’s services
and facilities
pm8 Encouraging the staff’s involvement intopics related to health and
Table II. safety, the environment, and social and ethical responsibilities
Measures (continued)
 Agent/enablers and indicators
Enablers of the
EFQM model
Partnership and resources
pr1 Establishment of partnerships with suppliers to generate value and
mutual benefits
pr2 Development of agreements guaranteeing the exchange of knowledge
and experiences with suppliers
pr3 Making appropriate investments for the development of the centre’s
107
policy, strategy and continuous improvement
pr4 Suitable use of the stock, the materials and the energy
pr5 Identification and evaluation of the impact of new technologies on the
centre
pr6 Implementation of mechanisms for the collection and use of data
supporting the centre’s policy and strategy
pr7 Implementation of mechanisms for the identification of the information
needs of the stakeholders
pr8 Use of information for the continuous improvement of the
management system and the services
Process management
Educational processes
ep1 The teaching activity envisages the students’ needs and expectations
ep2 The teaching activity envisages the companies’ needs and expectations
ep3 The teaching activity envisages the needs and expectations of the
community or the society in general
Research processes
rp1 The research activity envisages the students’ needs and expectations
rp2 The research activity envisages the companies’ needs and expectations
rp3 The research activity envisages the needs and expectations of the
community or the society as a whole
Administrative processes
ap1 The centre makes efforts addressed to identifying and analysing key
processes and actions
ap2 There is documentary support for processes (field of action, the actions
they are made of, validity, etc.)
ap3 Responsibilities are allocated for the periodic monitoring and review of
the processes
ap4 Data are collected about claims and suggestions of the stakeholders,
then used to improve the processes
ap5 Creativity and innovation are applied to the development of new
processes and services
ap6 Procedures are developed aimed at guaranteeing the adequate
provision of services to the stakeholders
ap7 Specific services are developed to support people and students Table II.

a choice between a molar and molecular approach to analysis. Whereas the molar
attitude represents an emergent construct that is formed from the first-order factors
(formative style), in the molecular approach the existence of an overall latent construct
is hypothesized and is indicated and reflected by the first-order factors (reflective style)
(Chin and Gopal, 1995). The choice depends primarily on whether the first-order factors
or dimensions are viewed as causes or as indicators of the second-order factors
(Chin, 1998b) (Figure 3). If a change in one of the dimensions or beliefs necessarily
results in similar changes in other beliefs, then a molecular model is appropriate.
QAE
14,2 Second order factor Process
Management

108
First order factor sor Educational Research Administrative
dimensions Processes Processes Processes

Figure 2.
Modelling of process
management variable as a
second-order factor Indicators ep1 ep2 ep3 rp1 rp2 rp3 ap1 ap2 ap3 ap4 ap5 ap6 ap7

Molar second order factor Molecular second order factor

Second order Second order

factor factor

A B C A B C

•First order factors or dimensions •First order factors or dimensions

Figure 3. (ie., A, B and C) cause the (ie., A, B and C) depend on the
Molar versus molecular second order factor. second order factor.
models of second-order
factors •First order factors can have •First order factors should be
positive, negative o no correlation highly positively correlated

Otherwise, a molar model is suitable (Chin and Gopal, 1995). In our research, we have
decided to model process management as a molar second-order factor. In this way, an
increase in the quality of the educational processes does not imply an increase in the
quality of the administrative processes. Thus, dimensions are not necessarily
correlated and, consequently, traditional reliability and validity assessment have been
argued as inappropriate and illogical for this type of high order factor (molar) with
reference to its dimensions (Bollen, 1989, p. 222).
A PLS model is analysed and interpreted in two stages:
(1) the assessment of the reliability and validity of the measurement model; and
(2) the assessment of the structural model.
This sequence ensures that the construct measures are valid and reliable before Enablers of the
attempting to draw conclusions regarding relationships among constructs EFQM model
(Barclay et al., 1995).

Measurement model
The measurement model in PLS is assessed in terms of individual item reliability,
construct reliability, average variance extracted (AVE) analysis, and discriminant 109
validity.
Individual item reliability. Individual item reliability is considered adequate when an
item has a factor loading that is greater than 0.7 on its respective construct, which implies
more shared variance between the construct and its measures than error variance
(Carmines and Zeller, 1979, pp. 29-32). Since, loadings are correlations, this implies that
more than 50 per cent (i.e. loading square) of the variance in the indicator is shared with the
construct. Notwithstanding this, in the case of molar second-order factors, the loadings are
misleading because the intraset correlations for each block were never taken into account
in the estimation process followed by this technique in order to obtain the parameters of
this high-order construct. Therefore, it makes no sense to compare loadings among
dimensions within a block. The interpretation of this kind of LV should be based on the
weights (Chin, 1998a). Like the canonical correlation analysis, the weights allow us to
understand the make-up of each LV. That is to say, these provide information about how
each dimension or indicator (formative) contributes to the respective construct. However, a
concern related to using formative measures deals with the potential multicollinearity
among the items or first-order factors (Diamantopoulos and Inklhofer, 2001; Mathieson
et al., 2001). In our case, multicollinearity refers to linear inter-correlation among
dimensions. When there are nominally different dimensions that actually quantify the
same phenomenon to a significant degree and these variables correlate highly with each
other, they could be redundant. A principal problem of such data redundancy is that of
overfitting in regression analysis models. Therefore, a high collinearity among
dimensions would produce unstable estimates, and would make it difficult to separate
the distinct effect of the individual dimensions on the construct. With this in mind, a
collinearity test was performed using the SPSS programme. Specifically, a variance
inflation factor (VIF) test was developed for the three dimensions of the process
management variable. The results showed minimal collinearity with the VIF of three
dimensions ranging between 1.395 and 1.803 (Appendix). According to Kleinbaum et al.
(1988, pp. 255-7) a VIF over 5 is problematic and over 10 is a problem. These data are far
below the common cut-off threshold of 5 to 10. Thus, there is not multicollinearity among
the first-order factors that measure the process management variable.
Appendix shows the individual item weights and loadings of the variables.
Loadings are above 0.7 for all indicators.
Construct reliability and average variance extracted analysis. The measures for
construct reliability and AVE represent measures of internal consistency and, as
discussed earlier, these are not applicable for molar second-order factors. Construct
reliability is assessed using a measure of internal consistency: composite reliability (rc)
(Werts et al., 1974). We interpret this value using the guidelines offered by Nunnally
(1978, pp. 245-6) who suggests 0.7 as a benchmark for a “modest” reliability applicable
in the early stages of research. In our research, all of the constructs are reliable
(Appendix). They all have measures of internal consistency that exceed 0.82 (rc).
QAE AVE measure was created by Fornell and Larcker (1981). This measure quantifies
14,2 the amount of variance that a construct captures from its manifest variables or
indicators relative to the amount due to measurement error (Chin, 1998a). AVE values
should be greater than 0.50. It means that 50 per cent or more variance of the indicators
should be accounted for. Consistent with this suggestion, AVE measures for all LV
exceed 0.59 (Appendix).
110 Discriminant validity. To assess discriminant validity, AVE should be greater
than the variance shared between the construct and other constructs in the model
(i.e. the squared correlation between two constructs). For adequate discriminant
validity, the diagonal elements should be significantly greater than the off-diagonal
elements in the corresponding rows and columns (Barclay et al., 1995). This condition
is satisfied for reflective variables in relation to the rest of the variables (Table III). For
the variable modelled as a molar higher order factor, we cannot analyse its situation
because of the non-availability of AVE values. As has been previously mentioned, it is
inappropriate to apply traditional reliability and validity measures for formative
dimensions of a molar second-order factor (Bollen, 1989).

Structural model
Figure 4 shows the variance explained (R 2) in the dependent constructs and the
path coefficients (b) for the model. Consistent with Chin (1998a), bootstrapping
(500 resamples) is used to generate standard errors and t-statistics. Bootstrap
represents a non-parametric approach for estimating the precision of the PLS
estimates. This allows us to assess the statistical significance of the path coefficients.
All hypotheses were supported since these surpass the minimum level indicated by a
Student’s t-distribution with two tails and n-1 (n ¼ number of resamples) degrees of
freedom (Table IV). H1a-c were proved, although H1c was only marginally confirmed.
This shows leadership and commitment variable exerts a significant positive influence
on subsequent variables, both directly and indirectly through the policy and strategy.
In its turn, this latter plays an outstanding role as the suggested hypotheses H2a-c
demonstrate. Moreover, H3 and H4 have also been supported, which supports the
influence of the antecedent variables (policy and strategy, people, and partnerships and
resources) on the process management variable.

Policy Partnerships
and People and Process
Leadership strategy management resources management

Leadership (0.769)
Policy and strategy 0.753 (0.767)
People management 0.580 0.613 (0.822)
Partnerships and resources 0.484 0.505 0.624 (0.779)
Process management 0.625 0.595 0.627 0.668 (n.a.)
Notes: Diagonal elements (values in parentheses) are the square root of the variance shared between
Table III. the constructs and their measures (AVE). Off-diagonal elements are the correlations among constructs.
Discriminant validity For discriminant validity, diagonal elements should be larger than off-diagonal elements; (n.a.) –
coefficients non-applicable
 Enablers of the
People
Management
Administrative
Processes
EFQM model
R 2=.4074

(H3) .218*
(H1a) .273*
.795
(H2a) .407*** 111
(H1b) (H2c)
.753*** Policy & .258** Process -.022 Research
Leadership Strategy Management
R 2=.5680 R2=.5583 Processes

(H2b) .325*

(H1c) .240† (H4) .402** .337

Partnerships & Educational

Resources
Processes
R 2=.2803

Figure 4.
*** p
Structural model results
< 0.001, ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05, † p < 0.1 (based on t(499), two-tailed test)

The research model seems to have an appropriate predictive power for most of the
dependent variables given that variance explained, or R 2s, for endogenous constructs
exceed the required amount of 10 (Falk and Miller, 1992, p. 80) (Table V). This way, the
mean of the explained variance of the implied variables is 0.45. Another measure that
supports these positive results is the Q 2 test of predictive relevance for the endogenous
constructs (Geisser, 1975; Stone, 1974). This test is an indicator of how well observed
values are reproduced by the model and its parameter estimates. The cross-validated
redundancy measure has been particularly suggested to examine the predictive
relevance of the theoretical/structural model (Chin, 1998a). A Q 2 greater than 0 implies
that the model has predictive relevance, whereas a Q 2 less than 0 suggests that the
model lacks predictive relevance. The results summarised in Table V confirm that the
structural model has satisfactory predictive relevance for the endogenous variables,
achieving a maximum Q 2 value of 0.30.

Discussion and conclusions

Tables IV and V summarise the results obtained in the testing of hypotheses as well as
the different effects between variables and the percentage of the total variation of the
dependent variable accounted for by each independent variable. Additionally, they will
help with the discussion of the results.
Firstly, it is confirmed that the leadership and commitment of the senior officers of
the centres act as the driving-force of the whole of the quality management and quality
improvement process. This can be seen from the effect this variable has on policy
and strategy, partnerships and resources, and people and process management.
These relationships are confirmed by the work of Eskildsen and Dahlgaard (2000) and
 14,2

112
QAE

Table IV.
Structural model results
Hypothesis Suggested effect Path coefficients (b) t-value (bootstrap) Support

H1a: Leadership ! people management þ 0.273 * 2.0535 Yes

H1b: Leadership ! policy and strategy þ 0.753 * * * 17.5710 Yes
H1c: Leadership ! partnerships and resources þ 0.240† 1.8003 Yes
H2a: Policy and strategy ! people management þ 0.407 * * * 3.3446 Yes
H2b: Policy and strategy ! partnerships and resources þ 0.325 * 2.3149 Yes
H2c: Policy and strategy ! process management þ 0.258 * * 2.9395 Yes
H3: People management ! process management þ 0.218 * 1.9734 Yes
H4: Partnerships and resources ! process management þ 0.402 * * 3.1694 Yes
Notes: * * *p , 0.001, * *p , 0.01, *p , 0.05, †p , 0.1 (based on t(499), two-tailed test); t(0.001;499) ¼ 3.310124157; t(0.01;499) ¼ 2.585711627;
t(0.05;499) ¼ 1.964726835; t(0.1;499) ¼ 1.64791345
 Direct Indirect Total Explained
Effects on endogenous variables effect effect effect Correlations variance

Policy and strategy (R 2 ¼ 0.5680) (Q 2 ¼ 0.3051)

H1b: Leadership 0.753 – 0.753 0.753 0.5680
People (R 2 ¼ 0.4074) (Q 2 ¼ 0.1857)
H1a: Leadership 0.273 0.307 0.580 0.580 0.1583
H2a: Policy and strategy 0.407 – 0.407 0.613 0.2450
Partnerships and resources (R 2 ¼ 0.2803) (Q 2 ¼ 0.0313)
H1c: Leadership 0.240 0.2447 0.4847 0.484 0.1161
H2b: Policy and strategy 0.325 – 0.325 0.505 0.1641
Processes (R 2 ¼ 0.5583) (Q 2 ¼ 0.2690)
H2c: Policy and strategy 0.258 0.2193 0.4773 0.595 0.1535
H3: People management 0.218 – 0.218 0.627 0.1366
H4: Partnerships and resources 0.402 – 0.402 0.668 0.2685

Effects on endogenous
Enablers of the

variables
Table V.
EFQM model

113
QAE Wilson and Collier (2000), although in a field different from education. In the latter
14,2 field, and using the Malcolm Baldrige model as a reference, Winn and Cameron (1998)
confirm the relationship between leadership, policy and strategy, and people and
process management.
Secondly, the policy and strategy must act as a reference for the setting of staff
policy and the management of resources and processes. This aspect is highlighted by
114 Ahire et al. (1996) and Eskildsen and Dahlgaard (2000), confirming the relationship
between policy and strategy and the management of people and resources. Wilson and
Collier (2000) also verify positively the relationship of policy and strategy with the
management of people and resources. Winn and Cameron (1998) confirm this
relationship positively in the field of education.
Thirdly, appropriate management of people is key to the management of processes.
In this respect, Eskildsen and Kanji (1998) show that those organisations which make
no effort towards motivating or training their employees do not manage to involve
them in process improvement. In the empirical literature, there are several studies
which corroborate the positive relationship between the management of people and
resources (Flynn and Saladin, 2001; Wilson and Collier, 2000; Winn and Cameron,
1998). In the field of education, Detert and Jenni (2000) emphasise the role of motivation
and training as key factors affecting the continuous acquisition of new knowledge,
skills and abilities by all employees, thus leading them to perform their job better.
Moreover, as is confirmed by our study, suitable process development does not
depend exclusively on people and the organisation’s policy and strategy but also on
appropriate management of material and financial resources and the involvement of
suppliers in these processes. This aspect is corroborated by the work of Eskildsen and
Dahlgaard (2000). Finally, the results of our research also confirm the existence of an
internal logic connecting the agent of the EFQM model (Ghobadian and Woo, 1996).
The EFQM model proposes a method to evaluate the TQM. This is based on the
weighted sum of the criteria it is made up of. That is to say, an individual score is
obtained for criteria and an aggregated score is provided for enablers and results.
Seen in this way, the evaluation hides useful information on the possible
relationships or influences among criteria. In this manner, works such as those of
Kristensen et al. (2001) or Eskildsen and Kanji (1998) have analysed the relationships
among criteria of the EFQM model. These contributions show how the implementation,
development and improvement of the criteria of the EFQM model is not produced
independently.
The result obtained from the analysis of the structural model and its forecasting
ability supports the validity of the European excellence model as a reference
framework for the implementation of quality in the field of higher education. Also
revealed is the systemic nature of the model, that is to say, the need to consider the
agents as a whole.
On the other hand, the analysis of the structural model has allowed us to study a
part of the causal structure of the EFQM model in depth. Knowledge of this structure
may allow universities to lead their management towards excellent process
management.
In this respect, the principal implications for the management of the universities
may be the following. Firstly, for the implementation of any quality improvement
initiative, it is necessary to have the leadership and commitment of the senior
management of the centres. They must create and disseminate the values of this Enablers of the
management philosophy, set goals and objectives that are consistent with these values, EFQM model
and create an appropriate organisation and system to achieve them.
This definite management commitment must go hand in hand with a well-defined
policy and strategy, implemented and communicated at all levels of the institution. The
absence of this prevents measurement of the effectiveness and efficiency of universities
or any of their sub-systems, in addition to creating disequilibrium in the allocation of 115
resources within the system. Policy and strategy must be based on the needs and the
current and future expectations of the stakeholders, and supported by the mission,
vision and values established by the institution.
As Osseo-Asare et al. (2005, p. 149) highlight, leadership is a key factor in the
success of the TQM implementation in higher education institutions. A committed
leadership is not enough to achieve success. Rather this must itself be reflected in the
policy and strategy guiding institutions (Winn and Cameron, 1998).
In our work, this relationship between leadership and policy and strategy is
appreciated analysing the path coefficient between these two variables (0.753) and the
explained variance (R 2) of the dependent variable (policy and strategy). This reaches a
value of 57 per cent (Table V). This is also confirmed in the studies of Winn and
Cameron (1998) and Wilson and Collier (2000).
Consequently, the planning must be put into practice through appropriate actions
aimed at continuous improvement and generating more and more value for the
stakeholders. That is to say, via a suitable design, management and improvement of
key processes. In relation to this, the EFQM model establishes how what has been
planned (policy and strategy) must be put into practice through a key process group
(EFQM, 2003). This is revealed in the studies of Winn and Cameron (1998), Wilson and
Collier (2000) and Eskildsen and Dahlgaard (2000). The relationship between policy
and strategy, and process management can be appreciated from Table V. This
important influence can be observed, on the one hand, by the total effect between both
variables (0.47) and, on the other hand, by the explained variance (R 2) in process
management due to policy and strategy (15.4 per cent).
With this in mind, each university centre must try to identify its key processes,
document them and assign people to be in charge of monitoring and improving them.
For these monitoring and improvement activities, it is essential to have a system of
indicators to evaluate the effectiveness and the efficiency of the processes, and, in
addition, provide transparent external information (students, society, etc.). For the
systematic design and management of the key processes, the EFQM model sets out
the need for a system that measures the level of implementation. Besides, within the
Spanish University System, and as a results of the higher education institutions’
autonomy, the universities must inform society about the quality of its activities and
its management.
To meet these two requirements, measurement and information, the Spanish
Ministry of Education and Science (2005) has proposed a catalogue of indicators for the
Spanish University System. Within this broad catalogue of indicators, point VI refers
to the key processes for this type of institution.
Human resource management is a basic pillar of successful quality management.
Improvement is a process of organisational learning, which is largely based on people.
QAE Therefore, the participation of the entire workforce in improvement activities must be
14,2 encouraged, and the efforts made must be rewarded and recognised.
We wish, by this conclusion, to highlight the importance set out in the EFQM model,
of people in the process of quality improvement and in the appropriate development of
the key processes. To achieve this, essential activities are:
(1) A correct selection, recognition and career development of the workers (Flynn
116 et al., 1994);
(2) the setting up of permanent training schemes (Gatewood and Riordan, 1997);
and
(3) the commitment and involvement of the personnel in the principles of quality,
and their taking part in the principles of quality, and their taking part in the key
process improvement activities (Ahire et al., 1996).

As seen in Table V, in the results of our research a direct significant effect on the
variables of people management and process management exists (0.218). On the other
hand, people management explains 13.7 per cent of the process management variable
variance. This reinforces the importance of people in process management.
Moreover, the universities and their centres, as with any other organisation, must try
to optimise the scarce resources they have (monetary, information, infrastructure or
technological) and execute adequate control and management of suppliers of specific
inputs that represent a significant budgetary cost. In this way, appropriate management
of partnerships and resources will have a positive effect on the development of
processes.
Process management is affected by the efficiency with which resources and
alliances are managed (partnership and resources) (EFQM, 2003). As Ward and
Chandler (1999) note, this is an especially important theme in universities. Similarly,
Johnson (1996) points out how higher education is dominated by financial questions as
budget cuts in this area are increasingly more common. That is why a greater attention
must be paid to the appropriate management of the scarce resources these institutions
have.
In our study the relationship between partnership and resources and process
management is appreciated via the direct effect (0.402) that exists between both
variables. Moreover, partnership and resources is the enabler which explains most
variance in the variable process management (26.9 per cent).

Limitations
The study has certain limitations, which must be considered when it comes to
interpreting the results and conclusions arising from it.
A first limitation is related to the notion of causality. Although evidence is provided
on the causality of the model, this has not really been tested. Our study has considered
a soft modelling approach directed more towards prediction than causality. While
causation guarantees the ability to control events, predictability allows only a limited
degree of control (Falk and Miller, 1992, p. 4). A second limitation is determined by the
technique used for the proposed model: the structural equations, which assume the
linearity of relationships between the LV (Hair et al., 1998). Thirdly, the study has
relied on measurements based on the perceptions of the individuals who participated in
it. But it has to allow for the possibility of the perceptions of those surveyed not
providing a completely accurate view of reality. Finally, the design of the research Enablers of the
employed was cross-sectional instead of longitudinal. In this respect, the quality
assessment and improvement is a process which develops over time and whose effects
EFQM model
are really appreciated only in the long term. It would, therefore, be appropriate to
follow a longitudinal approach for future research.

Glossary 117
AVE ¼ Average variance extracted
EFQM ¼ European Foundation for Quality Management is the body managing the EFQM
excellence model. It was introduced at the beginning of 1992 as the framework for
assessing organisations for the European Quality Award
LV ¼ Latent variable
PLS ¼ Partial least squares
TQM ¼ Total quality management is a philosophy and a set of guiding principles that
represent the foundation of the continuously improving organisation.
VIF ¼ Variance inflation factor

Notes
1. p is the proportion, or the percentage of units in the sample that possess some characteristic
or attribute or fall into some defined class (Cochran, 1977, p. 50). The threshold of p is 0-1.
On the other hand, q is the complementary proportion of q, i.e. q ¼ 1 2 p.
2. The optimal sample is obtained applying the equation 5.65 of Cochran (1977, p. 110).
3. Since, the obtained final sample is under the optimal size, the sample error is higher than
0.05, i.e. the value initially set-up. The sample error is also obtained from the equation 5.65 in
Cohran (1977, p. 110).

References
Ahire, S.L., Golhar, D.Y. and Waller, M.A. (1996), “Development and validation of TQM
implementations construct”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 23-56.
Ahmad, S. and Schroeder, G. (2002), “The importance of recruitment and selection process for
sustainability of total quality management”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability
Management, Vol. 19 No. 5, pp. 540-50.
Allen, I.E. (1997), “The new philosophy for K-12 education: a Deming framework for
transforming America’s schools”, Quality Progress, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 134-5.
Barclay, D., Higgins, C. and Thompson, R. (1995), “The partial least squares approach to causal
modelling: personal computer adoption and use as an illustration”, Technology Studies
Special Issue on Research Methodology, No. 2, pp. 285-309.
Biehl, R.E. (2000), “Customer-supplier analysis in educational change”, Quality Management
Journal, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 22-39.
Bollen, K.A. (1989), Structural Equations with Latent Variables, Wiley, New York, NY.
Carmines, E.G. and Zeller, R.A. (1979), “Reliability and validity assessment”,
Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, Sage University paper series, Sage,
Beverly Hills, CA.
Chin, W.W. (1998a), “The partial least squares approach to structural equation modelling”, in
Marcoulides, G.A. (Ed.), Modern Methods for Business Research, Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 295-336.
QAE Chin, W.W. (1998b), “Issues and opinion on structural equation modelling”, MIS Quarterly,
Vol. 22, pp. 7-14.
14,2
Chin, W.W. (2003), PLS-Graph, Version 3.00, Build 1058, University of Houston, Houston,
TX.
Chin, W.W. and Gopal, A. (1995), “Adoption intention in GSS: relative importance of beliefs”,
Database, Vol. 26, pp. 42-64.
118 Cochran, W.G. (1977), Sampling Techniques, Wiley, New York, NY.
Cullotta, P. and Gonzales, H. (1997), “Quality pioneers in education provide immeasurable value
to students”, Quality Progress, Vol. 30 No. 9, pp. 67-71.
Dean, J.W. and Bowen, D.E. (1994), “Management theory and total quality: improving research
and practice through theory development”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 19 No. 3,
pp. 392-418.
Detert, J.R. and Jenni, R. (2000), “An instrument for measuring quality practice in education”,
Quality Management Journal, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 20-37.
Diamantopoulos, A. and Inklhofer, H.M. (2001), “Index construction with formative
indicators: an alternative to scale development”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 38
No. 1, pp. 269-77.
Dow, D., Samson, D. and Ford, S. (1999), “Exploding the myth: do all quality management
practices contribute to superior quality performance?”, Production and Operations
Management, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 1-27.
Eskildsen, J.K. and Dahlgaard, J.J. (2000), “A causal model for employee satisfaction”, Total
Quality Management, Vol. 11, pp. 1081-94.
Eskildsen, J.K. and Kanji, G.K. (1998), “Identifying the vital few using the European Foundation
for Quality Management Model”, Total Quality Management, Vol. 9, pp. S92-5.
European Foundation for Quality Management (2003), Modelo EFQM de Excelencia, European
Foundation for Quality Management, Brussels.
Evans, J.R. (1997), “Critical linkages in the Baldrige Award criteria: research models and
educational challenges”, Quality Management Journal, Vol. 6, pp. 13-30.
Falk, R.F. and Miller, N.B. (1992), A Primer for Soft Modeling, The University of Akron, Akron,
OH.
Farrar, M. (2000), “Structuring success: a case study in the use of the EFQM excellence model in
school improvement”, Total Quality Management, Vol. 11 Nos 4/5/6, pp. 691-6.
Flynn, B., Schroeder, R.G. and Sakakibara, S. (1994), “A framework for quality management
research and an associated measurement instrument”, Journal of Operations Management,
Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 339-66.
Flynn, B.B. and Saladin, B. (2001), “Further evidence on the validity of the theoretical models
underlying the Baldrige criteria”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 19, pp. 617-52.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18, pp. 39-50.
Gatewood, R.D. and Riordan, C.M. (1997), “The development and test of a model of total quality:
organizational practices, TQ principles, employee attitudes and customer satisfaction”,
Journal of Quality Management, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 41-65.
Geisser, S. (1975), “The predictive sample reuse method with applications”, Journal of the
American Statistical Association, Vol. 70, pp. 320-8.
Ghobadian, A. and Woo, H.S. (1996), “Characteristics, benefits and shortcomings of four major Enablers of the
quality awards”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 13,
pp. 10-44.
EFQM model
Goldberg, J.S. and Cole, B.R. (2002), “Quality management in education: building excellence and
equity in student performance”, Quality Management Journal, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 8-22.
Grant, D., Mergen, E. and Widrick, S.M. (2002), “Quality management in US higher education”,
Total Quality Management, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 207-15. 119
Hair, J.F. Jr, Anderson, R.E., Tatham, E.L. and Black, W.C. (1998), Multivariate Data Analysis,
Prentice Hall International Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Henard, D.H. (2000), “Item response theory”, in Grimm, L.G. and Yarnold, P.R. (Eds), Reading and
Understanding More Multivariate Statistics, American Psychological Association,
Washington, DC, pp. 67-97.
Johnson, H.H. (1996), “The Baldrige and State Quality Awards for education”, Journal for Quality
& Participation, pp. 88-92, January/February.
Kanji, G.K. and Tambi, A.M. (1999), “Total quality management in UK higher education
institutions”, Total Quality Management, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 129-53.
Kanji, G.K., Tambi, A.M. and Wallace, W. (1999), “A comparative study of quality practices in
higher education institutions in US and Malaysia”, Total Quality Management, Vol. 10
No. 3, pp. 357-71.
Kleinbaum, D.G., Kupper, L.L. and Muller, K.E. (1988), Applied Regression Analysis and other
Multivariate Analysis Methods, PWS-Kent Publishing Company, Boston, MA.
Kosaku, Y. (1994), “The Deming approach to education: a comparative study of the USA and
Japan”, The International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 8 No. 5, pp. 29-41.
Kristensen, K., Juhl, H.J. and Eskildsen, J. (2001), “Benchmarking excellence”, Measuring
Business Excellence, Vol. 5, pp. 19-23.
Landesberg, P. (1999), “In the beginning, there were Deming and Juran”, The Journal for Quality
& Participation, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 59-62.
Martin, J.R. (1998), “Evaluating faculty based on student opinions: problems, implications and
recommendations from Deming’s theory of management perspective”, Issues in
Accounting Education, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 1079-95.
Mathieson, K., Peacock, E. and Chin, W.W. (2001), “Extending the technology acceptance model:
the influence of perceived user resources”, The Data Base for Advances in Information
Systems, Vol. 32, pp. 86-112.
Mergen, E., Grant, D. and Widrick, S.M. (2000), “Quality management applied to higher
education”, Total Quality Management, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 345-52.
Michael, R.K., Sower, V.E. and Motwani, J. (1997), “A comprehensive model for implementing
total quality management in higher education”, Benchmarking for Quality Management &
Technology, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 104-19.
Montano, C.B. and Glenn, H.U. (1999), “Total quality management in higher education”, Quality
Progress, August, pp. 52-9.
Nunnally, J. (1978), Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Osseo-Asare, A.E. and Longbottom, D. (2002), “The need for education & training in the EFQM
model for quality management in UK higher education institutions”, Quality Assurance in
Education, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 26-36.
QAE Osseo-Asare, A.E., Longbottom, D. and Murphy, W.D. (2005), “Leadership best practices for
sustaining quality in UK higher education from the perspective of the EFQM excellence
14,2 model”, Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 148-70.
Pires Da Rosa, M.J., Saraiva, P.M. and Diz, H. (2003), “Excellence in Portuguese higher education
institutions”, Total Quality Management, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 189-204.
Quintanilla, M.A. (1999), “The quality challenge for universities: a view from Spain”, Tertiary
120 Education and Management, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 331-46.
Saraph, J.V., Benson, P.G. and Schroeder, R.G. (1989), “An instrument for measuring the critical
factors of quality management”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 810-29.
Spanbauer, S.J. (1995), “Reactivating higher education with total quality management: using
quality and productivity concepts, techniques and tools to improve higher education”,
Total Quality Management, Vol. 6 Nos 5/6, pp. 519-38.
Spanish Ministry of Education and Science (2005), Catálogo de Indicadores de Calidad (Quality
Indicators Catalogue), available at: www.mec.es/educa/jsp/plantilla.jsp?area ¼ ccuniv&
id ¼ 270 (accessed 24 September 2005).
Stone, M. (1974), “Cross-validatory choice and assessment of statistical predictions”, Journal of
the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 111-33.
Ward, B. and Chandler, W.D. (1999), “Applying quality management concepts to managing
business schools”, SAM Advance Management Journal, pp. 21-4, Autumn.
Weller, L.D. (2000), “School attendance problems: using the TQM tools to identify root causes”,
Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 64-72.
Werts, C.E., Linn, R.L. and Jöreskog, K.G. (1974), “Interclass reliability estimates: testing
structural assumptions”, Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 34, pp. 25-33.
Wiklund, H., Klefsjö, B., Wiklund, P.S. and Edvardsson, B. (2003), “Innovation and TQM in
Swedish higher education institutions possibilities and pittfalls”, The TQM Magazine,
Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 99-107.
Wilson, D.D. and Collier, D.A. (2000), “An empirical investigation of the Malcolm Baldrige
National Quality Award causal model”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 361-90.
Winn, B.A. and Cameron, K.S. (1998), “Organizational quality: an examination of the Baldrige
National Quality Framework”, Research in Higher Education, Vol. 39 No. 5, pp. 491-512.
Wold, H. (1979), Model Construction and Evaluation when Theoretical Knowledge is Scarce: An
Example of the Use of Partial Least Squares, Cahiers du Département D’Économétrie,
Faculté des Sciences Économiques et Sociales, Université de Genève, Genève.
Wold, H. (1985), “Systems analysis by partial least squares”, in Nijkamp, P., Leitner, H. and
Wrigley, N. (Eds), Measuring the Unmeasurable, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Dordrecht,
pp. 221-51.
Zink, Z.L. and Schmidt, A. (1995), “Measuring universities against the European Quality Award
criteria”, Total Quality Management, Vol. 6 Nos 5/6, pp. 547-62.

Further reading
Club Gestión de Calidad (1999), Método Para Mejorar la Calidad en la Educación Superior Basado
en el Modelo de la EFQM, (Method for Quality Improvement in Higher Education Based on
the EFQM Model), Club Gestión de Calidad, Madrid.
Fornell, C. (1982), “A second generation of multivariate analysis: an overview”, in Fornell, C.
(Ed.), A Second Generation of Multivariate Analysis,Vol. 1, Praeger Publishers, New York,
NY, pp. 1-21.
Appendix: Measurement model evaluation Enablers of the
EFQM model
Variance Average
inflation Composite variance
Construct/dimension/indicator factor Weight Loading reliability (rc) extracted

Leadership (reflective) 0.920 0.595 121

lc1 0.8354
lc2 0.7439
lc3 0.7954
lc4 0.7774
lc5 0.7525
lc6 0.7141
lc7 0.7237
lc8 0.8026
Policy and strategy (reflective) 0.935 0.590
ps1 0.7352
ps2 0.7949
ps3 0.7262
ps4 0.7900
ps5 0.7221
ps6 0.7941
ps7 0.8167
ps8 0.8086
ps9 0.7380
ps10 0.7444
People management 0.943 0.676
(reflective)
pm1 0.8345
pm2 0.8242
pm3 0.8970
pm4 0.8950
pm5 0.8749
pm6 0.7988
pm7 0.7287
pm8 0.7013
Partnership and resources 0.925 0.607
(reflective)
pr1 0.7186
pr2 0.7562
pr3 0.7699
pr4 0.7288
pr5 0.7569
pr6 0.8160
pr7 0.8541
pr8 0.8218
Process management n.a n.a
(molar second-order factor)
Educational processes 1.803 0.795 0.8892 0.7281
ep1 0.8365
ep2 0.8270
ep3 0.8948
(continued) Table AI.
QAE Variance Average
14,2 inflation Composite variance
Construct/dimension/indicator factor Weight Loading reliability (rc) extracted

Research processes 1.455 20.022 0.8210 0.6048

rp1 0.7466
rp2 0.7756
122 rp3 0.8096
Administrative processes 1.395 0.337 0.9154 0.6076
ap1 0.7784
ap2 0.7349
ap3 0.7898
ap4 0.7668
ap5 0.8133
ap6 0.8192
Table AI. ap7 0.7505

Correspondindg author
Arturo Calvo-Mora can be contacted at: schmidr@us.es

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints