European Foundation for Quality Management Business Excellence Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to explore the nature of the research topics and methodologies used in the European Foundation for Quality Management (EFQM) Business Excellence Model studies, as well as to suggest a future research agenda. Design/methodology/approach An integrative literature review methodology was used to explore the diversity of studies being conducted concerning the EFQM model. Findings Results of the review indicate that the majority of papers are focused on too few research topics (e.g. performance measurement) with limited methodologies (e.g. case study). Research limitations/implications The paper enables researchers and practitioners to recognize the missing avenues of current studies and how these avenues could be improved. It provides ideas to stimulate researchers to take divergent and multiple methodological facts. It will be helpful to enhance both the quality and volume of the EFQM model studies. Originality/value This paper identifies the current status of the EFQM model studies in terms of research topic and methodological issues.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".