Total Quality Management & Business Excellence

ISSN: 1478-3363 (Print) 1478-3371 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ctqm20

EFQM Excellence Model and TQM: an empirical

comparison

Joaquín Gómez Gómez, Micaela Martínez Costa & Ángel R. Martínez Lorente

To cite this article: Joaquín Gómez Gómez, Micaela Martínez Costa & Ángel R. Martínez Lorente
(2017) EFQM Excellence Model and TQM: an empirical comparison, Total Quality Management &
Business Excellence, 28:1-2, 88-103, DOI: 10.1080/14783363.2015.1050167

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2015.1050167

Published online: 22 Jun 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1997

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 16 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ctqm20
Total Quality Management, 2017
Vol. 28, No. 1, 88 –103, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2015.1050167

EFQM Excellence Model and TQM: an empirical comparison

∗
Joaquı́n Gómez Gómeza, Micaela Martı́nez Costaa and Ángel R. Martı́nez Lorenteb
a
Departamento de Organización de Empresas y Finanzas, University of Murcia, Murcia, Spain;
b
Departamento de economı́a de la Empresa, Polytechnic University of Cartagena, Cartagena,
Spain

The EFQM Excellence Model (EEM) has been used by managers and academics as a
proxy for the implementation of total quality management (TQM). However, at the
present time there is no empirical evidence that shows that the systems are
equivalent. This paper empirically analyses whether companies that implement the
EEM as a management tool are indirectly using TQM. The results make it possible
to conclude that EEM and TQM, although not the same, follow a similar path and it
can be expected that a company with high scores at EEM will have high odds of
being a TQM company. In addition, both systems provide a means for improving
performance according to the results measured by the EEM.
Keywords: TQM; EFQM; EEM; Business Excellence Model

Introduction
The total quality management (TQM) principles are the pillars on which the models of
excellence were developed and on which companies have founded a philosophy of mana-
ging for success in the long term and improving their performance.
In the academic world, when analysing TQM and its impact on the results of organis-
ations, many researchers have highlighted the difficulty of conceptualising its dimensions.
The fact is that there is not a single definition of TQM, and there are numerous models on
the interrelationships of its different dimensions.
With the emergence of excellence models, it has become a common practice to use
them as an operational definition of TQM. However, the terms associated with TQM
have been receiving decreasing attention in the contents of the different models, and prac-
tically disappear from the contents of the EFQM Excellence Model (EEM). Many papers
identify TQM with excellence models, since authors have used the models as instruments
for the measurement of the implementation of TQM. In that context, the question arises as
to whether these models accurately represent the core ideas of TQM. Other question would
be if implementing one of the excellence models has the same positive effects for a
company as the application of academic models of TQM. If they are the same, their
effect on company results should be the same. This paper tries to give responses to
these two questions.
Applying TQM involves the application of a set of recommendations ranging from
human resources management to the suppliers management. Meanwhile, the EEM
divides the elements that constitute it into five enablers and four results. In this paper,
the relationship between the elements that constitute TQM and those five enablers are
analysed. The relationship of the elements of TQM and the enablers with EEM results
are also analysed.

∗
Corresponding author. Email: mili@um.es

# 2015 Taylor & Francis

 Total Quality Management 89

The article is structured as follows. First, a review of the literature is carried out. It
shows how models of excellence and TQM models have evolved over time and it empha-
sises the common aspects as well as their distinct features. Next, the working hypotheses
are proposed. Then the methodology used is explained and the results of the statistical
analysis are presented. The article ends with conclusions, limitations and future research
lines resulting from this work.

Literature review
The evolution of excellence models
A model is an abstract representation of reality that usually contains the most important
elements of the real system and whose goal is to help understand this reality (Kanji,
2002). This model– reality relationship is associated with a series of limitations in terms
of application (Rolstadas & Andersen, 2000), since models feature a simplified vision
of reality.
At the company and organisational level, the models are characterised by including the
most important elements of an organisation (including processes, products and systems) as
well as the relationship between them. According to Cobb (2003), organisational models
tend to be supported by a map of processes including elements related to each functional
area of the organisation.
The first models that appeared in the business world were the so-called models of
TQM. According to Conti (2007), these early models were characterised by representing
the point of view of their authors on the concepts of TQM and not being dynamic models
but models oriented to the evaluation of the degree of maturity of TQM in the company.
The designation ‘TQM models’ evolved after the creation and dissemination of the
Malcolm Baldrige model and subsequently the EEM. The term ‘TQM models’ has
become ‘Models of excellence’. This gradual change of name has meant that many scho-
lars use the terms as if they were interchangeable, which has created discussion in the aca-
demic world about whether excellence models share the same philosophy as the TQM
models and, ultimately, if they are the same.
As a result, the widespread use of the term ‘Model of excellence’ is very recent. It is used
as a trademark to refer to the models associated with each quality award (Adebanjo, 2001;
Membrado Martı́nez, 2002). This strategy of differentiation between excellence models and
TQM, which has been followed by the organisations that promote models and awards, has
been accompanied by a reduction in the manuals of excellence of the use of the word quality
and other terms associated with TQM, and this trend is most apparent in the EEM. This fact
has been criticised by authors such as Dale, Zairi, Van der Wiele, and Williams (2000), who
argue that this use of language reinforces the erroneous belief that TQM is a fad and quality
is not an important factor for organisations in Europe. In fact, the EEM has been related
to many other management theories and tools (Alfaro-Saiz, Carot-Sierra, Rodrı́guez-
Rodrı́guez, & Jabaloyes-Vivas, 2011; Castresana Ruiz-Carrillo & Fernández-Ortı́z,
2005). Moreover, the EEM has been used as a way of introducing or evaluating total
quality practices in the public sector (Calvo de Mora, Leal, & Roldán, 2005; Campatelli,
Citti, & Meneghin, 2011; Nabitz, Jansen, van der Voet, & van den Brink, 2009).
Tan, Wong, Mehta, and Khoo (2003) argue that most national excellence models are
based on the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award (MBNQA) or the EEM. This evi-
dence is also confirmed in other studies (Cauchick, 2005; NIST, 2010). Many other models
have been developed at the regional or country level, so that the current number of prizes
exceeds 90 (Koura, 2009; NIST, 2010).
90 J.G. Gómez et al.

All models are dynamic in nature and are subject to regular amendments and revisions.
As a result, the differences between these models are progressively reducing (Cauchick,
2005; Koura, 2009). According to Koura (2009), the main values that are shared by the
different models are leadership; customer focus; continuous learning, innovation and
improvement; process management based on facts; employee involvement and develop-
ment; social responsibility; focus on the future; focus on results and creating value; and
partnership development.
These common values are consistent with those identified by Cauchick (2005) who
compared 24 awards, and concluded that the core shared values are customer orientation,
leadership, people, social responsibility, innovation, learning, results, process manage-
ment and relationships. These common values match with many of the elements included
by different authors as critical factors of TQM (Bergman & Klefsjö, 1994; Flynn, Schor-
oeder, & Sakakibara, 1994; Magnus & Bengt, 2000; Mann & Kehoe, 1994; Saraph,
Benson, & Schroeder, 1989).
Consistent with this position, Samson and Terziovski (1999), after an exhaustive
review of the quality management literature, conclude that excellence models are the
most commonly used methods to categorise elements of TQM. This view is shared by
Van der Wiele, Dale, and Williams (2000), who also highlight the fact that these
models have been helpful for companies at the time of developing their management
systems.
In addition to the awards and models associated with a particular country or region, in
recent years, academics, consulting firms and large companies have developed their own
models of business excellence (Koura & Talwar, 2008). A few can be picked out by way of
example: ‘Kanji’s Business Excellence Model (KBEM)’, ‘UBEM’, ‘The TQM Model of
Conti’, ‘The Xerox Business Excellence’, ‘The 4P Model of Toyota Production System’,
‘Ericsson Business Excellence Model’ and ‘Lynch and Cross’ Performance Pyramid’.
Models of excellence and their associated awards are not exempt from criticism. Singh
and Smith (2006) assert that there is a lack of strategic orientation since the models are too
focused on the dimension of quality. These authors also criticise the credibility of some
prizes, insofar as some companies have gone bankrupt shortly after receiving an award.
Related to this last point, Tan et al. (2003) stress that winning a prize is not a panacea
that will solve the problems of the organisation. Chuan and Soon (2000) highlight the dif-
ficulty of small and medium-sized organisations in applying the models, where the lack of
resources and the need for external advice can be a barrier to their use. Dale et al. (2000)
emphasise that the models sometimes give more emphasis to the process of scoring, rather
than providing paths towards reaching the achievements. Finally, other criticisms are
related to the lack of transparency of organisations that give the prizes, since scholars
do not have access to historical scores of assessments, and this makes it difficult to
analyse the validity of the models (Dahlgaard, Kristensen, & Kanji, 1998; Dean &
Tomovic, 2004; Pannirselvam, Siferd, & Ruch, 1998).

TQM
Although in the quality management literature there is a consensus regarding who are the
gurus of TQM – Crosby, Deming, Juran, Ishikawa and Feigenbaum – their foci are differ-
ent (Martı́nez-Lorente, Dewhurst, & Dale, 1998). A mixture of the main contributions of
these authors was the basis for the TQM model that has been proposed by academics.
Focusing on the models proposed by academics, many theoretical and empirical
studies have conceptualised the contents of TQM. Among them it is worth picking out
 Total Quality Management 91

a few, such as Saraph et al. (1989), Flynn et al. (1994) and Ahire, Golhar, and Waller
(1996), who were pioneers or precursors of other similar studies. From these papers
others researchers have developed their own models. All of them have considered that
TQM implementation can be measured with a specific number of constructs, each of
which represents a different element of TQM. Table 1 summarises the characteristics of
the main papers published on the topic.
If we analyse in detail the different models proposed by academics (Ahire et al., 1996;
Anderson, Rungtusanatham, & Schroeder, 1994; Black & Porter, 1996; Conca, Llopis, &
Tarı́, 2004; Dean & Bowen, 1994; Douglas & Fredendall, 2004; Flynn et al., 1994; Grand-
zol & Gershon, 1998; Mann & Kehoe, 1994; Quazi, Jemangin, Kit, & Kian, 1998; Rao,
Solis, & Raghunathan, 1999; Saraph et al., 1989; Tamimi, 1995), it can be seen that a
high percentage of critical factors or dimensions are common between the different
models (see Table 2).
With the appearance of the excellence models, it has become a common practice to use
them as an operational definition of TQM (Adams, McQueen, & Seawright, 1999; Corre-
dor & Goñi, 2011; Easton & Jarrell, 1998; Hendricks & Singhal, 1996, 2001a, 2001b;
Hua, Chin, Sun, & Xu, 2000; Wilson & Collier, 2000). This fact has led to a further
point of discussion between excellence models and TQM, since the former includes per-
formance in their evaluation. On the basis of the previous considerations, the present study
is intended to examine whether companies using the EEM are in some way applying
TQM.
The TQM model developed by Flynn et al. (1994) was the first aimed specifically at
industrial organisations. This paper was an important contribution to the literature on
TQM, and in particular to industrial organisations, since it developed a model with differ-
ent dimensions of quality valid for industrial plants. The model developed by Flynn et al.
(1994) has its origins in the analysis of the approach of ‘World Class Manufacturing’,
where quality management is a key factor to achieve and sustain competitive advantage
over time. This model has been chosen as the basis for the research study described in
the present paper. However, although four of its dimensions were directly introduced
from this model, two other dimensions were ‘Workforce’, resulting from combining the
‘workforce management’ and ‘work attitudes’ scales of Flynn et al. (1994), and

Table 1. TQM models.

Model Sample Constructs
Saraph et al. (1989) Manufacturing – Service 8
Flynn et al. (1994) Manufacturing 7
Dean and Bowen (1994) Theoretical model 6
Anderson et al. (1994) Theoretical model 7
Mann and Kehoe (1994) Manufacturing – Service 10
Tamimi (1995) Manufacturing – Service 8
Black and Porter (1996) Manufacturing – Service 10
Ahire et al (1996) Manufacturing 12
Grandzol and Gershon (1998) Manufacturing 7
Quazi et al. (1998) Manufacturing – Service 7
Rao et al. (1999) Theoretical model 11
Douglas and Fredendall (2004) Services 7
Conca et al. (2004) Manufacturing – Service 8
Source: Authors.
 92
Table 2. TQM dimensions identified in previous studies.

J.G. Gómez et al.

Saraph et al. (1989) Flynn et al. (1994) Dean and Bowen (1994) Anderson et al. (1994) Mann and Kehoe (1994)
Role of management leadership Top management support Leadership Visionary leadership Supplier improvement
Role of quality department Quality information Human resource Internal and external Process control and improvement
management cooperation
Training Process management Strategic quality Learning Internal customer focus
planning
Product/service design Product design Information and analysis Process Management Measurement and reporting
leadership
Supplier quality management Workforce management Management of process Continuous Quality system
quality improvement
Process management Supplier involvement Customer focus and Employee fulfilment Participation
satisfaction
Quality data and reporting Customer involvement Customer satisfaction Recognition
Employee relations Education
Training
External customer focus
Grandzol and
Tamimi (1995) Black and Porter (1996) Ahire et al. (1996) Gershon (1998) Quazi et al. (1998)
Management commitment People and customer Top management Leadership Leadership
management commitment
Supervisory leadership Supplier partnerships Customer focus Continuous Information and analysis
improvement
Education Communication of Supplier quality Employee fulfilment Strategic planning
improvement information management
Cross-functional communications Customer satisfaction Design quality Learning Human resource planning
to improve quality orientation management
Supplier management External interface management Benchmarking Process management Process management
Training Strategic quality management SPC usage Internal and external Quality results
cooperation
Product/service innovation Teamwork structures Internal quality Customer focus Customer satisfaction
information usage
Providing assurance to employees Operational quality planning Employee empowerment
Employee involvement
 Quality improvement
measurement systems
Corporate quality culture
Rao et al. (1999) Douglas and Fredendall (2004)
Top management support Visionary leadership
Strategic quality planning Internal and external
cooperation
Quality information availability Learning
Quality information usage Process management
Employee training Continuous improvement
Employee involvement Employee fulfilment
Product/process design Business results
Employee training
Product quality
Supplier performance
Conca et al. (2004) EFQM (2010) MBNQA (2010)
Leadership Leadership Leadership
Quality planning Policy and strategy Strategic planning
Employee management People Customer and market focus
Supplier management Partner and resources Measurement, analysis and
knowledge management
Customer focus Process Human resource focus
Process management Customer results Process management
Continuous People results Results

Total Quality Management

improvement
Supplier quality Learning Society results
Customer orientation Key results
Quality citizenship
Benchmarking
Note: SPC, Statistical Process Control.

93
94 J.G. Gómez et al.

Figure 1. The TQM model of Flynn et al. (1995).

Figure 2. EFQM model (EFQM, 2010).

‘Processes’, which combine ‘Statistical control and feedback’ and ‘Productive processes’.
Figure 1 shows the final model.

EFQM Excellence Model

The EEM is composed of a set of factors or criteria that are interrelated and defines a
company as excellent (EFQM, 2010). The criteria are divided into enablers and results
(see Figure 2). Enablers are concerned with what organisations should do and how to
do it, and results are concerned with achievements obtained by the company regarding
all interest groups and with reference to general objectives.

Correspondence between the TQM and EFQM models

As has been stated before, the EEM includes results and they are not included in the
models of academics. Therefore, the comparison between this model and the TQM
model has to be made using only the EFQM enablers. If the correspondence of TQM
dimensions with EFQM enablers is analysed according to the items that define both, it
can be concluded that, although there is not a precise correspondence, some parallels
can be found. In particular, the following can be said:
 Total Quality Management 95

(a) The contents of Top Management Support are similar to the contents of Leader-
ship. The need for the personal involvement of leaders is common, as is the need
to support continuous improvement. However, the EEM does not include the term
‘quality’ and does not include the need to apply methods for motivating employ-
ees. Moreover, the TQM model does not imply the need to define the vision and
mission of the organisation, nor is it concerned with questions of social
responsibility.
(b) The contents of Customer Relationships are included amongst the contents of
Strategy and Processes, Products and Services. Strategy includes the importance
of knowing customers’ needs. Processes, Products and Services also include this
element and the need to maintain close contact with customers.
(c) The contents of Product Design Process are partially included amongst the con-
tents of Processes, Products and Services. Both models emphasise the need to
design products and services according to customers’ needs and the need for
team-working with as many employees as possible. However, the term
‘quality’ does not appear as an EEM enabler.
(d) The contents of Supplier Relationships are partially included amongst the con-
tents of Partnership and Resources. The EEM enabler includes a general need
to have collaborative relationships with all stakeholders, included suppliers.
However, it does not specify how to define these collaborative relationships
and does not include TQM elements such as the need for long-term relationships
or the focus on quality. Moreover, the Partnership and Resources enabler also
includes how to manage financial and material resources, elements that are not
related to TQM.
(e) The contents of Workforce are included amongst the contents of People. These
two elements are the most similar. The People enabler includes a focus on
work teams, good communication, training and motivation, the basic elements
of the construct Workforce. This enabler also includes some elements that are
not specific of TQM, such as the motivation to care for social responsibility,
but they have a low weight in the total weight of People.
(f) The contents of Processes are partially included amongst the contents of Pro-
cesses, Products and Services. The Processes, Products and Services enabler
introduces the need to manage processes and the need for continuous improve-
ment, but many elements of TQM are omitted from its contents. For example,
none of the elements of the 5S system are included in the EEM enabler.

According to the previous literature review and the comparison between TQM and
EEM, the following hypotheses are proposed:
H1: There is a positive correlation between the construct Top Management Support of TQM
and the enabler Leadership of EEM.
H2: There is a positive correlation between the construct Customer Relationships of TQM and
the enabler Strategy of EEM.
H3: There is a positive correlation between the construct Customer Relationships of TQM and
the enabler Processes, Product and Services of EEM.
H4: There is a positive correlation between the construct Product Design Process of TQM and
the enabler Processes, Product and Services of EEM.
H5: There is a positive correlation between the construct Supplier Relationships of TQM and
the enabler Partnership and Resources of EEM.
96 J.G. Gómez et al.

H6: There is a positive correlation between the construct Workforce of TQM and the enabler
People of EEM.
H7: There is a positive correlation between the construct Processes of TQM and the enabler
Processes of EEM.
In addition to this analysis, proponents of both TQM (Flynn, Schroeder, & Sakakibara,
1995) and EEM (Bou-Llusar, Escrig-Tena, Roca-Puig, & Beltrán-Martin, 2009; Sadeh,
Arumugam, & Malarvizhi, 2013) argue that the application of these models helps compa-
nies to get better results. In order to add new evidence on this topic, the following hypoth-
eses were tested.
H8: The relationship between TQM constructs and EEM results is positive.
H9: The relationship between EEM enablers and EEM results is positive.

Methodology
Sampling and data collection
The original population comprised Spanish industrial companies within the range of 50–
500 employees. The list of companies was obtained from a financial database called SABI
(Sistema de Análisis de Balances Ibéricos). The total population showed 3814 companies
with these characteristics.
A web page was used as the platform to collect the data. Quality managers were con-
tacted by telephone in the first instance and invited to participate in the research by com-
pleting the questionnaire on the webpage with an individual username and key. Some
managers preferred to answer the questionnaire via telephone, so they were also offered
this alternative.
The questionnaires were pre-tested by experts from academia as well as industry in the
Region of Murcia. Companies in the database were randomly ordered and then contacted
via telephone. In the end, 199 companies completed the questionnaires.

Variables
The use of measuring scales inspired by the EEM has been used in several studies in recent
years, since the information that the model considers is suitable for defining scales (Eskild-
sen & Kanji, 1998). Several studies that have used measuring scales inspired by this model
can be identified (Bou-Llusar et al., 2009; Calvo de Mora & Criado, 2005; Eskildsen &
Dahlgaard, 2000; Prajogo & Sohal, 2003; Rahman, 2001).
In the present paper, the EEM has been measured using a scale developed from the areas
to be included in the criteria of the model. In that sense, it was not a scale defined by the
authors, but an existing scale whose reliability and validity did not need to be tested,
insofar as it is not the result of a scientific study but rests on the decision of EFQM. The
scale is as experts of EFQM decided it should be, and, therefore, analysis of its reliability
and validity is not relevant (Diamantopoulos & Siguaw, 2006). In this empirical study,
three items among the areas to address included in the model were selected to measure
each of the sub-criteria that comprise the different criteria (EFQM, 2003).
The scale used to measure TQM has been developed using the scales proposed by
Flynn et al. (1994). The selection of this scale rather than others developed by Saraph
et al. (1989), Ahire et al. (1996), Grandzol and Gershon (1998) or Black and Porter
(1996) is justified by the fact that it was designed to be used in production plants,
which also formed the sample for the present study, and because it is a scale that has
 Total Quality Management 97

Table 3. Correlations between TQM dimensions and EFQM enablers.

EFQM enablers
Partners.&
Leadership People Strategy resources Processes
∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗
TQM dimensions Top Management 0.53 0.58 0.56 0.54 0.56∗∗
Support
Customer 0.41∗∗ 0.45∗∗ 0.50∗∗ 0.46∗∗ 0.52∗∗
Relationships
Product Design Process 0.34∗∗ 0.36∗∗ 0.35∗∗ 0.41∗∗ 0.47∗∗
Supplier Relationships 0.49∗∗ 0.59∗∗ 0.58∗∗ 0.63∗∗ 0.60∗∗
Workforce 0.58∗∗ 0.59∗∗ 0.61∗∗ 0.52∗∗ 0.49∗∗
Processes 0.49∗∗ 0.59∗∗ 0.60∗∗ 0.63∗∗ 0.62∗∗
Note: The relationships shown in Table 2 are in bold.
∗∗
Significant at p , .01.

been used in other studies (Flynn et al., 1995) which confirmed its validity. One difference
from the scale of Flynn et al. (1994) is that it has been analysed as a formative scale rather
than as a reflective one. Therefore, the sum of each element of the scale has been used as a
measure of the global application of TQM at each company.

Possible sample bias

The first difference analysed was the distribution across sectors. To analyse if there was
any difference between the sample and the population, we correlated the number of com-
panies in each sector in the population with the number of companies in each sector in the
sample. The Pearson correlation was 0.76 and significant at the 1% level. This means that
the sample is a good representation of the population in relation to the distribution across
industrial sectors.
An analysis of variance (ANOVA) comparing the average number of employees in the
population and the sample was conducted in order to test if there was any difference in
relation to company size. The ANOVA did not reject the null hypothesis of equal
means (F ¼ 1.301, p ¼ .176), so it is not possible to state that the means are different.
Average operating income was also compared, and the results of the ANOVA
did not indicate that the means of population and the sample were different (F ¼ 1.156,
p ¼ .577).

Results
Table 3 summarises the correlations between TQM dimensions and EFQM enablers. As it
can be seen, all the hypothesised correlations between them that include common contents
are positive and significant at p , .01. However, the rest of the correlations between
dimensions and enablers that do not share similar contents are also positive and significant,
being some of them even higher than the correlations of the proposed relationships. This
fact would indicate that the reason of the relationships is more due to the existence of a
parallelism in the application of TQM and EEM than due to the existence of a real corre-
spondence between both models.
In fact, the correlation analysis shows a positive, significant and high correlation
between the global measurement of the TQM scale – the sum of the different constructs
 98
J.G. Gómez et al.
Table 4. Correlations between TQM dimensions and EFQM enablers with EEM results.
TQM constructs Correlation with total EFQM results EFQM enablers Correlation with total EEM results
Top Management Support 0.60∗∗ Leadership 0.60∗∗
Customer Relationships 0.54∗∗ People 0.68∗∗
Product Design Process 0.38∗∗ Strategy 0.68∗∗
Supplier Relationships 0.52∗∗ Partners and resources 0.66∗∗
Workforce 0.51∗∗ Processes 0.68∗∗
Processes 0.59∗∗
∗∗
Significance at the .05 level.

Table 5. Correlations between TQM dimensions and EFQM enablers with EFQM criteria results.
Correlation with EFQM criteria results Correlation with EFQM criteria results
Customer People Society Key Criteria EFQM Customer People Society Key
TQM constructs results results results results enablers results results results results
Top Management Support 0.49∗∗ 0.53∗∗ 0.51∗∗ 0.48∗∗ Leadership 0.45∗∗ 0.45∗∗ 0.54∗∗ 0.55∗∗
Customer Relationships 0.43∗∗ 0.43∗∗ 0.46∗∗ 0.48∗∗ People 0.48∗∗ 0.53∗∗ 0.62∗∗ 0.59∗∗
Product Design Process 0.37∗∗ 0.24∗∗ 0.32∗∗ 0.34∗∗ Strategy 0.49∗∗ 0.54∗∗ 0.62∗∗ 0.61∗∗
Supplier Relationships 0.39∗∗ 0.36∗∗ 0.47∗∗ 0.49∗∗ Partnerships and 0.47∗∗ 0.44∗∗ 0.63∗∗ 0.63∗∗
resources
Workforce 0.44∗∗ 0.45∗∗∗∗ 0.42∗∗ 0.43∗∗ Processes 0.49∗∗ 0.45∗∗ 0.66∗∗ 0.63∗∗
Processes 0.42∗∗ 0.46∗∗ 0.51∗∗ 0.56∗∗
 Total Quality Management 99

– and the global measurement of the EFQM scale – the sum of the different enablers –
(0.741, significant at p , .01). Therefore, it can be concluded that the EEM and TQM,
although not exactly the same, behave in a similar way, and it could be expected that a
company with high scores on EEM will have a high probability of being a TQM company.
Regarding the effect of these two models on company performance, the last part of this
paper analyses the effect on EEM results (see Tables 4 and 5) of both TQM dimensions
and EEM enablers. Table 4 shows the correlations with total results from EEM. This
measure of results is the sum of the four measures of results proposed in the EEM and
has been used as a global formative measurement of company results.
According to the data shown in Table 4, the correlations of EEM enablers are higher
than the correlations of TQM dimensions. This fact could have two explanations: first,
EEM enablers have a bigger effect on results and second, since EEM results are part of
the EEM, this helps to increase these correlations.
Table 5 shows the correlations with each four measurements of EEM results, that is,
with customer results, people results, society results and key results. The analysis of
these correlations shows that, except for the case of the correlations between Top Manage-
ment Support and customer and people results, all the other correlations of EEM enablers
with EEM results are higher than their equivalent TQM constructs. This reinforces the
results shown in Table 4 and would have similar explanations.

Conclusions
Excellence models such as the EEM are increasingly being applied by companies all over
the world. This model was inspired by the TQM philosophy, although it has later evolved
through different revisions and has incorporated aspects such as social responsibility that
were not originally included in the TQM philosophy.
Researchers have analysed the effects in companies of TQM implementation and, on
many occasions, the EEM has been considered to be a pseudo-official model of TQM. In
this connection it is interesting to follow an empirical analysis to see whether it really cor-
responds with what academics have defined as TQM.
In a first approach to the literature review, it can be seen that there are similarities
between some constructs, although there are also some differences. After comparing
responses of companies regarding both management systems, our results lead us to the
conclusion that there is a strong relationship between the scores of the two models
TQM and EEM. These results would tend to confirm the assumptions made in the litera-
ture (Fotopoulos & Psomas, 2008; Samson & Terziovski, 1999) that categorised the TQM
elements using the EFQM enablers. In fact, the conclusions support statements such as that
made by Van der Wiele et al. (2000), that excellence models are a good guide for organ-
isations if they want to introduce and manage improvement activities following the TQM
philosophy. It is certainly the case that the objectives set by the EFQM foundation were
inspired by that philosophy when they created the model.
However, a more detailed look at the analysis of the correspondence between the con-
tents of the enablers of the EEM and the contents of TQM constructs shows that, although
they have some aspects in common, many elements of TQM are omitted from the contents
of EEM enablers. Of course, it cannot be said that the application of EEM principles could
compromise the success of TQM, but the implementation of EEM may be a necessary, but
not sufficient, condition for achieving TQM.
It was expected that TQM dimensions would have a correspondence with EEM
enablers that share similar content, as it was demonstrated in the literature review.
100 J.G. Gómez et al.

These hypotheses were confirmed. However, the statistical analysis shows that corre-
lations between TQM dimensions and EEM enablers that do not share similar contents
are also positive and significant, and that some of them are even higher than the corre-
lations of the proposed relationships. This is partially contrary to the expectations. The
possible answer to this unexpected finding could be that companies interested in applying
the principles and practices of TQM dimensions are also interested in applying the
principles and practices of EEM enablers. That is to say, there is a third factor that
makes companies apply TQM and EEM to a similar extent. The fact that TQM dimensions
have the same high correlation with all EEM enablers, independently of their commonal-
ity, is a strong indicator of this idea. The analysis of this factor could be a further line of
research.
Therefore, according to the results of the present study, managers should see the EEM
as a good opportunity to introduce improvements in their companies. However, if their
intention is to introduce TQM, they should also look to the models proposed by academics
since they introduce elements that are not included in the EEM and have previously shown
their benefits in companies where they have been introduced. On the other side, academics
should also be cautious about the assumption that the EEM is a perfect proxy for TQM
implementation.
Finally, this research also analyses the relationship of both models with results as
measured in the EEM elements relating to Results. In first place, the relationships of
EEM enablers with EEM results are all positive and significant, showing that managers
can trust in EEM principles to improve their results. The relationships of each of the
TQM constructs with EEM results are also positive and significant, adding support to
the benefits of TQM. However, these relationships are slightly less strong than the relation-
ships with EEM enablers, which could indicate two things: first, EEM enablers have a
bigger impact on results, and, second, the fact that results have been measured using
the EEM methodology implies some common variance that would explain this stronger
relationship. In either case, the main message for managers would be that both TQM
and EEM can help them to improve their companies’ performance.

Limitations
This study has a number of limitations. It focuses exclusively on industrial companies
operating in Spain and with a range of between 50 and 500 workers. In addition, the
design of the study is cross-sectional. The other limitation, shared by most of the research
in the area, is that data were collected from subjective responses of managers.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Funding
The authors wish to acknowledge the financial support received from the Spanish Minis-
terio de Ciencia e Innovación for the project ‘Efectos de la aplicación del modelo EFQM
en la gestión y los resultados empresariales (referencia ECO2008– 02387)’. This paper is a
result of this research project.
 Total Quality Management 101

References
Adams, T., McQueen, G., & Seawright, K. (1999). Revisiting the stock price impact of quality
awards. Omega, 27(6), 595 –604.
Adebanjo, D. (2001). TQM and business excellence: Is there really a conflict? Measuring Business
Excellence, 5(3), 37–40.
Ahire, S. L., Golhar, D. Y., & Waller, M. A. (1996). Development and validation of TQM implemen-
tation constructs. Decision Sciences, 27(1), 23–56.
Alfaro-Saiz, J. J., Carot-Sierra, J. M., Rodrı́guez-Rodrı́guez, R., & Jabaloyes-Vivas, J. M. (2011).
Seeking organisational excellence by using the information coming from the EFQM excel-
lence model as starting point: Application to a real case. Total Quality Management &
Business Excellence, 22(8), 853– 868.
Anderson, J. C., Rungtusanatham, M., & Schroeder, R. G. (1994). A theory of quality management
underlying the Deming management method. Academy of Management Review, 19(3),
472 –509.
Bergman, B., & Klefsjö, B. (1994). Quality from customer needs to customer satisfaction. Lund:
London an Studentlitteratur.
Black, S. A., & Porter, L. J. (1996). Identification of the critical factors of TQM. Decision Sciences,
27(1), 1 –21.
Bou-Llusar, J., Escrig-Tena, A., Roca-Puig, V., & Beltrán-Martin, I. (2009). An empirical assess-
ment of the EFQM Excellence Model: Evaluation as a TQM framework relative to the
MBNQA model. Journal of Operations Management, 27(1), 1–22.
Calvo de Mora, A., & Criado, F. (2005). Análisis de la validez del modelo europeo de excelencia par
la gestión de la calidad en instituciones universitarias: un enfoque directivo. Revista Europea
de Dirección y Economı́a de la Empresa, 14(3), 41– 58.
Calvo de Mora, A., Leal, A. G., & Roldán, J. L. (2005). Relationships between the EFQM model
criteria: A study in Spanish universities. Total Quality Management & Business
Excellence, 16(6), 741 –770.
Campatelli, G., Citti, P., & Meneghin, A. (2011). Development of a simplified approach based
on the EFQM model and Six Sigma for the implementation of TQM principles in a
university administration. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 22(7),
691 –704.
Castresana Ruiz-Carrillo, J. I., & Fernández-Ortı́z, R. (2005). Theoretical foundation of the EFQM
model: The resource-based view. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence,
16(1), 31 –55.
Cauchick, P. A. (2005). A comparison of quality programs in the world. Revista de Ciencia y
Tecnologı́a, 13(25/26), 35–46.
Chuan, T. K., & Soon, L. C. (2000). A detailed trends analysis of national quality awards world-
wide. Total Quality Management, 11(8), 1065 –1080.
Cobb, C. G. (2003). From quality to business excellence: A systems approach to management.
Milwaukee: ASQ.
Conca, F. J., Llopis, J., & Tarı́, J. J. (2004). Development of a measure to assess quality management
in certified firms. European Journal of Operational Research, 156(3), 683– 697.
Conti, T. (2007). A history and review of the European Quality Award Model. The TQM Magazine,
19(2), 112 –128.
Corredor, P., & Goñi, S. (2011). TQM and performance: Is the relationship so obvious? Journal of
Business Research, 64(8), 830 –838.
Dahlgaard, J. J., Kristensen, K., & Kanji, G. K. (1998). Fundamentals of TQM. London: Carfax.
Dale, B. G., Zairi, M., Van der Wiele, A., & Williams, A. R. T. (2000). Quality is dead in Europe –
long live excellence – true or false? Measuring Business Excellence, 4(3), 4–10.
Dean, J. W., & Bowen, D. E. (1994). Management theory and total quality: Improving research and
practice through theory development. Academy of Management Review, 19(3), 392–418.
Dean, M., & Tomovic, C. (2004). Does Baldrige make a case for quality? Quality Progress, 37(4),
40 –45.
Diamantopoulos, A., & Siguaw, J. A. (2006). Formative versus reflective indicators in organizational
measure development: A comparison and empirical illustration. British Journal of
Management, 17(4), 263 –282.
Douglas, T. J., & Fredendall, L. D. (2004). Evaluating the Deming management model of total
quality in services. Decision Sciences, 35(3), 393–422.
102 J.G. Gómez et al.

Easton, G. S., & Jarrell, S. L. (1998). The effects of total quality management on corporate perform-
ance: An empirical investigation. Journal of Business, 71(2), 253–307.
EFQM. (2003). Modelo EFQM de Excelencia. Brussels: Author.
EFQM. (2010). Modelo EFQM de Excelencia. Brussels: Author.
Eskildsen, J. K., & Dahlgaard, J. J. (2000). A causal model for employee satisfaction. Total Quality
Management, 11(8), 1081–1094.
Eskildsen, J. K., & Kanji, G. K. (1998). Identifying the vital few using the European Foundation for
Quality Management model. Total Quality Management, 9(4/5), 92 –94.
Flynn, B. B., Schoroeder, R. G., & Sakakibara, S. (1994). A framework for quality management
research and an associated measurement instrument. Journal of Operations Management,
11(4), 339 –366.
Flynn, B. B., Schroeder, R. G., & Sakakibara, S. (1995). The impact of quality management practices
on performance and competitive advantage. Decision Sciences, 26(5), 659–691.
Fotopoulos, C. B., & Psomas, E. L. (2008). The impact of ‘soft’ and ‘hard’ TQM elements on
quality management results. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management,
26(2), 150 –163.
Grandzol, J. R., & Gershon, M. (1998). A survey instrument for standardizing TQM modeling
research. International Journal of Quality Science, 3(1), 80–105.
Hendricks, K., & Singhal, V. (1996). Quality awards and the market value of the firm: An empirical
investigation. Management Science, 42(3), 415–436.
Hendricks, K., & Singhal, V. (2001a). Firm characteristics, total quality management, and financial
performance. Journal of Operations Management, 19(3), 269–285.
Hendricks, K., & Singhal, V. (2001b). The long-run stock price performance of firms with effective
TQM programs. Management Science, 47(3), 359– 368.
Hua, H., Chin, K. S., Sun, H., & Xu, Y. (2000). An empirical study on quality management practices
in Shanghai manufacturing industries. Total Quality Management, 11(8), 1111–1122.
Kanji, G. K. (2002). Measuring business excellence. London: Routledge.
Koura, K. (2009). Comparative study of core values of excellence models vis-a-vis human values.
Measuring Business Excellence, 13(4), 34–46.
Koura, K., & Talwar, B. (2008). Comparing the UBEM Vedic matrix and the TQM elements deploy-
ment model using principal component analysis. The TQM Journal, 20(5), 413– 435.
Magnus, S., & Bengt, K. (2000). Experiences from creating a quality culture for continuous improve-
ments in the Swedish school sector by using self-assessments. Total Quality Management,
11(4–6), 800 –807.
Mann, R., & Kehoe, D. (1994). An evaluation of the effects of quality improvement activities on
business performance. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 11(4),
29 –44.
Martı́nez-Lorente, A. R., Dewhurst, F., & Dale, B. G. (1998). Total quality management: Origins and
evolution of the term. The TQM Magazine, 10(5), 378–386.
MBNQA. (2010). Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award. US. Retrieved from http://asq.org/
learn-about-quality/malcolm-baldrige-award/overview/overview.html
Membrado Martı́nez, J. (2002). Innovación y mejora continua según el Modelo EFQM de
Excelencia. Madrid: Ed. Dı́az de Santos.
Nabitz, U., Jansen, P., van der Voet, S., & van den Brink, W. (2009). Psychosocial work con-
ditions and work stress in an innovating addiction treatment centre. Consequences for
the EFQM Excellence Model. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 20(3),
267 –281.
NIST. (2010). National Quality/Business Excellence Awards in different countries. Retrieved April
17, 2010, from www.baldrige.nist.gov
Pannirselvam, G. P., Siferd, S. P., & Ruch, W. A. (1998). Validation of the Arizona Governor’s
Quality Award criteria: A test of the Baldrige criteria. Journal of Operations Management,
16(5), 529 –550.
Prajogo, D. I., & Sohal, A. S. (2003). The relationship between TQM practices, quality performance
and innovation performance: An empirical examination. International Journal of Quality &
Reliability Management, 20(8), 901–918.
Quazi, H. A., Jemangin, J., Kit, L. W., & Kian, C. L. (1998). Critical factors in quality management
and guidelines for self-assessment: The case of Singapore. Total Quality Management, 9(1),
35 –55.
 Total Quality Management 103

Rahman, S. (2001). A comparative study of TQM practice and organizational performance of SMEs
with and without ISO 9000 certification. International Journal of Quality & Reliability
Management, 18(1), 35 –49.
Rao, S. S., Solis, L. E., & Raghunathan, T. S. (1999). A framework for international quality manage-
ment research: Development and validation of a measurement instrument. Total Quality
Management, 10(7), 1047–1075.
Rolstadas, A., & Andersen, B. (2000). Enterprise modeling: Improving global industrial competi-
tiveness. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic
Sadeh, E., Arumugam, V. C., & Malarvizhi, C. A. (2013). Integration of EFQM framework and
quality information systems. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 24(1&2),
188 –209.
Samson, D., & Terziovski, M. (1999). The relationship between total quality management practices
and operational performance. Journal of Operations Management, 17(4), 393–409.
Saraph, J. V., Benson, P. G., & Schroeder, R. (1989). An instrument for measuring the critical factors
of quality management. Decision Sciences, 20(4), 810–829.
Singh, P. J., & Smith, A. (2006). Uncovering the faultlines in quality management. Total Quality
Management & Business Excellence, 17(3), 395–407.
Tamimi, N. (1995). An empirical investigation of critical TQM factors using exploratory factor
analysis. International Journal of Production Research, 33(11), 3041–3051.
Tan, K. C., Wong, M. F., Mehta, T., & Khoo, H. H. (2003). Factors affecting the development of
national quality awards. Measuring Business Excellence, 7(3), 37– 45.
Van der Wiele, T., Dale, B. G., & Williams, R. (2000). Business improvement through quality man-
agement systems. Management Decision, 38(1), 19 –23.
Wilson, D. D., & Collier, D. A. (2000). An empirical investigation of the Malcolm Baldrige National
Quality Award causal model. Decision Sciences, 31(2), 361–383.