THE NEW EFQM EXCELLENCE MODEL AND ITS

IMPACT ON HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS

Klaus J. Zink * Wolfgang Vo **

Abstract
Universities and other higher education institutions are currently facing major
challenges: On one hand, public spending on research and education is constantly reduced.
On the other hand, students are getting more and more conscious of their role as customers
demanding value for money. Long-term success in the educational sector therefore requires a
permanent strive for excellence regarding content and didactics of courses as well as
administrative issues.
In this context, self-assessment based on the EFQM Excellence Model is acknowledged
as a powerful tool for controlling an organizations continuous improvement process. It
supports an in-depth analysis of strengths and areas for improvement and provides a rational
approach to organization development.
The EFQM Model was recently reviewed and has undergone some changes regarding its
basic structure and assessment scheme. The development to the current state will be outlined
highlighting particularly the impact on higher education institutions. The model criteria will
be transferred to the educational sector thus illustrating their applicability in this field.
Furthermore, an assessment approach that has been tested and refined by the authors will be
presented.

Challenges for Higher Education Institutions

Universities and other higher education institutions in Germany are currently
facing major challenges: Especially in engineering and natural sciences, the number
of students has sharply decreased over the last years and is only recently increasing
again. The decline was caused by unfavourable occupational prospects making
students register for other programmes such as social and management sciences.
This development has continued quite a while after the economy had recovered and
job prospects considerably improved. Consequently, technical universities and
similar institutions are now facing the opposite problem: Companies are urgently
looking for graduates from engineering faculties. However, this new situation has
only recently affected student numbers with a time lag of two to three years. They
have not yet reached their peak level again and are at most universities below
* Institut fr Technologie und Arbeit, University of Kaiserslautern, Germany
** Institut fr Technologie und Arbeit, University of Kaiserslautern, Germany
e-mail: wvoss@sozwi.uni-kl.de
sinergie rapporti di ricerca n. 9/2000

242

THE NEW EFQM EXCELLENCE MODEL AND ITS IMPACT

education and training capacities. This problem has hit in Germany all universities
with a technical focus. It has also affected the University of Kaiserslautern which
once had almost 15% more students than at present. At the same time, students are
getting more and more conscious of their role as customers demanding value for
money. Thus, competition between German universities has tightened.
Competition is not restricted to the national level: Large companies, which
employ a major proportion of university graduates, more and more pursue recruiting
strategies on an international level. German universities are matched against
competitors from the English-speaking world in particular. They will only be able to
keep up their leading edge if they succeed in securing and even improving their
studies in quality. Lectures and seminars must represent the state-of-the-art
regarding contents and didactics. However, quality appeals to administrative issues,
too.
At the same time, public spending on research and education as well as
companies R&D budgets were considerably reduced. They are the main sources of
income for university bodies. This leads to a more competitive environment
regarding acquisition of research funding. In Germany, it is usually not the
university as a whole to apply for projects announced by the European Union,
federal or state ministries, research agencies etc. This is the responsibility of each
university chair or research institute. They are rather independent in designing their
project portfolios. So competition for funding does not only take place between
universities, but mostly between different chairs or research institutes.
Both trends enhanced competition along with decreasing funds show that in
the future only those institutions will be successful that provide excellent education
and training as well as leading-edge research. This does not only require innovation
and creativity regarding contents. Superior performance also has to rely on internal
systems and processes to efficiently acquire research funding and to professionally
manage and deliver services for education and research i.e. mainly administrative
tasks. Here, quality management comes into play. It provides a systematic and
preventive approach to cope with these new challenges (Zink/Buerle, 1997).

Self-Assessment based on Excellence Models

In this context, self-assessment based on Excellence Models of national or
international quality awards is acknowledged as a powerful tool for controlling an
organizations continuous improvement process. It supports an in-depth analysis of
strengths and areas for improvement and provides a rational approach to
organization development. The underlying models are designed in a way they can be
applied to different kinds of organizations. They rely on the idea that, in the long
run, an organization will only perform excellently when it succeeds in balancing the
needs of all stakeholders. Long-term success requires customer satisfaction and
loyalty, which in turn is based on employee satisfaction etc. Thus the focus shifts
from mere product to corporate quality - summarized in the vision of Excellence

KLAUS J. ZINK - WOLFGANG VO

243

(Zink/Vo, 1998a).
By implementing regular self-assessment, an organization can establish a
permanent learning cycle. It systematically determines strengths and areas for
improvement, deduces and prioritizes definite measures and builds up continuous
development and improvement. Progress is systematically monitored in a reassessment, leading again to further improvement activities. Thus, self-assessment is
a powerful tool to direct an organizations way to Business Excellence.
First developments on this subject can be seen in Japans Deming Prize which
was introduced as early as in 1951! It becomes even clearer in the set of criteria for
the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award issued for the first time in 1987
(NIST, 1999). Even Australia mostly disregarded when looking at recent
developments in management sciences has a quality award since 1988 (AQC,
1999). In Europe, Total Quality Management (TQM) and Excellence gained some
ground in 1992 when EFQM European Foundation for Quality Management was
founded. Since then, the vision has constantly spread. In the meantime, most
European countries have established their own national quality awards (cp. Fig. 1).
The Nor wegian Quality Award

The Icelandic Association

for Quality Inspiration Award

Danish Quality Award

Finnish Quality Award

Dutch Quality Award

Belgian Quality Award
The Swedish Quality Award
The Irish Quality Association's
Supreme Quality Award

The Polish Quality Award

The UK Quality Award

The Award of the Slovak

Republic for Quality

Prix Franais de la Qualit

The Austrian Quality Award
The Prince Felipe Industrial
Quality Award

The Hungarian National

Quality Award

The Portuguese Quality Award

Ludwig-Erhard-Preis
(German Quality Award)

The Italian National Quality Award

Fig. 1: Quality Awards in Europe (Zink/Vo, 1998b)

Regarding contents, there are no contradictions or major differences between

the individual award models. They all rely on the same fundamentals. Consistently,
an organization showing excellent performance when matched against one model,
will equally prove superior in the context of another scheme. However, the models
vary considerably in structure. Two groups can be identified in principle whereby

244

THE NEW EFQM EXCELLENCE MODEL AND ITS IMPACT

the following list must not be considered as being complete. Especially in Eastern
European countries, new model releases are expected.
-

Quality awards in Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Great Britain, Ireland,

The Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Russia, Slovenia, Spain and Turkey
resemble the European Quality Award with regard to structure and assessment
schemes.
Awards in France, Finland and Sweden rely on the Malcolm Baldrige National
Quality Award. However, as they have been developed further in the meantime,
these origins have become less and less visible over the time.

For higher education institutions all over Europe, the EFQM Excellence Model
as described in the following should be the first choice. It provides a basis for
benchmarking and its validity for higher education institutions in particular has
already been shown (Zink/Schmidt, 1995). German organizations benefit from the
fact that their national quality award Ludwig-Erhard-Preis corresponds with the
EFQM Model and thus makes it easier to switch from national to European level.

The Evolution of the EFQM Excellence Model

The EFQM Excellence Model is administered by the European Foundation for
Quality Management (EFQM). This is a non-profit organization incorporated in
Brussels. Its members are companies from industry and service as well as
universities, research agencies and other institutions from academia. Its primary
objective is to spread the vision of Excellence all over Europe. In this context, the
EFQM offers a range of services from information material and training on selfassessment to benchmarking support. They are all supplementing the core business
of promoting and managing the European Quality Award. The underlying EFQM
Excellence Model was originally developed jointly by practitioners and scientists
and published in 1991. Since then, it has been continuously reviewed and improved.

KLAUS J. ZINK - WOLFGANG VO

245

Fig. 2: The EFQM Excellence Model (Draft 1)

A major revision took place for 1999. It was recognized that co-operation with
external partners or networking as well as innovation and learning had emerged in
the meantime as crucial challenges to organizational performance. The aim was to
incorporate both aspects in the new model. Furthermore, model handling,
applicability, and employability should be improved. As a first step, the EFQM
issued a draft for a new model in April 1998 (cp. Fig. 2). On the one hand, its
graphic structure reflected the desired learning cycle. On the other hand, two new
elements were added: Partnerships, as an enabler, described the organizations
approach to deal or co-operate with external allies; Partners referred to the
respective performance measures. Furthermore, the subcriteria lost their former
purpose of providing detailed requirements to each element. Instead, they now
referred to the factors approach, deployment, assessment, and review. These had
originally been part of the Blue Card, i.e. the dimensions for evaluation. The old
models subcriteria were moved to the areas to address.
The latter changes provoked considerable criticism. Companies already
employing the model for self-assessment purposes would have had to retrain all their
staff. For that reason, they strongly advocated an evolutionary approach to model
development instead. Further problems were seen in the fact that all model contents

246

THE NEW EFQM EXCELLENCE MODEL AND ITS IMPACT

were moved from the level of subcriteria to the areas to address. The latter are not
compulsory but presented as an exemplary guidance for organizations to understand
the model. Thus, practitioners and scientists were afraid the common sense
regarding the contents of the model might get lost. However, the new model draft
offered some considerable improvements mainly referring to the assessment
dimensions. These later formed the RADAR-Chart.
After a vivid discussion with its members all over Europe, the EFQM decided to
withdraw the new model draft and issued a second proposal which was much more
in line with the previous version (EFQM, 1999). Nevertheless, it regarded the before
mentioned aspects of innovation and learning as well as external partnerships which
are now both put more to the fore. On the other hand, the original layer structure
with elements, subcriteria, and areas to address was kept up. This made it easier for
companies to adapt and continue their internal self-assessment processes.

The Current Version of the EFQM Excellence Model

The EFQM Excellence Model currently consists of nine elements and - on the
2nd layer - of 32 subcriteria which cover all facets of business (cp. Fig. 3). The fist
five elements are addressed as Enablers (Concept and Strategy). They show the
structural preconditions of superior performance. The other four elements are
Results to measure the organizations performance and success from different
stakeholders perspectives. The assessment is based on a RADAR scheme. The
results criteria (R) have to reveal positive trends and favourable comparisons with
both the organizations objectives and the level of performance in competition. With
regard to the enablers, all approaches (A) should be sound and integrated with
policy and strategy. They must be deployed (D) in day-to-day business and
regularly assessed and reviewed (AR).

KLAUS J. ZINK - WOLFGANG VO

247

Fig. 3: The EFQM Excellence Model (EFQM, 1999)

The Model provides a ready-made tool which can be employed by all kinds or
organizations. It supports the process of systematically determining strengths and
areas for improvement. Based on this evaluation, an organization can develop
measures for continuous improvement and establish a development process
supporting its ability to learn. In the following section, the contents of the model will
be described. At the same time, alterations for 1999 will be outlined in comparison
with the previous version of the model. For each section, the implications for higher
education institutions will be explained.
Leadership (cp. Fig. 4) matches the role of management with requirements of
Excellence. As implementing a continuous improvement process and going for the
ambitious goal of excellence require visible management commitment and powerful
support for change, superiors acting as role models and showing leadership are a key
prerequisite for enhancing organizational performance successfully.
Previous Model
1a Culture, Commitment and
Role Model

New Model
1a Purpose, Direction, Commitment
and Role Model

1b Support, Provision of
Resources

1b Management System Development to Support Policy & Strategy

1c Involvement with Customers,

Suppliers etc.

1c Involvement with Customers,

Suppliers etc.

1d Recognition

1d Motivation, Support and

Recognition

Fig. 4: Leadership

248

THE NEW EFQM EXCELLENCE MODEL AND ITS IMPACT

Two relevant aspects have been added in the new model (EFQM, 1998). On the
one hand, management is explicitly required to run the strategic planning process, to
develop a clear vision of the organizations future, and to set long-term objectives.
By addressing this role in a separate subcriterion, the link between Leadership and
Policy & Strategy is made obvious. The interrelation between both elements has
of course been an integral part of the previous model already. However, the aim was
to outline it even more clearly. On the other hand, management has to be personally
involved in deploying Policy & Strategy into a management system and in
translating them into practice. So, management must not only set direction but also
the necessary environment for the organization to develop according to its strategic
objectives.
According to the EFQM Excellence Model, management or leaders include all
members of the organization acting as superiors to other employees. For a higher
education institution, this will normally appeal to the heads of the administration and
most teaching staff. These people have to develop a clear understanding on where
their organization will position itself in the educational sector. This vision must be
translated into a definite strategy on how to get there and in appropriate
organizational structures and processes. Teaching stuff is therefore not only
responsible for their lectures and seminars with regard to contents and didactics, but
also for designing the whole teaching process in a way students can reap the utmost
benefits.
Policy & Strategy (cp. Fig. 5) deal with organizational objectives, values and
strategies and their implementation in day-to-day business. Policy and strategy must
be based on valid and comprehensive information about both internal performance
measurement and the expectations of all stakeholders. They have to be translated
into definite goals and objectives for organizational units, individuals, and teams. A
consistent policy deployment makes sure all people know what they are expected to
do in order to achieve overall strategic objectives. Key processes must be defined
and regularly reviewed to implement them in day-to-day business.

Previous Model
2a Information based
2b Strategy Development
2c Communication and
Implementation
2d Strategy Review and
Improvement

New Model
2a Market Definition and Stakeholder
Information
2b Performance, Learning and Other
Information
2c Strategy Development, Review
and Update
2d Deployment through Key
Processes
2e Communication and
Implementation

Fig. 5: Policy & Strategy

KLAUS J. ZINK - WOLFGANG VO

249

The latter aspect has considerably increased its weighting in the new model as a
separate subcriterion is dedicated to this topic. Again, the aim was not to add
something basically new to the model but to clarify certain aspects that were not
always fully understood in the past. Often, organizations tended to define procedures
and structures without any explicit reference to their policy and strategy. Even more
often, the latter are basically revised without any reflection in organization
structures. So, the new model explicitly illustrates that key processes have to be
aligned with an organizations policy and strategy. At the same time, all subcriteria
dealing with process improvement and change management have been summarized.
In the higher education sector, many organizations probably do not have any
explicit mission statement or strategy at all. However, the EFQM Model not only
requires to develop such long-term understanding of future development, but to
translate it into the teaching process and day-to-day business. Activities can only be
aligned with stakeholder interests if these groups are thoroughly defined. They
should include, among others, the organizations staff, its students, potential
employers of its graduates, and funding institutions. If the organization is also
engaged in research, further stakeholders such as the scientific community have to
be added. All these interests have to be balanced in the organizations policy and
strategy.
The resulting self-understanding has to penetrate registration requirements for
students, employment and performance measurement criteria for administrative and
teaching staff, the definition of the organizations programme portfolio, the design
of seminars and lectures as well as examination schemes. It must also be reflected in
process and service standards - e.g. with regard to reliability, accuracy, and time. It
is a question of credibility for students, to recognize the organization not only puts
high demands on them but is also able to meet these requirements itself.
As Business Excellence also means integrating an organizations people, the
models third element People describes the approach to set free the individuals
potential for continuously improving the business (cp. Fig. 6). The element appeals
to empowerment and communication as well as education and training. Compared to
the previous model, the approach to agree on targets has been moved from the level
of subcriteria to the areas to address. As a matter of form, it is not compulsory any
more to agree on targets. However, any other approach to policy deployment would
be in conflict with people involvement and empowerment. So, in fact there are only
minor alterations on People or People Management all in all.

250

THE NEW EFQM EXCELLENCE MODEL AND ITS IMPACT

Previous Model
3a People Resources Planning
3b Development of Peoples
Capabilities
3c Agreeing on Targets, Performance Measurement
3d Involvement, Empowerment
and Recognition
3e Information and Communication

New Model
3a People Resources Planning and
Management
3b Knowledge, Competencies and
Capabilities
3c Involvement and Empowerment
3d Information and Communication
3e Reward, Recognition and Caring
for People

3f Caring for People

Fig. 6: People

Partnerships and Resources refer to an organizations relationships towards its

key partners (cp. Fig.). These include suppliers, alliance partners and all
organizations it co-operates with. Further aspects of this element describe the way
an organization employs its facilities and all other input factors. The approach is
assessed to manage, efficiently use and save all resources and to support policy and
strategy.
Previous Modell
4a Finances

New Model
4a External Partnerships

4b Information

4b Finances

4c Suppliers and Materials

4c Buildings, Equipment and

Materials
4d Technology

4d Buildings, Equipment and

further Assets
4e Technology and Intellectual
Property

4e Information and Knowledge

Fig. 7: Resources

Major changes in the new model refer to external partnerships and knowledge
management. Both aspects are crucial for institutions in higher education.
Knowledge is one of the most important assets of a university. The main task in
education is to enhance students competencies and capabilities. This is achieved by
providing and transferring knowledge. To improve the teaching process of course
requires efficient administrative procedures. However, major potentials for
improvement come from the acquisition, processing and analysis, storage and
retrieval of data and information i.e. knowledge management.

KLAUS J. ZINK - WOLFGANG VO

251

Keeping ones knowledge at the state of the art is strongly supported by an

intensive dialogue on national and international level, with research fellows and
twinned organizations especially abroad. In this context, we are already dealing with
external partnerships. An organization in higher education has to identify potential
partners and build up long-term partnerships with them. These could rely on student
or staff exchange, joint research projects etc. The aim is to create trustful
relationships providing benefits for both partners.
Processes describe all value-adding business activities in the organization (cp.
Fig. 8). The element refers to the proceeding to design, review and constantly
improve them. Whereby a process consists of several steps transforming input
factors into an output product or service and creating added value. While the old
model was mostly restricted to general issues of process management, the new
version explicitly refers to designing products and services according to customer
demands, to the production or servicing process, and to managing customer
relations. All these aspects have been part of the old model as well. However, they
were regarded implicitly under the notion of key processes. By adding three new
subcriteria, the model now makes clear that certain processes are present in any
organization and have to be described in self-assessment.
Services of a higher education institution mainly consist of its programmes,
seminars and lectures. There may be additional products like study materials, books,
articles or conference papers especially if the organization is also active in
research. The model requires to have a procedure in place to design these products
and services according to customer demands. E.g. a university has to make sure its
study programmes reflect its students interests as well as labor market demands.
Research activities have to be in line with the funding institutions policy as well as
with accepted practices in the scientific community. The next step after developing
products and services is to establish efficient business processes to deliver them to
the customers. In higher education this mainly refers to presenting lectures and
giving examinations, to registration procedures etc. These have to meet service
standards in order to provide utmost benefits to the students.
Previous Model
5a Identification of Key Processes
5b Process Management
5c Review and Targets for
Improvement
5d Improvement through Innovation and Creativity
5e Change and Evaluation of
Benefits

New Model
5a Design and Management of Key
Processes
5b Process Improvement, Evaluation
of Benefits
5c Product and Service Design on
Customer Demands
5d Production, Delivery and Servicing
5e Customer Relationship
Management

Fig. 8: Processes

252

THE NEW EFQM EXCELLENCE MODEL AND ITS IMPACT

The last step is to establish and manage long-term customer relationships. They
support meaningful customer feedback and excellent loyalty. For a higher education
institution, student and graduate relationships through alumni programmes etc. can
provide valuable insights into labor market trends, a good reputation, and
recommendations to new students.
Customer Results have their focus on customer satisfaction, i.e. the
organizations performance as perceived by its external customers. The element
refers to all people purchasing products and services directly and all other
customers. Here, no significant changes occur in the new model (cp. Fig.).
A higher education institution has to determine the satisfaction of its students.
However, further customers include actual and potential employers of its graduates,
funding institutions (like the State), research fellows (if applicable) etc. In many
cases, these groups are very difficult to access. Satisfaction surveys with potential
employers, for example, often pose considerable methodical challenges.
Nevertheless, indicators for customer satisfaction in this context could be
unemployment rates of graduates (possibly compared to other universities), starting
salaries etc.
Previous Model
r 6/7/8 a
Satisfaction and Image
r

6/7/8 b
Additional Measures

New Model
r 6/7/8 a
Perception Measures
r

6/7/8 b
Performance Measures

Fig. 9: Customer, People and Society Results

People Results assess the employees perspective on the organization.

Respective data should cover all people working there regardless of their labor
legislation status. Society Results show how the interests of society as a whole are
taken into account. An organization should describe how it is perceived in public
regarding its contribution to quality of life, to environment protection, and its
commitment to save global resources. Both elements have not undergone any
significant changes in the new model.
Key Performance Results have their focus on the organizations performance
compared with its strategic objectives. In summary, this element reflects the
interests of all stakeholders and the extent they are met. Although the subcriteria
have been rearranged, the overall content of this element has not basically changed.
An organization has to document its performance by financial and non-financial
measures. They should show both its overall success, i.e. the outcomes, and internal
indicators of efficiency.
For a higher education institution, this could refer to profits or keeping to
budgets, respectively, industry grants, research funds, study time to graduation,
processing times in administration, defect rates in administration, etc.

KLAUS J. ZINK - WOLFGANG VO

Previous Model
9a Financial Results

New Model
9a Outcomes

9b Non-financial Results

9b Indicators

253

Fig. 50: Key Performance Results

It becomes obvious that the model can not only be employed for companies, but
easily be transferred to higher education institutions as well. The following section
will show an approach on how to use the model in self-assessment.

Implementing Self-Assessment
Self-assessment is implemented in a three-step-scheme (cp. Fig. 6). At first, the
responsible people learn how to use the model as an analytical tool in their own
organization (Zink/Vo, 1999). In order to secure its broad use, the EFQM Model
has a very open structure with partially abstract phrasing for elements and
subcriteria. It must be translated for each organization and illustrated by definite
examples. This is especially helpful for higher education institutions whose staff is
often not used to the wording from the company world. A workshop was designed
for this purpose.
The project team should include top management representatives as well as
experts for all model criteria. Selecting appropriate staff for the assessment team is
crucial for several reasons: On the one hand, management shows its role model
function in order to underline the strategic implications of self-assessment. By
committing themselves to the process, executives give improvement measures the
necessary impetus to be efficiently translated into practice. On the other hand,
involving experts from all relevant functions in the assessment team makes sure a
comprehensive image of the organization can be drawn to fully cover all model
criteria.
Before the workshop, all participants prepare parts of a case study on a fictitious
company. Its contents correspond basically with what they will create for their own
organization. In the workshop, the participants will identify strengths and areas for
improvement for the company described. In this way they learn how to apply the
model.

254

THE NEW EFQM EXCELLENCE MODEL AND ITS IMPACT

Fig. 61: The Self-Assessment Cycle

At the end of the information workshop, responsibilities are assigned for data
gathering. Each participant deals with at least one out of nine elements. In principle,
the group decides on this aspect autonomously. However, it makes sense to select
those participants whose jobs and tasks correspond the closest to the allocated
element. The following weeks are used for collecting information appealing to the
nine elements on all measures or concepts already existing within the organization
and on its performance with regard to the stakeholders interests. The workshop
aims at showing the current state in the organization and not at directly deploying
measures for improvement. This will be part of the second step.
The collected data and information are presented and discussed within the
consensus workshop. This discussion is to ensure the completeness of the collected
data and, in addition, to lead to a consensus concerning their assessment. As a result
of the workshop, the team creates a list with strengths and areas for improvement to
each of the 32 subcriteria in the EFQM Model. The next step is to give priority to
the areas for improvement and to deploy and realize respective measures. For
beginners, this process can be facilitated by external partners, but deciding on
contents is the responsibility of the organization and their managers.
In learning by doing, the organization acquires the competencies and skills for
carrying out self-assessment independently. Getting to know how to run the process
means that the organization has learned how to systematically determine needs for
change and how to deploy definite improvements based on this knowledge. Thus,
organizational learning takes place. Furthermore, all participants in the workshop
have also extended their individual experience. They get a holistic view on their
organization. By joining the team and helping to determine areas for improvement
they can strongly influence the organizations further development. As this also
affects their individual situation, they benefit personally from the process. That is
why self-assessment supports a systematic and comprehensive review of an

KLAUS J. ZINK - WOLFGANG VO

255

organizations business and learning both for individuals and the organization as a
whole.

Conclusions
The before mentioned interpretations of the model for higher education institutions
show that the self-assessment approach is not restricted to a particular target group
but can be applied to any kind of organization. It serves as an open model to control
organization development. A major advantage is that the employees get involved
into the improvement process. Therefore the measures undertaken are widely
accepted. By employing the self-assessment approach, higher education institutions
can direct and control their improvement process and thus cope with the topical
challenges in this sector.

References
AQC Australian Quality Council (ed.) (1999), Australian Business Excellence Framework
Framework 99, St. Leonards
EFQM European Foundation for Quality Management (ed.) (1998), Self-Assessment 1998,
Guidelines for Companies, Brussels
EFQM European Foundation for Quality Management (ed.) (1999), The EFQM Excellence
Model 1999, Brussels
NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology (ed.) (1999), Baldrige National
Program 1999, Criteria for Performance Excellence, Gaithersburg
ZINK, K.J., BUERLE, T. (1997), Das Europische Modell fr TQM und seine
Anwendung in einer universitren Einrichtung, Stifterverband fr die Deutsche
Wissenschaft (ed.), Qualittsentwicklung in einem differenzierten Hochschulsystem,
Essen, 202-207
ZINK, K.J., SCHMIDT, A. (1995), Measuring universities against the European Quality
Award criteria, Total Quality Management, (Vol. 6 (1995), No. 5&6), 547-561
ZINK, K.J., VO, W. (1998a), Quality in Germany An Overview, The TQM-Magazine,
(Vol. 10 (1998), No. 6), 458-463
ZINK, K.J., VO, W. (1998b), Qualittspreise in Europa, Westkmper, E., Mai, C. (eds.),
Q-Jahrbuch 98/99, 125-141
ZINK, K.J., VO, W. (1999), An Empirical Approach to Organizational Learning,
Digmann, A., Brinch Jrgensen, E. (eds.): P Vej mod Den Lrende Organisation i
Europa, LEO, rhus, 158-184