Application of the EFQM Model in the Education Institution for Driving Improvement of Processes towards Sustainability
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Manuscript entitled "Application of the EFQM Model in the Education Institution for Driving Improvement of Processes Towards Sustainability" is characterized by triviality of algorithm of the research (Figure 3). Sadly, reviewed manuscript not provide an increment of scientific and practical knowledge.
Besides, the separate suggestions are given by me as a reviewer.
- The aim of the paper is to point out the possibilities of the EFQM Model 2020 application in improving and perfecting the processes in the vocational school in Slovakia towards sustainability. It is necessary to show a SWOT analysis and the landscape of processes taking into account stakeholders of the vocational school (Figure 4). Thus, it is necessary to reflect the current and required state of processes.
- The research was carried out in 2021. There were 72 Teaching and Training Staff (TTS) and 9 Management Staff (MS) involved in the study. It is inadequate to base any critical conclusion (line 303 to 338) without any specific results supporting this opinion. Sample size is one vocational school. The application of the EFQM 2020 model for VARIOUS education institutions will allow the authors to draw reasonable conclusions.
- Authors state: "The paper is structured into five chapters. After the introduction, the second chapter describes the outputs from the literature review. Chapter three describes the methodology applied within the study and the following chapter four presents the results, which are further discussed. The last chapter – conclusion summarizes the results of the study and indicate the future research activities". The presented material can be a part for a report at conference
Author Response
Dear reviewer, all your comments we have accepted and we have repaired the article.
Adjustments:
Correlation analysis was additionally carried out to identify the strength of the relationships between sub-criteria of the model (Direction and Execution dimensions) and Stakeholders perception results as it can be seen in “Materials and Methods” and “Results and Discussion”.
Identification of strengths and weaknesses is presented in “Results and Discussion”. Proposals are suggested based on the weaknesses in the identified areas and processes.
Conclusion was edited based on the comment.
The last paragraph of the introduction was edited based on the comment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The presented article is relevant and of interest to the scientific community. It shows us a design of organizational quality in education. The path followed shows the levels of maturity towards advanced excellence based on the EFQM Model; they present their research algorithm and the results. However, from the point of view of the investigation, it would have been pertinent to take into consideration the following aspects.
1º Research design used.
2º What procedure has been used to validate the questionnaire.
3º Design of the intervention that is offered as a proposal for improvement
Author Response
Dear reviewer, all your comments we have accepted and we have repaired the article.
Adjustments:
The research design (algorithm) was corrected as the correlation analysis was additionally carried out and identification of strengths and weaknesses on the base of the results. (p. 6) “Materials and Methods”.
Regarding the validation of the questionnaire, information was added (p. 6) “Materials and Methods”.
Proposal of intervention was edited (pp. 11-12).
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The article talks about some Quality Management System mostly from a theoretical perspective.
I think that an organized and detailed classification of these systems and models should be grounded in the theoretical background, emphasizing advantages and disadvantages.
Then the authors should explain why they choose EFQM Model. In this regard, many current resources have to be studied and cited (especially articles published in the last 3 years).
The authors initiated a research, but additional analysis and interpretation of data source should be done. For example, they might design a factor analysis, a neural network model, etc as to emphasize the most important elements of the model and their impact on sustainable education.
The authors have also to explain the term before using the acronyms.
Success!
Author Response
Dear reviewer, all your comments we have accepted and we have repaired the article.
Ajustments:
- Brief description of differences between ISO, EFQM and CAF were added (p. 4)
- The new paragraph regarding the EFQM model and its relation to sustainability issues was added indicating the reason of the selection of the EFQM model (p. 5).
- The results were additionally analysed by correlation and strength of relationships between individual sub-criteria and Stakeholders perception results were identified (Chapter Results and Discussion).
- Acronyms EFQM and VET were explained.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
This paper is to study the EFQM model how to apply on the secondary vocational school. This paper has provided a concept to evaluate the performance management in the dimension of direction, execution, and result.
This paper has some problems should be corrected as follows.
What is EFQM? This paper is focused on the concept of EFQM model, and the section 2.1 also has point-outed the EFQM model Characteristics, but it is still no any content to say the abbreviation “E” “F” “Q” “M”.
Why has two EFQM model Characteristics? Section 2.1 and 2.2 has same title.
Section 3 the title is materials and method, but I do not know what analysis process in the paper.
Line 258 to line 301, please make the typesetting cleaner, I am not easy to follow what you want to say.
The conclusion has no any section number.
Totally, this paper is difficult to find a significant contribution as an academic article. My opinion is the literature review and methodology so weakness. Especially, the literature reviews only talking about EFQM model, no other theoretical background to support it has relationship whit sustainability.
Author Response
Dear reviewer, all your comments we have accepted and we have repaired the article.
Adjustments:
- The acronym EFQM was explained (p. 2).
- The name of the section 2.2 was edited.
- The algorithm of the research was extended. Correlation analysis was additionally caried out to identify the strength of the relationships between sub-criteria of the model (Direction and Execution dimensions) and Stakeholders perception results as it can be seen in “Materials and Methods” and “Results and Discussion”. Also, identification of strengths and weaknesses was added.
- Line 258 to line 301 was edited.
- Section number for conclusion was added.
- Paragraph was added to the literature review (section 2.1) focusing on EFQM model and its connection with sustainability issues.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 5 Report
In row 132 Revise the bibliography enumeration from 20 to 22 (it would be 21).
Revise authorship in the text Medne, et al. [2] and in row 128 Gómez-López, et al. [9] etc.
VET Meaning
PARAGRAPH 51 to 55 states that there are five chapters and describes four chapters from line 51 to 55.
“The document is structured in five chapters. After the introduction, the second chapter 59 describes the results of the literature review and summarises the relevant literature sources 60 that have served as the basis for our study. The third chapter describes the methodology applied in the study and the fourth chapter presents the results, which are discussed in more detail.”
Author Response
Dear reviewer, all your comments we have accepted and we have repaired the article.
Adjustments:
- Bibliography enumeration was edited.
- References in text were edited.
- PARAGRAPH 51 to 55 was edited.
- The analysis was extended by correlation and identification of strengths and weaknesses as it can be seen in “Materials and Methods” and “Results and Discussion”.
Thank you
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Overall, this work is ready for publication.
Author Response
There were no comments and suggestions for improvements.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
I still consider that with all you data you could add other statistical analysis that will give deeper insight on the theme maybe new perspectives.
The article is characterized by lack of innovation.
I recommend to find other points of view in the literature review.
Author Response
There were other points added in the literature review.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
I think that the authors have making their efforts on the revised version. But only 2 points still should be measured again,
1. The acronym EFQM is not showed at page 2. Because, a specific term appeared at the first time, the meaning must be explained, but I saw it many time until page 2 then I knew.
2. Please check. Why Table A1, A2, A3??
Totally, this paper ....in my opinion is not well. It should be doubled check, especially the number or points are making together (line 337 to 372), it looks not a professional article.
Author Response
- the acronym EFQM is explained, where it appears for the first time.
- tables A1, A2, A3 are corrected.
- Line 337 to 372 were corrected.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
