As with the ISO 9000 standard, some doubts arise from the scientific literature about the impact of the EFQM model in companies' success. This paper aims to present an analysis of the relationships in the 2003 version of the EFQM model using data from the actual self‐evaluations of 68 organizations. It also analyzes if there are possible differences in the EFQM implementation between public and private organizations.
The Partial Least Squares (PLS) method is used to test hypotheses.
Results show that the model does not behave in the way that the designers of the EFQM expected. Two of the results variables are not sufficiently correlated with the others to be part of the complete model. When the model is tested without these two variables, the connection between enablers fails, since policy and strategy, people, and partnership and resources do not have statistically significant effects on the process. There is a slightly higher achievement in the group of manufacturing/private companies compared with the group of public/educational institutions.
This paper is an exploratory study. A deeper analysis of the agency criteria might produce improved results. It would also be possible to examine sub‐criterion levels. Each enabler in the model is composed of different sub‐criteria and the relationships among them have not been explored in the literature. The question that needs to be addressed is whether the inclusion of enablers in the EFQM Excellence Model can be justified on empirical grounds.
Previous research has been conducted using secondary data. The study has been made using the real self‐evaluations of organizations, evaluations that have been validated by official staff of the EFQM organization. In addition, whereas much of the previous research analysed the 1999 version of the model, this paper focuses on the latest version of 2003.
Gómez Gómez, J., Martínez Costa, M. and Martínez Lorente, Á.R. (2011), "A critical evaluation of the EFQM model", International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 28 No. 5, pp. 484-502. https://doi.org/10.1108/02656711111132544
Emerald Group Publishing Limited
Copyright © 2011, Emerald Group Publishing Limited