The effect of academic culture on the implementation of the EFQM Excellence Model in UK universities

The Authors

John Davies, University of Salford, Salford, UK

Alex Douglas, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool, UK

Jacqueline Douglas, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool, UK

Abstract

Purpose – The paper seeks to explore the effect of academic culture on the implementation of the European Foundation for Quality Management's (EFQM) Excellence Model in UK universities.

Design/methodology/approach – A literature review reveals several aspects, which collectively define the academic culture in UK universities. These aspects were explored in four case studies of the implementation of the EFQM Excellence Model in UK universities.

Findings – It was found that certain of these aspects had a good “cultural fit” with the EFQM Excellence Model and its underpinning concepts and others acted as cultural barriers to the implementation of the model.

Research limitations/implications – The research only covers four cases and is therefore only generalisable back to theory rather than to the population of UK university academic units. The paper identifies aspects of academic culture.

Practical implications – The paper proposes an ideal mix of cultural aspects to facilitate implementation of the EFQM Excellence Model. Strategies are recommended for dealing with situations where the assessed academic culture does not fit well with the use of the model. These strategies include both attempts to influence and change the academic culture to provide a better fit with model and also suggested amendments to the use of the model to provide a better fit with the academic culture.

Originality/value – This paper makes a contribution to the understanding of academic culture and its effect on the implementation of a quality improvement methodology. Academic managers in universities may find its recommendations useful if planning a similar implementation.

Article Type:

Research paper

Keyword(s):

European Foundation for Quality Management; Total quality management; Organizational culture; Universities; United Kingdom.

Journal:

Quality Assurance in Education

Volume:

Number:

Year:

2007

pp:

382-401

Copyright ©

Emerald Group Publishing Limited

ISSN:

0968-4883

Introduction

This paper focuses on the effect of academic culture on the implementation of the European Foundation for Quality Management (EFQM)[1] Excellence Model in UK[2] universities. This model is based on Total Quality Management (TQM)[3] principles (European Foundation for Quality Management, 2003) and so the literature review covered both the implementation of the EFQM Excellence Model and TQM. This research is focused on determining effective implementation and therefore it is useful to define the key words “implement” and “effective”:

Implement:To carry into effect ( Oxford English Dictionary Online, 2003).To put a plan or system into operation (Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary, 2003).EffectiveIn use, in operation ( Newbury House Online Dictionary, 2003).Successful or achieving the results that you want (Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary, 2003).

It can be seen from the above definitions that implementation infers effectiveness. Therefore something that is effectively implemented is something that is in operation or use.

One of the factors emerging from the literature as impacting on the implementation of the EFQM Excellence Model in the context of UK universities is that of academic culture. Gallear and Ghobadian (2004) state that there is broad agreement that the successful adoption and practice of TQM requires close attention, and probably modification, to organisational culture. Prajogo and McDermott (2005) identified organisational culture as a key determinant in the success of TQM, while Anjard (1995) argued that the cultural realities need to be understood and dealt with in TQM implementation. Koch (2003, p. 330) concluded that:

The intrinsic nature of higher education and its distinctive culture militate against TQM ever acquiring a significant, real foothold in colleges and universities.

Culture/context assessment

There is support for carrying out a cultural assessment before implementing TQM or similar initiatives in order to identify potential barriers and to help in designing the implementation programme. Poirier and Tokarz (1996) argue the importance of understanding the culture of an organisation in order that allowances can be made for this in implementation. Vermeulen (1997) advocates diagnosing and analysing the character of the organisation to identify potential barriers to change. The research of Bardoel and Sohal (1999) with seven cases of TQM implementation suggests that an analysis of the organisation, using cultural auditing tools, can help with the design of a successful TQM implementation programme.

Silvestro (2001) calls for a contingency-sensitive approach to TQM implementation, as much of the TQM literature is insensitive to the contingencies of the operational context. This view is supported by Sitkin et al. (1994) (cited by Chin and Pun, 2002, p. 273), who attribute the failure of many TQM programmes to a disregard for contextual factors.

In response to this view that implementation should be contingent on the organisational context, Michael et al. (1997) state that the TQM programme should be tailored to suit the individual higher education institution (HEI)[4], and Samuelsson and Nilsson (2002) argue that one of the dilemmas in implementing the EFQM Excellence Model is whether to adjust the criteria of the model to suit the organisation. McAdam and Welsh (2000) note that the application of model usually involves negotiation over how it should be used, how key terms should be construed and whether particular elements are even appropriate.

Duke (2002) argues that, in managing universities, ignoring the rich organic underlife invites resistance, while Michael et al. (1997) warn of the problem of failing to adapt business principles correctly to an academic setting. Taylor and Hill (1992) argue that higher education (HE) bodies wishing to embrace TQM theory and practice must make an assessment of the prevailing culture, with a view to establishing its appropriateness. They go on to discuss the question that follows from this assessment: what happens if the prevailing culture is considered inappropriate to TQM? Can culture be changed? They conclude that it can be changed via changes in environmental factors, but such change will almost certainly be difficult and expensive.

To summarise this section, it is clear that the implementation of a TQM initiative such as the EFQM Excellence Model involves a culture change, and the cultural realities of an organisation need to be understood. It is advocated that a cultural assessment should take place and that, subsequently, a contingency-sensitive approach to implementation should be employed in which the implementation approach is tailored for the organisation.

Academic culture

The literature review revealed a number of aspects of culture that are specific to the university academic context, which are reviewed below.

Holmes and McElwee (1995) state that the management style in HE is different and dissimilar to that in the traditional commercial industrial sectors in which TQM has had its success. The literature in the area of management style in universities concentrates on the concepts of managerialism and collegialism. Brunetto (2001) views managerialism as the adoption of private sector management tools within public sector organisations. Harvey (1995, p. 43) defines managerialism:

Managerialism refers to the tendency in higher education for professional managers to play a much more significant role in decision-making in higher education. Decision-making that has a profound effect on academic processes and quality but which is based on non-academic criteria – often financial criteria or as the result of managerial theory.

Harvey (1995, p. 1) defines collegialism:

Collegialism is a term meant to imply the institutionalisation of aspects of collegial practices and aspirations.

Harvey (1995) says that collegialism is characterised by three core elements:

a process of shared decision-making by a collegial group in relation to academic matters;
mutual support in upholding the academic integrity of members of the group; and
conservation of a realm of special knowledge and practice.

Brennan and Shah (2000) (cited by Laughton, 2003, p. 317) point out that, traditionally, universities have emphasised self and collegial accountability and self-improvement, and Harris (1994) is of the opinion that managers in HE are mediators of extraneous, market-orientated values, which compete with the collegial values in universities. Davies et al. (2001) argue that models of university governance based on the notion of collegiality do not sit comfortably with pressures from customers who expect a business-like response in dynamic situations. Similarly, Srikanthan (1999) highlights the balance required between the academics' need for autonomy governed through a collegial process of wide consultation and the universities' need for accountability, which is often linked with managerial modes of operation. Raisbeck (2001) has identified outdated management structures, roles and forums as inhibitors to the implementation of the EFQM Excellence Model in HE, although he does not suggest how these should be replaced. Pupius (2002) argues for a balance between managerialism and collegiality in order that HEIs can meet their obligation to be accountable to various stakeholders. Achieving this balance is likely to present a challenge, as Yielder and Codling (2004) have identified a significant shift from collegial to managerial structures. Davies et al. (2001) argue that it is leadership that is needed to combine the collegiality ethos of universities with the responsive, business-like approach demanded by customers rather than emphasising a managerial approach. Harvey (1999) discusses his view that accountability is easier to gain through a managerial system; however, this creates problems of ownership by academics, who are likely to look only to comply with management requirements rather than improve quality. Conversely, in his view, the collegiate system is better in encouraging staff ownership, but it may be more difficult to establish accountability for actions. Srikanthan and Dalrymple (2002) argue that, in order to effectively adopt TQM models in HE, there is a need to move away from managerialism and restore collegialism as the governing principle in HE, and this should ideally manifest itself as shared decision making, upholding of integrity and commitment to knowledge.

Clearly there is great debate about the appropriate management style necessary for the implementation of TQM or the EFQM Excellence Model in the UK university context. It appears that any approach perceived by academic staff to be managerial in nature is likely to be greeted with scepticism and resistance. There appears to be support for a collegial approach combined with leadership.

The next issue is that of individualism. Koch (2003) indicates that academic staff in HE tend to work alone more often than together. Bolton (1995) highlights that, in HEIs, individuals' achievements are ranked above their contributions to teamwork. Taylor and Hill (1993) (cited by Owlia and Aspinwall, 1997, p. 530) offer the view that individualism is often perceived as the key to personal recognition and advancement within the HE system. This view is supported by Roffe (1998, p. 77), who argues that:

The individual member of staff is advanced or promoted, by and large, on the basis of individual research, scholarship and writing, or teaching with relatively little emphasis on working in teams to develop organisations.

Roffe's view is supported by Raanan (1998, p. 2) who refers to this as the “prima ballerina effect”, in which egotistical individuals (academic staff) will not act in any unified way. Chadwick (1995) notes that staff in universities sometimes have difficulty in accepting the notion of interdependence, and Elmuti et al. (1996, p. 30) cite Jauch and Orwig (1994), who argue that a TQM system, which requires a culture committed to well-defined and common goals, appears ill suited for HE.

Motwani and Kumar (1997) highlight considerable scepticism regarding the use of TQM in educational institutions, and one of the reasons for this scepticism is the threat to the individual academic staff's autonomy. Stawicki (1999, p. 238) refers to the “hidden rules” of organisational culture that exist within HEIs. Two of these relate to individualism; co-operation is not a declared goal and co-operation is not rewarded. Raisbeck (2001) has observed a tendency towards individual rather than teamworking in HE and argues that this is an inhibitor in the implementation of the EFQM Excellence Model.

Therefore the consensus is that academics have a tendency towards individualism that is reinforced by the promotion policies of universities. As TQM and other quality improvement approaches emphasise the need for teamwork, then the issue of individualism is a potential barrier to the effective implementation of the EFQM Excellence Model in UK universities.

The critical nature of staff and academic freedom is an aspect that helps to determine academic culture. Holmes and McElwee (1995) state that academics have a reputation for liberalism and non-conformism. The critical nature of academic staff is identified by Ho and Wearn (1996) as a potential barrier to TQM implementation in HEIs as academic staff are expected to analyse, challenge, criticize and substantiate evidence. Koch (2003) argues that academic freedom is the most important element in academic culture that frustrates the introduction of TQM, as academic staff feel free to reject evaluative processes such as TQM. An alternate view is offered by Dahlgaard and Madsen (1998), who argue that focusing on the scientific approach of TQM may be a help when trying to implement TQM in a HEI. They argue that the causes of problems are regarded as hypotheses by academics, which then have to be tested through a cycle of data collection and data analysis. Raanan (1998) argues that academics often falsely use the notion of academic freedom to prevent change to more effective and efficient ways of working.

There emerges no clear view, then, on whether the critical nature of academic staff would be an aid or a barrier to EFQM Excellence Model implementation. The notion of academic freedom is a potential barrier to implementation.

Professionalism and the nature of professional services is the next determinant of academic culture to be explored. Cheng (1990) and Parsons (1995) (cited by Brunetto, 2001, p. 469) argue that professional employees place more importance on their professional authority than formal hierarchical authority. It is possible that this applies in HE. Brunetto (2001, p. 478) states that:

In the case of academics, the evidence suggests that the authority associated with their professional culture remains a strong influence in mediating how policies are implemented.

Savolainen (1999) found that resistance to the implementation of continuous improvement initiatives was embedded in professional cultures. Silvestro (2001) maintains that the EFQM Excellence Model is particularly difficult to apply to professional services as it tends to be manufacturing-oriented and there is an element of professional snobbery towards the customer, while Brunetto (2001) argues that, in the Swedish HE sector, the professional authority associated with professionals in organisations needs to be understood in order to implement new policies. Newton (1998) (cited by Laughton, 2003, p. 317) identified that academics characterised quality assurance measures as being accountability-led as opposed to improvement-led, and therefore alien to the core values of academic culture. This raises the interesting suggestion that the EFQM Excellence Model, being improvement-led, might gain a warmer reception from academics than quality assurance approaches.

The issue of professionalism presents a potential barrier to the implementation of the EFQM Excellence Model in UK university academic units if the academics see it as an accountability-led initiative, as the academics might see it as a threat to their professionalism. Conversely, if the EFQM Excellence Model is seen as an improvement-led initiative then it might be well received by the academics, as one of the aspects of professionalism is continual self-improvement.

Co-operation and support is a factor that impacts on the academic culture. Raisbeck (2001) identifies a culture of openness and co-operation as one of the fundamentals for the implementation of the EFQM Excellence Model, and is supported by Moeller and Sonntag (2001), who identified a supportive organisational environment as one of the success factors in facilitating successful self-assessments in German healthcare. Therefore, it is more likely that the implementation of the model will be successful if it is pursued in an environment of co-operation and support.

The reaction of staff to the language and terminology of the EFQM Excellence Model needs to be considered when assessing the academic culture. Helms et al. (2001) found that unfamiliar jargon hindered quality efforts in HE. Coate (1993) (cited by Owlia and Aspinwall, 1997, p. 537) identified the language of TQM as one of the barriers to TQM implementation in a case of implementation in a US university. Similarly, Martin and Weill (1999), describing the implementation of TQM in a French university, highlighted that the university tended to reject a language which it considers as only suitable for the business world.

Similar difficulties with the language and terminology of the EFQM Excellence Model have been identified in other parts of the public sector. Nabitz and Klazinga (1999) detail changes in terminology in the model to suit the Dutch healthcare context, while Stahr (2001) describes a case of EFQM Excellence Model implementation in healthcare in which the model's language was orientated into more recognisable, healthcare friendly terminology. PriceWaterhouseCoopers (2000), in their evaluation of the UK Public Sector Excellence Programme, found that several organisations had adapted the terminology of the EFQM Excellence Model to better suit the culture and language of their organisation. PriceWaterhouseCoopers (2000, p. 44) are of the opinion that this practice may be important in avoiding the “not invented here syndrome”, which could undermine or be damaging to implementation efforts.

McAdam and Welsh (2000) found that a number of stakeholders in Northern Ireland further education colleges emphasised the need to tailor the terminology of the EFQM Excellence Model so that it would be appropriate for use in this sector. In HEIs, Bolton (1995, p. 17) recommends using traditionally acceptable language, for example “students” rather than “customers”. Zink and Voss (1998) propose that the wording in the EFQM Excellence Model be translated and adapted to an individual organisation's needs, as the wording is partly abstract. Zink and Voss (1999) argue that the terminology in the EFQM Excellence Model must be translated for each organisation and illustrated by definite examples. They have observed that this is especially helpful for HEIs, whose staff are often not used to the business wording. Ruben et al. (1999) describe a version of the Baldrige framework developed especially for use in US HE. The version was designed to address the needs of colleges and universities and utilises language that is familiar to the culture of such institutions, and it has been successfully implemented in a number of academic units in the USA. Giertz (1999) offers an interesting dichotomy of opinion on this issue. She points to one point of view, which is that the industry-based terminology of TQM sometimes offends academics and therefore avoiding this terminology will help implementation. The opposite argument is that it is important to keep the terminology since this highlights the fact that the TQM approach represents something new that requires rethinking. In the experience of the authors in implementing similar initiatives, some amendment to terminology has eased the implementation process. Osseo-Asare and Longbottom (2002), from a case study of TQM/EFQM implementation in a UK HEI, identified that personnel involved in quality improvement needed further education and training to help them understand the terminology involved, as this had been a barrier in implementation.

An HE version of the EFQM Excellence Model Public and Voluntary Sector version has been produced. This interprets the fundamental concepts of the model for HE by amending the business-like terminology of, for example, key performance results and offers suggestions to be analysed under the nine criteria in terminology that is more suitable for the HE sector (Sheffield Hallam University, 2003). It would appear that amending the language and terminology of the EFQM Excellence Model so that it is more suited to the HE context could be an aid in implementation.

The general academic culture of an institution can now be considered. Raanan (1999) concludes that the term “university” has become too varied to be taken as a single, almost uniform, entity and therefore there can be no single, uniform approach to implementing TQM in universities. Instead the culture and context must be taken into consideration in the implementation, as discussed above. In a survey of 42 Swedish HEIs (Giertz, 1999) it was concluded that resistance to TQM was greater in old universities than in newer institutions as they were described as having stronger academic cultures. Giertz (1999) does not elaborate on what is meant by a strong academic culture. Martin and Weill (1999) describe a transition in the conservatism of academic staff who were traditionally very conservative towards change. They have noted a transition to staff who are much less conservative and use the UK as an example in which the newest universities (the former polytechnics), have a very different culture from that of the classical institutions. This less conservative culture is likely to be more accepting of change initiatives such as TQM.

The notion of the general academic culture of an institution is mainly abstract, save to say that it is potentially made up of and determined by the aspects explored in this paper, namely management style, individualism, the critical nature of academic staff, academic freedom, professionalism, co-operation and support and (particularly when implementing the EFQM Excellence Model) the reaction of staff to the language and terminology of the model.

To summarise, the aspects of culture/context that emerged from the literature which are specific to the university academic context and which could impact on implementation of the EFQM Excellence Model are, firstly, that it appears that any approach perceived by academic staff to be managerial in nature is likely to be greeted with scepticism and resistance. There appears to be support for a collegial approach combined with leadership rather than a managerial approach. Secondly, the issue of individualism is a potential barrier to the implementation of the model in UK university academic units. Thirdly, there emerges no clear view on whether the critical nature of academic staff would be an aid or a barrier to EFQM Excellence Model implementation; however, the notion of academic freedom is a potential barrier to implementation. Fourthly, the issue of professionalism presents a potential barrier to the implementation of the model in UK universities as the academics might see it as a threat to their professionalism. Conversely, the EFQM Excellence Model, with its emphasis on improvement, might be well received by academics, as one of the aspects of professionalism is continual self-improvement. Fifthly, it is more likely that the implementation of the model will be successful if it is pursued in an environment of co-operation and support. Finally, it would appear that amending the language and terminology of the EFQM Excellence Model so that it is more suited to the HE context could be an aid in implementation.

Methodology

The research question which emerged from the literature review was “How has academic culture affected the implementation of the EFQM Excellence Model in UK universities?”. The aspects of culture identified in the paragraph above were explored using structured, in-depth interviews with personnel who had been involved with the implementation of the model in four academic units of UK universities and by the review of documents accessed in the organisations using a case study research strategy (Yin, 1994). Discussions that one of the authors had with the project managers in each of the case study organisations revealed that there was only a handful of people in each case study organisation who would have sufficient knowledge of the implementation process to be able to provide an accurate insight into it. It was not possible to interview direct equivalents in each organisation because of differences in the organisational structures, differences in the ways that the organisations had approached the implementation, and movements of staff over the three years of the projects. In order to get a variety of perspectives on the implementation, one of the authors discussed the issue of possible interviewees with each of the four project managers. The project manager in each of the cases was one of the interviewees, as they were well placed to have a good insight into the implementation process. In all four cases, the majority of staff involved were members of the academic management. In three of the four cases a senior member of administrative staff had been involved in the implementation process. It was decided that their views might offer a different perspective to that of the academic management involved, and so interviews were requested with them. The remainder of the interviewees came from the academic staff. As a result of these discussions, it was decided to interview four staff in each case. As the interviews were to be very detailed (the interview was estimated to take two hours) and detailed supporting documents were to be accessed, the authors were confident that this practical limitation would not significantly affect the quality of the data collected as there would be sufficient sources of evidence for triangulation purposes. To have interviewed staff with little knowledge of the implementation process might have risked encountering the problem of reflexivity (Yin, 1994) in which interviewees “invent” answers to please the interviewer. The authors decided to tape record each interview, with the interviewee's permission. One of the authors made detailed notes during each interview and used the tape recordings to check the accuracy of the transcribed interview notes. The typed record of each interview was sent to the interviewee to verify that it was an accurate record of the interview. In addition a wealth of documents covering the three years of the projects was available to the researchers, which facilitated triangulation of information gained from the interviews. Particularly, the following documents were made available to the researchers:

memoranda;
agendas and minutes of meetings;
project plans;
progress reports;
strategic plans;
presentations;
self-assessment reports; and
improvement planning, action and review documents.

The researchers were also able to verify key dates in the implementation process by asking the interviewees to access their personal diaries covering the period in question.

All four academic units had started their implementation of the EFQM Excellence Model three years prior to the research being carried out. It is argued that this was sufficient time to have implemented the model effectively. A case study strategy is effective in exploring contemporary phenomena over which the researcher has no control, particularly when “how” and/or “why” research questions are being asked (Yin, 1994; Stake, 1994). The cases were made anonymous and labelled “A”, “B”, “C” and “D” so that the interviewees felt at ease in answering potentially sensitive questions. The data from the interviews and document review were analysed using program logic (Yin, 1994). This method enabled the researchers to identify key issues of the phenomena under investigation and to place these in time order over the three-year period.

It was seen earlier in this paper that implementation infers effectiveness. Therefore something that is effectively implemented is something that is in operation or use. The intended uses of the EFQM Excellence Model were compared with the actual uses for each case in order to inform a judgment on effective implementation.

Findings and discussion

In this section the findings with regards to the intended and actual uses of the EFQM Excellence Model in each of the cases are presented. This then enables an assessment of the effectiveness of the implementation in each case. A discussion then takes place of the impact of various aspects of academic culture on the implementation in the cases.

The authors argue that the EFQM Excellence Model would have been effectively implemented when its use had been integrated into the regular management practices of the organisation. This is based on the definition of “effectively implemented” described earlier. For example, had ownership of the self-assessment process been demonstrated by staff in schools/departments/divisions carrying out their own self-assessments and/or were the improvement plans generated in self-assessment linked to the organisation's strategy and/or business planning process? Therefore it can be argued that if the case organisations were still using the model at the end of this three-year period in a way that was integrated into their management practices, then it had been effectively implemented. Fullan and Pomfret (1977) (cited by Vrakking, 1995, p. 44) describe the goal of implementation as:

… maximization of the degree in which the actual use of an innovation corresponds with its intended use.

So if an organisation was actually using the model in the way that it intended, then it is argued that it had been effectively implemented. Table I compares the intended and actual uses of the model in each case.

The school that comprised Case A was one of six schools in a university that was founded in 1946. Academic Managers are appointed on a permanent basis. The university and the school spend the majority of their time (around 60 per cent) on research activities. This was reflected in the school having 68 academic staff, 63 support staff and just 364 students. In Case A there was no shared view amongst the interviewees of what the intended uses of the EFQM Excellence Model had been. Some interviewees thought it would be used for self-assessment to aid improvement, whereas the project manager and the documentation indicated that it wasn't really being implemented. The project (according to the project manager) was to see if the EFQM Excellence Model was applicable in HE, but without properly using the model. The authors have difficulty understanding how the model's applicability in HE was to be assessed without using the model. Actually, as can be seen in Table I, there was a crude attempt to use the model in the school (even though the EFQM Excellence Model was never mentioned by name). This took the form of a non-evidence based self-assessment and some planned quality improvement initiatives based on this that were never actually implemented. In summary, the intended use was not clear and the model was barely used at all. At the end of the three-year period the model was not in use. Therefore the implementation can be described as ineffective.

The faculty that comprised Case B was one of four faculties in a university founded in 1967. The faculty comprised five schools and it was decided by the senior management team of the faculty that the EFQM Excellence Model should be piloted in one school before being implemented across the faculty. Academic Managers hold fixed terms of office of normally four years. The university and the faculty spend the majority of their time (around 70 per cent) on teaching activities. This was reflected in the faculty having 240 academic staff, 128 support staff and 4,319 students. In Case B there was a clear intention to use the model as a self-assessment framework to aid improvement across the faculty; however, it was barely used at all in the three-year period (one outline, non-evidence based self-assessment in the pilot school). The intended move from use in the pilot school to use in the whole faculty never occurred. At the end of the three-year period the model was not in use. Therefore the implementation can be described as ineffective.

The school that comprised Case C was one of three schools in one faculty of a six-faculty university which was formed in 1992. Academic Managers are appointed on a permanent basis. The school spends around 50 per cent of its time on teaching activities, 30 per cent on research activities and 20 per cent on enterprise activities (working with external organisations on consultancy, etc.). The school had 60 academic staff, 49 support staff and 1,040 students. The workshop approach to self-assessment (European Foundation for Quality Management, 2003) was adopted, and this was seen to encourage teamworking. It can be seen from Table I that the intended and actual uses of the model corresponded reasonably well; however, the model was only used on one occasion and had not been used for over two years at the time that the research was carried out. One evidence-based self-assessment had been carried out, and this had been used to inform the school's business plan in that year. Three major improvement projects had been set up based on the self-assessment; however, none of these had managed to produce the desired improvements within the school, and this was clearly a source of great frustration to the staff of the school. Ultimately the improvement project teams stopped meeting. Therefore the implementation can be described as having been initially effective; however, its use was not sustained.

The faculty that comprised Case D was one of four faculties in a university founded in 1967. The faculty comprised three schools and it was decided by the senior management team of the faculty that the EFQM Excellence Model should be implemented across the whole faculty. Academic Managers hold fixed terms of office of, normally, four years. The university and the faculty spend the majority of their time (around 70 per cent) on teaching activities. This was reflected in the faculty having 260 academic staff, 112 support staff and 4,976 students. The workshop approach to self-assessment (European Foundation for Quality Management, 2003) was also adopted in this case to encourage team working. Table I demonstrates that the model was used for all its intended uses. This was the only case in which particular HE examples were used in the self-assessment training that took place. The trainers took the trouble of referring to topical national and local issues in HE and relating these to the criteria and sub-criteria of the model in order to contextualize the training. Three self-assessments had taken place and these had informed the annual business plans of the three schools and the faculty as a whole. It had been used as a performance management tool to develop key performance indicators for the faculty, and these were then used to support benchmarking activities between the schools. The interviewees felt that carrying out self-assessment had given them a broader, more holistic view of the faculty; instead of just focusing on the results required, much more attention was paid to the enablers that would drive the results. The model was used to inform and integrate with other quality and management initiatives and tools. Particularly, the self-assessment results were fed into an internal quality review of one of the schools and an external institutional audit of the university. It can be seen that it was used on a regular basis over the three-year period and therefore the implementation can be described as having been effective.

In the literature review, the need for an understanding of the culture of an organisation was seen as crucial to implementing quality programmes (Anjard, 1995). Poirier and Tokarz (1996), Vermeulen (1997), Chin and Pun (2002) and Bardoel and Sohal (1999) discussed carrying out a cultural assessment before implementing TQM or similar initiatives. In Cases A, B and C there was no attempt to assess the overall culture or any of the more detailed cultural aspects explored in this paper. In Cases A and B implementation was ineffective, and in Case C implementation was initially effective but use of the EFQM Excellence Model was not sustained. In Case D, however, the Dean and the Project Manager discussed some cultural/contextual issues as part of their planning for the implementation in the first six months of the implementation. They considered the possible perceptions of the Faculty Office (administrative) staff to the project (they thought that they would welcome its use in that it might help the three schools adopt more consistent processes). The cultures of the three schools and the types of leadership in them were also considered (this detail is considered later in this paper). The possibility of the schools choosing to use the model in different ways to suit their own needs was considered and the Dean and the Project Manager thought that this would be a good idea in producing commitment to its use. The Project Manager felt that this discussion of cultural/contextual issues helped her to better understand the cultures of the three schools. The implementation was effective, and this was the only case in which any consideration was given to understanding cultural issues. This lends some weight to the arguments for understanding the cultural issues through a cultural assessment. It should be noted, however, that the cultural assessment was not at all systematic and comprised only of a brief discussion between the Dean and the Project Manager.

There was debate in the literature about the appropriate management style necessary for the successful implementation of TQM or the EFQM Excellence Model in HE. It appeared that any approach perceived by academic staff to be managerial in nature was likely to be greeted with scepticism and resistance. There was support for a collegial approach combined with leadership rather than a managerial approach (Srikanthan and Dalrymple, 2002; Davies et al., 2001). The management style was only taken into consideration in Case D, as this was the only case in which any discussion of cultural issues had taken place. The perceptions of the interviewees of the management style in each of the cases were:

Case A – Management style was perceived as being strongly managerial. The Academic Managers in this organisation are appointed on a permanent basis and this possibly provides an explanation for the perceived managerial style (Academic Managers are able to exercise positional authority and know that they will be in post in the long term). The implementation was ineffective.
Case B – It was thought that the management style was collegial. The Academic Managers in this organisation are appointed for fixed terms and this possibly provides an explanation for the perceived collegial style (managers would have to return to the ranks of their peers once their terms of office had ended and therefore might want to be seen to be working with them rather than managing them. Also, they know that they will only be in post for the short/medium term). The implementation was ineffective.
Case C – The management style was felt to be quite managerial. Academic Managers in this organisation are appointed on a permanent basis. This then possibly explains the perception of the style being managerial, as explained for Case A. Implementation was initially effective.
Case D – There were perceptions of a wide-range of management styles across the schools in the faculty, but with a collegial approach in the senior management team. The issue that was considered by the Project Manager and the Dean was that each of the three schools had different management styles, ranging from collegial to managerial. A choice was therefore made not to be prescriptive in how each school would use the model. The implementation was effective.

The above findings do little to shed any light on the preferred management style for effective implementation. Cases C and D both had some success in implementation, and yet Case C was managerial and Case D was more collegial. Both Cases A (managerial) and B (collegial) did not succeed in their implementations. The failure to effectively implement the EFQM Excellence Model in Cases A and B was more likely to be for reasons other than an inappropriate management style, and these lie outside the scope of this paper.

In the literature review, individualism was seen as a potential barrier to the effective implementation of the EFQM Excellence Model in UK university academic units (Raanan, 1998; Chadwick, 1995; Motwani and Kumar, 1997; Stawicki, 1999; Raisbeck, 2001). Apart from in Case D, very little consideration was given to the issue of individualism. It was interesting to note, however, that there was a perception of the staff being individualistic in Cases A and B, and the implementation in both these cases was ineffective. On the other hand, in the two cases in which implementation was either effective or initially effective (Cases C and D), the culture was perceived as team-centred rather than individualistic. This lends weight to the argument that individualism is a barrier to the effective implementation of the model in UK university academic units. It is interesting to note that the two cases in which the academic staff were perceived as individualistic were also the cases in which the highest proportion of staff time was spent on research activities. Research is often an individual pursuit in universities.

There emerged no clear view from the literature on whether the critical nature of academic staff would be an aid or a barrier to implementation. In Case A, academic freedom and the critical nature of academic staff was not considered at any time during the implementation. There was a broad range of opinion amongst the interviewees on the amount of academic freedom and criticality exercised by staff, some believing that this was relatively low with others believing it to be very high. As the model was hardly used in this case, it is difficult to assess whether academic freedom and criticality influenced the implementation. In Case B the issue of the academic freedom and criticality of staff was not considered collectively by the senior team responsible for the implementation. It was considered individually by both the Project Manager and the Faculty Administrator and they thought that the need for change would be difficult to get across. The EFQM Excellence Model might challenge academic freedom, for example by emphasising a customer focus. They also thought that the use of the model might bring about policy changes, which could impact negatively on the degree of academic freedom. There was concern that the perceived standardisation of systems that the use of the model might bring about would clash with academic freedom. They thought that there was an attitude of “If it ain't broke, don't fix it” within the faculty, and so the use of a model for improvement would not be welcomed. An incidence of this negative thinking about the model actually happened in Case B when the Dean's advisory group negatively critiqued the EFQM Excellence Model at a workshop which was run by the Project Manager to try to promote its use beyond the pilot school. This effectively meant that the implementation never progressed beyond the pilot school. Academic staff were perceived by the interviewees as exercising a great deal of academic freedom and criticality. It is clear in this case that the critical nature of academic staff contributed to the ineffective implementation. In Case C, academic freedom and the critical nature of academic staff was not taken into consideration. It was thought by the interviewees that the academic staff exercised a great deal of academic freedom and criticality and, unlike Case B, the implementation was initially effective. It was apparent from the interviews and review of documents that the academic staff had used their critical nature in a positive way to produce evidence-based self-assessments in the school. The issue of academic freedom and the criticality of academic staff was only taken into consideration collectively by the staff responsible for the implementation in Case D. This issue provided differing views from the interviewees. One interviewee thought that the questioning nature of academics might help with self-assessment; however, another thought that staff were bound to critique and analyse the model and this probably would be in a negative way. As a result the Dean thought that the senior management team and facilitators needed to be ready to give a “positive spin” to the use of the model. The academic staff were mainly seen as exercising a reasonable amount of academic freedom and criticality. This research therefore provides evidence for both sides of the argument, i.e. that academic staff freedom and criticality can present a barrier to effective implementation of the EFQM Excellence Model (Ho and Wearn, 1996; Koch, 2003) and that the criticality of academic staff can contribute positively to the self-assessment process (Dahlgaard and Madsen, 1998).

Savolainen (1999) found that resistance to the implementation of continuous improvement initiatives was embedded in professional cultures. Apart from Case D, almost no consideration was given to the issue of the professional nature of academic staff and its possible effects on the implementation. In this case it was thought that staff were used to quality models within the public sector (i.e. health) that they engaged with and therefore would be accepting of the EFQM Excellence Model. It was thought that the staff saw their main professional responsibility to this discipline/vocational background; but some consideration of themselves as HE academic staff was starting to emerge. Case D exhibited the most effective implementation. This supported Brunetto's (2001) research, which argued that the professional authority associated with professionals in organisations needed to be understood in order to implement new policies. In all four of the cases the perception was that academic staff saw themselves as professionals to a high extent. This research therefore offered some weight to the argument that the professional nature of academic staff might aid the implementation of the model in UK university academic units if the self-improvement aspect of professionalism could be appealed to.

Raisbeck (2001) and Moeller and Sonntag (2001) identified a culture of openness and co-operation as one of the fundamentals for the implementation of the EFQM Excellence Model. The culture of co-operation and support was considered to some extent in all four cases. In Case A the culture was seen as unsupportive, apart from for mandatory initiatives, and there were concerns about whether there would be support from the school's senior management team. The implementation was ineffective in this case. In Case B only pockets of the faculty were seen as generally supportive of change. The implementation was also ineffective in this case. In Case C the culture was seen as moving towards being supportive and co-operative and the Director of the school thought that there would be an expectation from the school members of management support. The implementation was initially effective in this case. In Case D there was a strongly shared view that the culture in the Faculty was supportive and the Dean had realised that the senior management team would have to be seen to be committed. In this case the implementation was effective. The trend exhibited then was one in which the effectiveness of the implementation increased along with the perceived level of the culture of support in the academic unit. This concurs with the literature. It is interesting to note that, in three of the four cases, the interviewees linked the issue of the culture of support with the issue of support from the senior management.

It appeared from the literature that amending the language and terminology of the EFQM Excellence Model so that it was more suited to the HE context could have been an aid in implementation. This issue was considered in all four cases. In Cases A and B the project managers decided not to mention the EFQM Excellence Model, and this caused confusion. In Case C the decision was taken not to tailor the language and terminology in the model and in Case D a decision was made to use HE examples to explain concepts (see findings from Case Study D described previously). This approach was supported by Zink and Voss (1999), who argued that the EFQM Excellence Model must be illustrated by definite examples. Thus there was only a little evidence that tailoring the language and terminology to suit the HE context was a significant issue in aiding implementation.

Conclusions and recommendations

In general, then, the cases in which the most consideration was given to cultural/contextual issues (Cases C and, particularly, D) in the planning of the implementation exhibited the most effective implementations. This supported the literature review, in which the need for an understanding of the culture of an organisation was seen as being crucial to implementing quality programmes.

It is proposed then that the ideal mix of cultural factors to facilitate effective implementation of the EFQM Excellence Model in UK university academic units includes:

an emphasis on teamworking rather than individualism;
appealing to the self-improvement aspect of the professionalism of academic staff as an aid to implementation; and
a supportive environment.

It was seen that the issue of tailoring the language and terminology of the EFQM Excellence Model to suit the HE context appeared to have little impact on the effective implementation of the EFQM Excellence Model.

This research is inconclusive on the issues of:

the appropriate management style (managerial or collegial); and
whether academic staff freedom and criticality is likely to present a barrier to implementation or to help in the process of critical self-assessment.

It is important to note, however, that academic culture is only one of several elements that might affect implementation of the EFQM Excellence Model which lie outside the scope of this paper.

During the course of the research, strategies were discovered that can be used to deal with situations in which the assessed academic culture does not fit well with the use of the EFQM Excellence Model.

Attempts can be made to influence the culture so that it fits better with the use of the EFQM Excellence Model. Examples of these are:

selecting staff to be involved whose preference it is to work in teams;
ensuring that there are tangible examples of management support and management involvement in the process; and
pilot the implementation in an area that exhibits a collegial management style.

In addition changes can be made to the use of the EFQM Excellence Model to provide a better fit with the academic culture. Examples of these are:

The use of context-specific (HE) examples in training. This had been suggested as an aid to implementation in the HE sector in the literature (Helms et al., 2001; Martin and Weill, 1999; Taylor and Hill, 1991; McAdam and Welsh, 2000; Pupius, 1998; Zink and Voss, 1998; Zink and Voss, 1999) and was evidenced in Case D.
Use the workshop approach to self-assessment. The benefits associated with this approach are that it is a way to familiarise management teams in understanding the Model, and that it supports team building and allows for discussion and agreement regarding the strengths and areas for improvement, which can provide motivation towards improvement actions (European Foundation for Quality Management, 2003).

Table IComparison of intended and actual uses of the EFQM Excellence Model

References

Anjard, R.P. (1995), "Keys to successful TQM training and implementation", Training for Quality, Vol. 3 No.1, pp.14-22.