Adapting the Baldrige Framework for Sustainable Creative Education: Urban Design, Architecture, Art, and Design Programs

Abstract

Two critical research problems emerge in creative education quality management: the framework misalignment problem, where business-oriented performance metrics inadequately assess design creativity and innovation, and the sustainability integration gap, reflecting limited incorporation of environmental and social sustainability dimensions into excellence models. This review article addresses these problems by developing an initial framework that adapts the Baldrige framework for urban design, architecture, art, and design education with integrated sustainability principles. Drawing on literature review and theoretical synthesis, the article proposes a framework that introduces three key epistemological shifts: prioritizing process over product, supporting non-linear and reflective learning pathways, and recognizing tacit, embodied, and experiential knowledge as central to creative education. The framework incorporates the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as core design challenges and introduces innovative evaluation tools, including portfolios with iterative review processes, community feedback loops, and SDG mapping rubrics. This research contributes to the educational quality management literature by offering a systematic framework that bridges business excellence models with creative education paradigms while positioning sustainability as a core educational objective rather than a peripheral concern.

1. Introduction

Educational institutions worldwide are working to include sustainability principles in their programs, especially in creative fields that shape the built environment. Urban design, architecture, art, and design education programs must prepare students to address environmental challenges while maintaining excellence in creative practice [1,2,3]. However, traditional quality management frameworks designed for business often do not align well with creative education, where innovation, experimentation, and long-term social impact take precedence over standard productivity measures. The Baldrige framework was originally created for business excellence and has been adapted for educational settings since 1999. The Education Criteria for Performance Excellence serves as a widely used framework among educational institutions globally [4]. Its influence extends beyond direct participation to accreditation standards, with professional and regional accrediting bodies increasingly incorporating Baldrige principles into their evaluation criteria [5,6].

1.1. Research Problem Statement

Two critical research problems emerge from current applications of business excellence frameworks in creative education, necessitating systematic examination and theoretical reconstruction.

Problem 1: Framework Misalignment—the Baldrige framework, originally developed for business contexts, lacks specific adaptation mechanisms for creative education environments where traditional performance metrics such as productivity, efficiency, and cycle time are inadequate for evaluating design creativity, innovation, and artistic development. This misalignment creates implementation barriers that may conflict with educational values and creative development goals [4,7,8,9,10,11,12]. The framework’s business-oriented approach does not translate effectively to educational settings characterized by non-linear learning processes, iterative design development, and experiential knowledge acquisition.

Problem 2: Sustainability Integration Gap—current business excellence models demonstrate limited integration of environmental and social sustainability dimensions specifically tailored to architecture and design education—fields in which sustainability competencies are increasingly essential for professional practice [13,14,15]. This gap is particularly evident in creative disciplines where faculty recognize the importance of sustainability but face challenges in implementation due to limited institutional support and inadequate administrative structures that fail to embed sustainability as core rather than peripheral educational content [1,16].

1.2. Research Aim and Contribution

This review article aims to develop an initial framework that adapts the Baldrige framework for urban design, architecture, art, and design education, specifically integrating sustainability principles to enhance educational quality, student outcomes, and institutional performance in creative disciplines. The framework addresses the disconnect between traditional performance management approaches and the nature of creative design education by reframing each Baldrige category through process-oriented, non-linear, and sustainability-driven learning.

The primary contribution to knowledge lies in the development of a preliminary framework that combines the systematic approach of the Baldrige framework with the distinct characteristics of creative education while embedding the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as central design challenges. The proposed framework introduces evaluation tools, including portfolios, reflective journals, stakeholder feedback, and SDG-mapped rubrics—tools that help capture dimensions of learning often overlooked in conventional assessments, thus positioning creative education at the forefront of social innovation and environmental responsibility.

1.3. Scope and Boundaries

This review focuses specifically on four creative disciplines: urban design, architecture, art, and design education within higher education contexts. The framework development emphasizes sustainability integration through UN SDG alignment. The study excludes other creative fields (music, theater, literature) and focuses on institutional rather than individual learning assessment. Geographic scope encompasses international higher education systems with particular attention to sustainability-driven educational innovation.

2. Methods

2.1. PRISMA Guidelines

This review article implemented a systematic literature review approach, adhering to established methodological protocols outlined by O’Brien and Guckin [17] and PRISMA guidelines [18] as documented in

Table 1. The criteria for inclusion and exclusion in the literature reviews.

Inclusion	Exclusion
Peer review studies in English	Non-English studies
Publication in the years 2000–2025	Publications outside the time frame were not selected
Journals, conference proceedings, and textbooks	Working papers, book chapters, organization websites, and conference abstracts
Categories: Business, management, and accounting; computers and composition; computers in human behavior; design studies; arts and humanities; social sciences; and multidisciplinary	Categories other than the ones selected were not included

and Figure 1.

The research utilized Scopus and ScienceDirect as primary databases, encompassing scholarly publications including journal articles, conference proceedings, and academic textbooks. Scopus selection as the principal database was determined by specific methodological rationale. Primarily, Scopus constitutes the most comprehensive database of peer-reviewed literature within social sciences disciplines. Additionally, this database provides extensive coverage for multiple keywords pertinent to this systematic review within Social Science domains. Strategic keyword combinations were implemented: “Malcolm Baldrige framework and Creative Education,” “Malcolm Baldrige framework and Sustainability,” and “Creative Education and Sustainability” within a temporal framework spanning 2000–2025 to capture both foundational scholarship and contemporary developments. Search protocols encompassed titles, abstracts, and keyword fields.

The systematic review process analyzed 688 articles retrieved from Scopus and ScienceDirect across three paired thematic areas: “Malcolm Baldrige framework and Sustainability” (237 articles), “Malcolm Baldrige framework and Creative Education” (60 articles), and “Creative Education and Sustainability” (317 articles). To achieve comprehensive literature coverage, Google Scholar functioned as a supplementary database, yielding 25 additional articles selected from the top 100 search results. Following title and abstract screening of all 639 articles, researchers excluded 400 publications that failed to align with the research focus.

Subsequently, the investigation employed VOSviewer software (version 1.6.20), establishing a minimum occurrence threshold of three appearances for keyword identification. VOSviewer constitutes a bibliometric analysis platform that visualizes relationships and patterns within scholarly literature through network mapping techniques. This software processes extensive datasets of academic publications to identify research clusters, emerging trends, and conceptual connections, facilitating systematic analysis of academic literature landscapes [19]. This analytical methodology revealed four distinct thematic clusters, presented through color-coded visualization (individual colors representing each cluster grouped by semantically related keywords) in Figure 2, Figure 3 and Figure 4 and

Table 2. Clusters illustrated in Figure 2, Figure 3 and Figure 4 utilizing the three pairs of keywords.

Malcolm Baldrige with Creative Education (M & CE)	Malcolm Baldrige with Sustainability (M & S)	Creative Education with Sustainability (CE & S)
Cluster 1 (red)	Cluster 1 (red)	Cluster 1 (red)
Quality assurance Management accountability	Corporate social responsibility Knowledge management Leadership	Sustainability education Architecture, art and design Green architecture
Cluster 2 (green)	Cluster 2 (green)	Cluster 2 (green)
Higher education Benchmarking Research	Innovation Organizational culture Quality mangement	Creativity Innovation Culture
Cluster 3 (blue)	Cluster 3 (blue)	Cluster 3 (blue)
Decision-making Service quality	Quality mangement	Artificial intelligence Built environment
Cluster 4 (yellow)	Cluster 4 (yellow)	Cluster 4 (yellow)
Total quality management Leadership	Business excellence	Ecosystem services Green infrastructure

. The methodological approach adopted a theory-based review framework by categorizing all literature into content analysis, specifically examining technological applications within cultural tourism contexts.

The research implemented a systematic content analysis methodology, utilizing thematic coding procedures that emphasized contextual interpretation at sentence and paragraph levels rather than isolated textual examination. Reliability validation was achieved through paired researcher evaluation and collaborative coding reconciliation, producing systematically organized thematic clusters.

The bibliometric analysis utilizing VOSviewer software revealed four distinct thematic clusters across three keyword pairings: Malcolm Baldrige framework with Creative Education (M & CE), Malcolm Baldrige framework with Sustainability (M & S), and Creative Education with Sustainability (CE & S).

2.2. Cluster Trends Analysis

Cluster 1 (Red): This cluster reveals an evolution from traditional quality assurance toward comprehensive social responsibility frameworks. The progression from quality management accountability in M & CE pairing to corporate social responsibility and knowledge management in M & S pairing, culminating in sustainability education and green architecture in E & S pairing, demonstrates increasing recognition that quality excellence must encompass environmental and social dimensions. This trend indicates a paradigmatic shift from narrow performance metrics toward holistic impact assessment.

Cluster 2 (Green): The cluster progression shows movement from higher education benchmarking and research (M & CE) through innovation and organizational culture (M & S) to creativity, innovation, and culture (CE & S). This pattern reflects growing understanding that educational excellence requires cultural transformation supporting creative risk-taking and continuous innovation. The consistent emphasis on culture across all pairings underscores its foundational role in successful framework implementation.

Cluster 3 (Blue): This cluster demonstrates evolution from service quality and decision-making (M & CE) through quality management (M & S) to artificial intelligence and built environment (CE & S). The trend toward technological integration suggests increasing recognition that contemporary educational excellence requires sophisticated information systems and data-driven decision-making processes, particularly relevant for creative disciplines addressing complex urban challenges.

Cluster 4 (Yellow): The progression from total quality management and leadership (M & CE) through business excellence (M & S) to ecosystem services and green infrastructure (CE & S) reveals systematic integration of environmental considerations into excellence frameworks. This trend indicates movement beyond traditional business metrics toward comprehensive sustainability integration.

2.3. Literature Review Connections

These cluster trends directly support the literature review findings in several critical ways. The evolution evident in Cluster 1 aligns with research demonstrating the inadequacy of traditional quality metrics for creative education contexts [11,12] while simultaneously supporting the documented need for comprehensive sustainability integration [13,14,15]. The cultural transformation emphasis in Cluster 2 corresponds to documented faculty recognition of sustainability importance alongside implementation barriers [16], reinforcing the necessity for institutional cultural change. The technological integration trend in Cluster 3 connects with documented challenges in measuring tacit and embodied learning in creative disciplines [20,21] suggesting that advanced assessment technologies may address current evaluation limitations. The environmental systems integration in Cluster 4 directly supports literature advocating for SDG-centered curriculum development and community-based pedagogical approaches.

Furthermore, these clusters validate the identified research gaps. The convergence patterns demonstrate that while connections exist between business excellence, creative education, and sustainability, systematic integration frameworks remain underdeveloped. The cluster analysis confirms that current literature addresses components separately rather than providing comprehensive integration models, supporting the necessity for the proposed adapted Baldrige framework that bridges these domains through sustainability-centered creative education excellence.

3. Literature Review

3.1. The Baldrige Framework Structure and Components

The Baldrige framework encompasses seven fundamental categories that remain consistent across different organizational sectors, including education presented in Figure 5 [22]. These categories establish a comprehensive approach to organizational excellence through:

1. Leadership Excellence: Effective leadership providing organizational guidance through clear mission articulation, shared future vision development, a commitment to continuous leadership practice improvement, and the demonstration of social and environmental consciousness.

2. Strategic Planning and Implementation: Inclusive planning processes generating coherent strategic plans that systematically translate the organizational mission, vision, and values into measurable, ambitious goals with effective implementation mechanisms throughout the institution.

3. Stakeholder Focus and Responsiveness: Comprehensive understanding of stakeholder needs, expectations, and satisfaction levels; implementation of responsive operating practices; and the establishment of assessment processes to anticipate and address stakeholder perspectives.

4. Performance Measurement and Information Management: Development and utilization of performance indicators aligned with mission, vision, values, and goals; facilitation of data-based comparisons with peer and leading organizations; and systematic information sharing to encourage institutional improvement.

5. Workforce Excellence and Organizational Culture: Creation of workplace cultures that encourage, recognize, and reward excellence while promoting employee satisfaction, engagement, professional development, and commitment; and alignment of individual and organizational objectives.

6. Process Management and Operational Excellence: Systematic focus on mission-critical and support programs, with associated work processes ensuring effectiveness, efficiency, standardization, documentation, and continuous evaluation and improvement with consideration for end-users.

7. Results and Organizational Outcomes: Documentation of sustained positive outcomes aligned with the organizational mission, vision, goals, stakeholder perspectives, and employee satisfaction, evaluated through comparative analysis with peer institutions, competitors, and industry leaders.

The Baldrige Framework Application in Higher Education

The Baldrige framework was formally adapted for educational settings in 1999, with criteria designed for broad applicability across public, private, and corporate educational institutions at all levels. Since its implementation, 99 higher education applications have been submitted to the national program, with two institutions receiving awards: the University of Wisconsin–Stout (2001) [5,6] and the University of Northern Colorado School of Business (2004) [5,6]. The framework’s influence extends beyond direct participation to accreditation standards, with professional and regional accrediting bodies increasingly incorporating Baldrige principles—such as leadership, strategic planning, assessment, and continuous improvement—into their evaluation criteria [5,6].

While the framework’s business origins present challenges for creative disciplines, substantial evidence supports adaptation as the most viable path forward. The Baldrige framework has achieved deep institutional penetration globally, with approximately 100 performance or business excellence programs using the Baldrige framework or derivatives as their organizational excellence model. Many accreditation systems and certifications are also based on the Criteria, with professional and regional accrediting bodies increasingly incorporating Baldrige principles into their evaluation criteria [5,6]. This widespread adoption creates substantial institutional investment in training, processes, and evaluation systems that cannot be easily discarded.

Empirical evidence demonstrates successful sector-specific adaptations. The Excellence in Higher Education model builds on the Baldrige framework criteria while focusing on dimensions specific to higher education and has been used at more than 100 educational organizations [22]. Similarly, the American Healthcare Association’s National Quality Awards Program has successfully adapted the Baldrige Criteria, demonstrating that sector-specific modifications preserve systematic approaches while addressing unique operational contexts. Framework adaptation offers significant resource efficiency advantages over wholesale replacement. A comprehensive “measurement model” grounded in the Baldrige Performance Excellence in Education Criteria for 33 measurement items has been developed, tested, and found valid and reliable [5]. Leadership is identified as a driver for all components in the Baldrige System, including measurement, analysis and knowledge management, strategic planning, faculty and staff focus and process management [5]. These fundamental relationships remain relevant for creative education, providing stable scaffolding for innovative assessment approaches while avoiding the massive resource investments required for entirely new framework development. The evidence supports adaptation as the most pragmatic approach for integrating business excellence principles with creative education needs, leveraging existing institutional investments while enabling the epistemological shifts required for authentic creative assessment.

In brief, the implementation of the Baldridge framework in educational institutions involves several key components as follows.

Strategic Planning and Goal Setting: the Baldrige framework emphasizes strategic planning in educational institutions, encouraging schools to set clear strategic goals and indicators that guide improvement planning [23]. Integration of tools such as SWOT analysis and Balanced Scorecard enables institutions to identify critical success factors and align strategic objectives with performance measures [24].

Performance Measurement and Accountability: performance indicators serve dual purposes of school development and quality management, ensuring educational institutions remain accountable for education quality [25,26,27]. The Balanced Scorecard approach translates strategic goals into measurable outcomes, enhancing accountability and performance management in educational settings [25,26,27].

Continuous Improvement and Quality Management: the framework supports continuous improvement through TQM principles, engaging educators in quality-driven instructional processes using student feedback [28]. Baldrige Performance Excellence Program projects maintain excellence in academic and administrative processes, ensuring institutions continuously strive for performance excellence [29].

Integration of Value-Based Performance Models: value-based performance excellence models complement the Baldrige framework by emphasizing leadership, culture, and stakeholder engagement as institutional performance drivers [30,31]. Integration of diverse viewpoints and consensus-based decision-making processes enhances Baldrige implementation in higher education institutions [30,31].

3.2. The Relationship Between the Baldrige Framework; Urban Design, Architecture, Art, and Design Education; and Sustainability

Figure 6 illustrates the interconnections among the Baldrige Framework, educational programs in urban design, architecture, art, and design, and sustainability principles, supported by case study examples demonstrating the relationships between these components.

3.2.1. The Baldrige Framework and Urban, Architecture, Art, and Design Education

The Baldrige Criteria for Performance Excellence encompasses three distinct frameworks: business, healthcare, and education sectors. The Education Criteria for Performance Excellence serves as a widely adopted framework among educational institutions globally, designed to enhance operational, financial, and market performance outcomes [4]. Despite its widespread implementation, the framework demonstrates three significant structural limitations, as outlined below:

• Misalignment Challenges

The framework assumes that all educational institutions can develop good mission statements. However, this assumption is problematic. Many institutions struggle to identify their stakeholders and understand what makes academic programs excellent. When institutions develop poor mission statements, aligning all processes with those missions often leads to inefficient operations rather than improved performance. Moreover, the framework tends to ignore existing quality management knowledge. For instance, an institution may seek to improve its academic programs, yet the framework does not recommend using proven methods like quality function deployment (QFD). Research shows that QFD works effectively in educational settings [7,9,10].

Moreover, the framework’s complexity makes it difficult for educational institutions to adapt business-oriented criteria to their specific academic needs, particularly when it comes to measuring educational outcomes [11]. Additionally, the framework’s business and industry origins do not adequately reflect the unique cultural and operational characteristics of higher education environments [12]. Research examining the framework in academic contexts shows that substantial modifications are required for it to function effectively in university settings, indicating a fundamental misalignment between business performance models and academic quality management needs.

Analysis: business excellence frameworks operate on mechanistic principles emphasizing predictable input-output relationships, standardized processes, and quantifiable outcomes [11,12]. In contrast, creative education functions through emergent, iterative, and socially constructed learning processes that defy linear measurement. Educational institutions prioritize knowledge exploration, intellectual risk-taking, and long-term societal transformation [4,31,32]. These objectives fundamentally conflict with business frameworks’ emphasis on efficiency optimization and immediate performance indicators. This epistemological disconnect manifests in implementation failures where business-oriented criteria force educational processes into inappropriate analytical categories. Such misalignment undermines rather than enhances institutional effectiveness in creative disciplines. In these contexts, ambiguity, experimentation, and reflective practice constitute core pedagogical values [7].

The proposed initial framework establishes “adaptive scaffolds for exploration” that accommodate creative education’s iterative learning processes while maintaining systematic improvement mechanisms. This approach transforms efficiency-oriented metrics into process cultivation methodologies. Implementation occurs through portfolio-based evaluation systems and SDG-integrated indicators specifically designed for educational contexts. These mechanisms prioritize intellectual risk-taking over immediate quantifiable outcomes while preserving systematic organizational development protocols essential for institutional effectiveness.

• Operational Implementation Challenges

The framework treats higher education like a manufacturing business, which creates serious challenges. Traditional supply chain concepts do not align with academic environments. In business, suppliers and customers rely on mutual financial exchange. In higher education, many “suppliers”—such as government agencies and community groups—work independently and often provide resources voluntarily. The relationships among students, faculty, and institutions are far more complex than simple customer–supplier models. Students may act as both customers (receiving education) and suppliers (providing feedback and participating in learning). Faculty members also fulfill multiple roles. Therefore, framework requirements such as “ensuring suppliers are qualified” and “dealing with poor supplier performance” do not apply sensibly in academic contexts [33].

Moreover, higher education serves many different stakeholder groups with diverse needs. Students want good grades and enjoyable experiences, but they may not know what skills they actually need for future employment. Employers seek graduates with specific capabilities. Government agencies have their own requirements. Professional bodies set standards that may conflict with those of other stakeholders. The framework does not help institutions balance these competing demands. This is a major issue, as focusing only on one group (such as students) could compromise the interests of others and reduce overall educational quality [32,34].

Analysis: The practical difficulties in applying business processes to academic contexts emerge from fundamental structural incompatibilities between commercial operational models and the collaborative, non-hierarchical nature of creative education environments. Business excellence frameworks assume clear supplier-customer relationships and standardized service delivery protocols. However, academic institutions function through complex multi-stakeholder ecosystems where students simultaneously occupy roles as learners, collaborators, and knowledge co-creators [32,33]. The framework’s emphasis on process standardization conflicts directly with the improvisational and adaptive pedagogical approaches essential to design education. In creative disciplines, curriculum flexibility and responsive teaching methodologies enable authentic creative development rather than predetermined learning outcomes [8,35]. These operational misalignments manifest in implementation failures where business-derived performance indicators undermine the iterative, reflective learning processes that constitute core educational value in architecture, art, and design programs.

The proposed initial framework establishes “community co-creation methodologies” that systematically accommodate multi-stakeholder relationships and adaptive pedagogical approaches while maintaining organizational coherence. Implementation occurs through flexible process management systems utilizing iterative design workflows. These workflows preserve curriculum responsiveness and collaborative learning structures essential to creative education. The framework replaces standardized efficiency metrics with sustainability-integrated assessment tools designed specifically for non-hierarchical educational environments, enabling authentic creative development while maintaining systematic organizational improvement protocols.

• Assessment and Measurement Challenges

The framework presents two major measurement issues. First, it relies on business terms like “productivity,” “cycle time,” and “efficiency,” which do not translate well to education. In manufacturing, inputs and outputs are tangible and easy to measure. In education, learning and knowledge development are intangible and more difficult to quantify [8]. Second, while the framework instructs institutions to establish performance measures, it does not explain how to develop them. It describes what to do but not how to do it. As a result, institutions are left without clear guidance for evaluating essential academic processes such as admissions, faculty development, teaching effectiveness, and student learning outcomes. In brief, this challenge section shows that the framework contains notable weaknesses that limit its effectiveness in higher education. Its reliance on business concepts, without adequate adaptation to academic contexts, creates implementation barriers that may hinder rather than support performance improvement. Faculty work is very different from typical business jobs. Professors must manage research, teaching, student advising, administrative duties, professional service, and community engagement. Managing faculty performance requires an understanding of these multiple roles and the creation of fair workload distribution systems. The framework does not address how to balance faculty workloads, evaluate performance across various responsibilities, or design reward systems that acknowledge the complexity of academic work [32,33,34].

Analysis: the inadequacy of business metrics for educational outcomes reflects fundamental differences between commercial value creation and creative knowledge development that resist quantitative measurement approaches. Business excellence frameworks emphasize measurable performance indicators—customer satisfaction, productivity ratios, cycle time optimization. However, creative education operates through tacit knowledge acquisition and emergent understanding that defy standardization [8,36,37]. Performance measurement problems manifest particularly in studio-based environments where assessment must capture conceptual development, design process sophistication, and creative risk-taking. These dimensions are systematically excluded by business metrics [35,38]. These measurement frameworks fail to distinguish between surface-level compliance and authentic creative development. Consequently, they potentially incentivize practices that optimize measurable indicators while undermining exploratory and transformative learning processes essential to architectural and design education excellence.

The proposed initial framework establishes SDG-integrated evaluation systems that accommodate portfolio-based assessment, process documentation, and qualitative learning indicators specifically designed for creative disciplines. Implementation occurs through structured community impact assessment protocols and iterative design evaluation mechanisms. These systems enable systematic measurement of sustainability competencies while preserving authentic creative development processes. The framework provides practical alternatives to traditional business metrics through assessment tools designed specifically for creative educational contexts, maintaining academic rigor while accommodating the epistemological requirements of design education.

• Advantages of the Baldrige Framework in University Education

Although several challenges were outlined in the previous section, the Baldrige framework offers significant benefits for university education through its structured approach to organizational improvement and quality management, as follows:

• Strategic and Organizational Excellence

The framework strengthens university management by emphasizing leadership, strategic planning, and student focus. This approach promotes transparency and competency-based management, leading to improved work processes and strategic outcomes [39]. Universities can systematically assess and enhance their management practices, ensuring alignment with institutional missions and goals [11]. Moreover, Implementing the Baldrige framework criteria leads to improved quality and operational performance in educational organizations. The framework provides a reliable system for quality assessment, positively impacting customer satisfaction and process quality management [40]. Its focus on continuous improvement helps universities build a quality-oriented culture that prioritizes operational efficiency and improved educational outcomes.

Analysis: Strategic planning effectiveness emerges through systematic vision articulation and measurable goal-setting mechanisms that translate institutional missions into actionable objectives [11]. However, the framework’s emphasis on hierarchical decision-making structures and business-oriented performance indicators conflicts with collegial governance models and requires substantial modification to capture educational value creation, particularly in creative disciplines where excellence must accommodate iterative learning processes and non-linear creative development pathways [40].

The proposed initial framework builds upon these strategic advantages by establishing institutional governance mechanisms that integrate sustainability objectives with creative education excellence through stakeholder-responsive planning processes. This framework enables systematic organizational development while accommodating collegial decision-making structures through collaborative strategic visioning, participatory goal-setting protocols, and community-engaged assessment methodologies that align institutional missions with both creative pedagogical values and measurable sustainability outcomes.

• Educational Outcomes and Evidence-Based Practice

The Baldrige framework supports curriculum development by prioritizing learning as the primary educational output rather than relying solely on student satisfaction. It promotes the use of clear outcome indicators such as graduation rates and employment statistics, aligning educational objectives with employer expectations [11]. This structured approach fosters continuous improvement in curriculum design and student engagement, ultimately resulting in better-prepared graduates. Furthermore, empirical studies confirm the effectiveness of the Baldrige framework in educational settings, offering practical insights for enhancing quality systems. The framework’s adaptability allows universities to tailor implementation to specific institutional challenges while maintaining a focus on excellence and performance improvement [40].

Analysis: However, the framework’s emphasis on standardized assessment and quantifiable outcomes conflicts with creative disciplines’ requirements for portfolio-based evaluation, process documentation, and qualitative learning indicators that capture conceptual development and design thinking sophistication [35,38].

The proposed creative-sustainability framework builds upon evidence-based practice advantages by integrating portfolio assessment methodologies with iterative review processes, community feedback loops, and SDG mapping rubrics that maintain systematic evaluation while accommodating creative learning characteristics. This framework enables empirical rigor through structured evaluation protocols including peer critique assessments, stakeholder engagement metrics, and sustainability competency frameworks specifically designed to measure creative development progression and community impact through methodologies appropriate to creative epistemologies and sustainability objectives.

• Case Study: The Vocational Training Council’s Hong Kong Institute of Vocational Education

Lee et al. [24] developed an innovative strategic formulation framework at the Vocational Training Council’s Hong Kong Institute of Vocational Education (IVE), systematically integrating four management tools: SWOT analysis, Balanced Scorecard (BSC), Quality Function Deployment (QFD), and the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award (MBNQA) education criteria. This case study demonstrates the practical application of business excellence frameworks in vocational education settings.

Methodological Approach: the research employed a sophisticated two-phase methodology that exemplifies systematic adaptation of business excellence principles to educational contexts. In the first phase, researchers combined SWOT analysis with the Balanced Scorecard to identify four critical success perspectives specific to vocational education: financial sustainability, stakeholder satisfaction, internal educational processes, and organizational learning and growth. This integration addressed the fundamental challenge of balancing financial constraints with educational objectives while maintaining accountability to multiple stakeholder groups including students, employers, government agencies, and the broader community.

The second phase employed QFD methodology to systematically analyze how the MBNQA education criteria could be translated into actionable strategies within the vocational education context. This approach directly addresses the framework misalignment problem where business-oriented performance metrics inadequately assess educational outcomes, particularly in technical fields where hands-on learning and industry relevance are paramount.

Critical Analysis: this case study demonstrates that successful adaptation requires structured approaches rather than superficial translation of business terms to educational contexts. The use of QFD provided a structured mechanism for identifying relationships between business excellence criteria and educational outcomes, avoiding the common pitfall of forcing inappropriate metrics into educational processes.

The framework’s recognition of multiple stakeholder needs reflects a sophisticated understanding of educational excellence beyond standardized outcomes. However, the case study reveals limitations relevant to creative education applications. The focus on vocational training represents a more structured environment than typical creative disciplines, where the emphasis on industry alignment might inadequately capture the exploratory, process-oriented learning characteristics of architecture, art, and design education.

Implications for Creative Education Framework Development: this case study provides insights applicable to developing Baldrige adaptations for creative education. The systematic methodology demonstrates the necessity of structured adaptation processes, while the multi-stakeholder approach offers a model for addressing complex accountability requirements in creative education, where community engagement and long-term social benefits may be as important as immediate learning outcomes.

The study’s integration of multiple management tools suggests that creative education frameworks might benefit from comprehensive approaches combining systematic planning, stakeholder engagement, and outcome assessment. This integrated approach could address both the framework misalignment problem and the sustainability integration gap, demonstrating that successful adaptation requires careful attention to epistemological differences between business and educational environments while maintaining systematic approaches valuable for institutional improvement.

3.2.2. The Baldrige Framework and Sustainability

Traditional business excellence models have historically focused predominantly on economic performance, overlooking the comprehensive nature of organizational sustainability. As global business environments become increasingly complex, there is a growing need to integrate environmental and social dimensions alongside economic objectives. The emergence of sustainable development concepts has challenged existing performance measurement frameworks to evolve beyond narrow financial metrics [41,42,43]. Currently, organizations are increasingly recognizing that long-term success requires a holistic approach that balances economic prosperity with social responsibility and environmental stewardship. Hart and Milstein [43] emphasize that enterprises must draw on economic, social, and environmental benefits to promote sustainable development. This shift calls for a more nuanced approach to organizational assessment that captures the multifaceted nature of corporate performance.

• Integrating Sustainability in Business Excellence Models

The Baldrige framework has expanded to include sustainability dimensions in response to increasing demand for comprehensive organizational assessment beyond conventional quality management. This integration marks a notable advancement in business excellence models, broadening evaluation criteria to encompass economic, environmental, and social performance [13,44]. The framework’s adaptation incorporates elements from the Dow Jones Sustainability Indexes (DJSI), which evaluate organizations across three core dimensions: economic, environmental, and social performance [14]. This integration supports holistic organizational assessment, taking into account multiple stakeholder requirements and long-term value creation. The DJSI series remains the most well-known index in global sustainable and responsible investment development, with indicators tailored to different industry contexts. Recent developments have introduced the Knowledge Management Excellence Model 21 (KMEM21), which combines knowledge management with business excellence models to align organizational performance with the United Nations SDGs [45]. This theoretical framework integrates concepts from multiple excellence models, including the Brazilian management excellence model, the Baldrige excellence framework, and EFQM, offering new insights into the relationship between knowledge management and business excellence.

Despite these advances, business excellence models continue to face criticism regarding their effectiveness in promoting social and environmental sustainability. Benavide and Grigoroudis [15] emphasize the scarcity of studies examining how these models contribute to internal sustainability and connect with existing sustainable initiatives. The implementation of business excellence models for sustainability assessment remains the subject of ongoing debate in the literature, with some supporting their effectiveness and others questioning their clarity in achieving real sustainability outcomes. The Baldrige framework has evolved from a traditional quality management tool into a more comprehensive sustainability assessment model. By integrating economic, social, and environmental dimensions, it offers organizations a holistic approach to understanding and improving their performance. As global challenges grow more complex, such integrated frameworks will be essential in guiding organizations toward more sustainable and responsible practices.

Analysis: contemporary frameworks demonstrate systematic incorporation of triple bottom line principles through adaptation of Dow Jones Sustainability Indexes (DJSI) criteria and advanced models such as the Knowledge Management Excellence Model 21 (KMEM21), which integrates multiple excellence frameworks with United Nations SDG alignment mechanisms [14,45]. However, these integration efforts face fundamental tensions between traditional business excellence paradigms prioritizing efficiency and quantifiable outcomes, and sustainability frameworks requiring long-term thinking, stakeholder complexity management, and qualitative impact assessment that resist conventional measurement approaches [15,41,42]. Implementation research reveals systematic difficulties in translating sustainability aspirations into operational excellence frameworks, particularly regarding measurement system development and performance indicator alignment with both organizational objectives and broader environmental outcomes, challenges that manifest acutely in educational contexts where sustainability integration must accommodate creative learning processes and community engagement requirements that exceed traditional organizational boundaries [15,43].

The proposed initial framework operationalizes these sustainability integration advantages by establishing systematic alignment mechanisms between SDG objectives and creative education excellence through institutional sustainability reporting protocols and community engagement assessment methodologies. This framework enables comprehensive sustainability integration by transforming traditional excellence indicators into sustainability-responsive metrics. Moreover, it also maintains organizational performance standards through structured sustainability competency development and stakeholder impact assessment protocols specifically designed for creative education contexts.

• Case Study: The Implementation of Corporate Sustainability

Roche and Baumgartner [46] conducted an empirical investigation of corporate sustainability (CS) strategy deployment at a medium-sized Austrian logistics company, examining the practical implementation of hoshin kanri (HoK) methodology for sustainability integration. The research employed a longitudinal single-case study spanning eight months, utilizing document analysis, participant observation, and twelve semi-structured interviews with department managers and employees to investigate how organizations can effectively link strategic sustainability objectives with operational activities.

Methodological Approach: The research design employed a comprehensive triangulation approach incorporating multiple data sources and collection methods. The methodology included systematic review of internal company documents and stakeholder surveys, participant observation during management workshops and quarterly status meetings, and extensive semi-structured interviews with twelve organizational members across hierarchical levels and functional departments.

Data collection occurred through structured phases beginning with a management workshop in May 2022, followed by ongoing participant observations during summer 2022, and concluding with interviews conducted between September and December 2022. The stakeholder survey, administered in November 2022, assessed perceived importance of twelve sustainability criteria among relevant stakeholder groups including business-to-business partners, suppliers, employees, service providers, owners, and interest representatives. This systematic approach enabled comprehensive analysis of both formal organizational processes and informal stakeholder perspectives regarding sustainability implementation. The interview protocol addressed three primary research domains: hoshin kanri implementation methods and tools, sustainability understanding and organizational context, and integration mechanisms for corporate sustainability within existing strategic frameworks. All interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using qualitative content analysis, employing inductive coding schemes aligned with the study’s theoretical framework.

Critical Analysis: The study revealed substantive gaps between sustainability strategic intent and operational implementation. Employee understanding remained fragmented, focusing primarily on efficiency measures rather than comprehensive sustainability frameworks. Social sustainability dimensions received limited systematic attention despite being identified as critical organizational challenges. The integration of systems theory, stakeholder theory, and dynamic capabilities provided comprehensive explanatory power for organizational transformation processes. The hoshin kanri methodology proved valuable for systematic sustainability integration, offering structured approaches to goal alignment and continuous improvement. However, successful implementation required substantial cultural transformation and consistent leadership commitment to overcome operational resistance.

Implications for Creative Education Framework Development: This case study demonstrates how established strategic management tools can be adapted for sustainability purposes while maintaining organizational coherence. The systematic approach to sustainability definition, stakeholder engagement, and performance measurement provides replicable frameworks for educational contexts seeking comprehensive sustainability integration. The documented tensions between immediate operational demands and strategic planning suggest the need for sophisticated integration mechanisms that embed sustainability into daily decision-making. The research contributes to understanding how organizations can leverage existing strategic capabilities to advance sustainability objectives while building capacity for continuous improvement and adaptation in educational settings.

3.2.3. Urban Design, Architecture, Art, and Design Education with Sustainability

• Curricular Integration and Pedagogical Frameworks

The United Nations SDGs provide a comprehensive framework for organizing sustainability education in urban, architecture, art, and design programs. Faludi et al. [47] present detailed curricular recommendations that systematically address environmental sustainability fundamentals, social equity considerations, and economic viability principles. Their framework emphasizes the interconnected nature of sustainability challenges and the need for holistic educational approaches. Effective SDG integration requires careful attention to local context and community needs. Qu et al. [48] demonstrate the successful implementation of SDG-focused educational activities that emphasize four key goals: Zero Hunger (SDG 2), Climate Action (SDG 13), Life Below Water (SDG 14), and Life on Land (SDG 15). Their research shows that narrowing the scope of sustainability challenges to locally relevant issues better matches students’ developmental capabilities while providing concrete applications of abstract sustainability concepts.

Effective sustainability in urban design, architecture, art, and design education requires the promotion of mature ‘deep’ learning approaches, incorporating robust principles and practices through multi-level analytic and synthetic engagement [1,2,3]. Sustainable curricula should emphasize reflection and critical peer/self-evaluation, fostering shared ownership of challenges that balance design creativity with environmental, socio-cultural, and economic responsibility [49]. Students need exposure to holistic sustainability aspects while developing critical insights into multidisciplinary problems that transcend isolated sustainability concerns. Ultimately, curricula must embrace deep sustainability approaches, positioning sustainability not as a supplementary design enhancement but as a fundamental requirement of the design process.

The combination of formal and informal educational interventions provides comprehensive learning experiences addressing multiple dimensions of sustainability awareness. Manfredi et al. [50] document the successful implementation of informal educational programs, including recycling systems and materials exchange initiatives, which effectively promote sustainable behaviors among design students. However, their research emphasizes that informal interventions must be complemented by formal educational experiences to maximize impact and build comprehensive sustainability literacy.

Innovative educational methodologies in architecture and design, such as project-based learning, have shown significant promise in sustainability education. The Fulbright Specialist project experience demonstrates that while there is growing general awareness of sustainable development challenges among students in Poland, the transition from a general notion to specific applications across various scales of the built environment remains a challenge [51]. The project methodology, which immersed students in a process mirroring real professional challenges and provided a structured path toward valuable solutions, resulted in increased student engagement compared to traditional classes [51]. This approach underscores the importance of experiential learning in sustainability education.

Analysis: the integration of sustainability principles within creative education curricula represents a fundamental paradigmatic shift requiring systematic restructuring of pedagogical frameworks rather than superficial content additions. Contemporary research demonstrates that effective implementation necessitates coordinated integration across foundational design studios, technical courses, and capstone projects, typically requiring 3–5-year development cycles with sustained institutional commitment and interdisciplinary faculty collaboration. However, empirical evidence reveals persistent implementation barriers including faculty development needs, assessment framework limitations that inadequately measure complex sustainability competencies, and student resistance to collaborative, process-oriented learning approaches that conflict with traditional educational expectations.

The proposed initial framework accommodates the iterative, non-linear nature of creative development while maintaining systematic approaches to sustainability integration. This framework reconceptualizes operational excellence from efficiency optimization to process cultivation through iterative design workflows, community co-creation methodologies, and SDG-integrated assessment tools.

• Implementation Challenges and Faculty Perspectives

Altomonte et al. [1] points out that academic institutions frequently maintain programmatic divisions between theoretical and applied instruction for sustainable purposes. Lectures introduce fundamental principles and knowledge frameworks assumed to inform subsequent studio design development, often focusing on building physics—such as heat transfer, acoustics, or lighting—delivered through core or elective modules. However, theoretical content presentation remains largely disconnected from design exploration, preventing students from engaging with integrated processes that creatively investigate the implementation of sustainability in design practice [1,52,53]. Students often commence design tasks with a limited understanding of design processes and inadequate conceptual frameworks for formulating sustainable solutions. Their existing knowledge and preconceptions are frequently dismissed without sufficient explanation of potential misconceptions, perpetuating the divide between scientific knowledge application and creative design realization [54].

Faculty engagement is a foundational element in successfully integrating sustainability within art and design curricula. Research by Kang et al. [16] reveals that although arts and design educators recognize the critical importance of sustainability education, significant barriers hinder effective implementation. These include limited institutional time allocation, insufficient resource provision, and inadequate administrative support. Despite these obstacles, faculty maintain a strong conviction that sustainability should be central to art and design education, highlighting the urgent need for comprehensive institutional support. The pedagogical complexity of sustainability education in creative disciplines necessitates sophisticated approaches that transcend traditional disciplinary boundaries. Faludi et al. [47] advocate for evidence-based educational frameworks integrating sustainability fundamentals, circular economy principles, whole-systems thinking, sustainable innovation strategies, impact assessment methods, and collaborative leadership development. Their research stresses the importance of structured learning outcomes tailored to three competency levels: foundational knowledge for all design students, specialized expertise for sustainability-focused practitioners, and advanced study for research-oriented learners.

Research consistently identifies significant challenges in effectively communicating the complexity and interconnectedness of sustainability issues to architecture and design students. Traditional educational approaches often fail to convey the multifaceted nature of these problems, leading to a superficial understanding that may inadvertently support “greenwashing” practices rather than genuine sustainable design implementation. Stevens and Culén [55] identify ongoing tensions in balancing practical design skills with reflective analysis and critical thinking. Their research highlights the need for comprehensive educational approaches that engage with these complexities while avoiding oversimplification. Transforming design education to meaningfully incorporate sustainability requires collaboration across institutional levels and educational formats.

Analysis: implementation of sustainability integration within creative education curricula reveals systematic institutional barriers. These barriers encompass resource allocation constraints, faculty development inadequacies, and assessment framework limitations. Collectively, these factors impede meaningful pedagogical transformation. Faculty perspectives document persistent challenges including increased workload demands associated with interdisciplinary collaboration. Additional challenges include resistance to pedagogical paradigm shifts requiring substantial investment in new methodological competencies. Institutional pressure to maintain traditional disciplinary boundaries while simultaneously pursuing sustainability integration objectives creates further complications. Specific pedagogical challenges in SDG education manifest through three primary implementation barriers. First, institutions encounter difficulties translating global sustainability frameworks into culturally appropriate local educational contexts. Second, faculty face challenges developing assessment methodologies capable of measuring complex transdisciplinary competencies. Third, educational programs must manage the inherent tension between standardized institutional requirements and collaborative, process-oriented learning approaches. These learning approaches are essential for effective sustainability education.

The proposed framework enables systematic organizational transformation while accommodating disciplinary epistemologies. This occurs through flexible implementation timelines and culturally responsive adaptation strategies. These mechanisms are specifically designed for creative education contexts. They provide practical solutions for translating global frameworks into local practices. The framework also develops assessment methodologies appropriate for transdisciplinary competencies. It addresses institutional tensions through structured flexibility protocols. These protocols accommodate collaborative learning approaches while maintaining academic standards.

• Research-Driven and Community-Centered Approaches

Sheta [56] notes that sustainable architecture has emerged as a prominent research domain that has consistently garnered substantial scholarly attention over recent decades. The advancement of sustainable architecture research has helped clarify core sustainable design principles, establish exemplary practices, and explore innovative technologies and materials that enhance building sustainability performance [57,58,59,60,61]. This initiative culminated in the formation of the Passive and Low Energy Architecture (PLEA) Conference, which has maintained a distinguished record of presenting innovative contributions and scholarly developments from global academic institutions and professional organizations in advancing passive and low-energy architectural research [21]. The PLEA conference serves as an exemplary case study, representing a global association that advances sustainable architecture and urban design through systematic international conferences, seminars, and scholarly publications. This platform brings together participants from over 40 member countries who engage in knowledge exchange and dissemination related to sustainable architecture and urbanization practices. The organization achieves its objectives through various mechanisms, including international conferences and workshops, expert consultation meetings, scientific and technical publications, and architectural competitions and exhibitions [20].

In urban architecture, educational approaches that emphasize community engagement and cultural preservation have proven particularly effective in developing students’ understanding of sustainability’s social dimensions [62]. Projects connecting students with cultural heritage preservation, as documented in Valencian design school case studies by Gaitán et al. [63], successfully increased appreciation for cultural conservation while encouraging integration of heritage elements into contemporary sustainable design practices. The participatory design movement provides valuable pedagogical frameworks for incorporating marginalized perspectives into sustainability education. Qu et al. [48] demonstrate that community-based educational projects enhance students’ understanding of local sustainability challenges while promoting creative problem-solving skills. Such approaches equip students with practical experience in stakeholder engagement while addressing real-world sustainability issues.

Analysis: Research-driven approaches in sustainable architecture education establish evidence-based frameworks for measuring sustainability learning outcomes through systematic data collection on design process iterations and environmental impact assessments. However, empirical analysis reveals significant methodological limitations. These include difficulty establishing control groups and institutional constraints that prioritize research publication over pedagogical innovation. Community-centered pedagogical models demonstrate enhanced learning outcomes through authentic stakeholder engagement and participatory design methodologies. These approaches enable students to develop cultural competency alongside technical proficiency. Nevertheless, implementation challenges persist. Coordination complexity across academic calendars and community timelines creates operational difficulties. Additionally, assessment framework limitations struggle to evaluate collaborative learning outcomes involving multiple stakeholders.

The proposed initial framework establishes “community co-creation methodologies” that bridge empirical validation with participatory educational approaches. This integration enables systematic documentation of pedagogical effectiveness while maintaining authentic community engagement. Structured partnership protocols accommodate both academic research requirements and community development objectives. The framework provides practical solutions for coordinating academic and community timelines while developing assessment methodologies capable of evaluating multi-stakeholder collaborative learning outcomes in creative education contexts.

• Sociocultural Dimensions in Creative Education Pedagogy

The integration of sociocultural perspectives into creative education represents a fundamental shift from individualistic approaches toward culturally responsive and community-centered pedagogical frameworks, particularly relevant for architecture, art, and design education where creative expression inherently reflects cultural narratives and social structures that influence learning environments. Sociocultural frameworks in creative education emphasize pedagogy-as-praxis, integrating socio-cultural-political factors that shape educational practices through broader societal discourses [64], while Vygotskian theory provides foundational understanding of how social activities enable individual transformation, preparing learners for participation in knowledge economies through collaborative creative processes [65]. Traditional Western educational practices, which emphasize individualistic and positivistic approaches, often limit creative potential in architecture and design education, necessitating a shift toward dialogical, socio-cultural, and collaborative frameworks that better foster creativity by recognizing diverse cultural approaches to design thinking and aesthetic expression [66].

Cultural pedagogy theory highlights the importance of social interactions, self-identity, and narratives in fostering creativity, emphasizing cooperative links between community contexts and educational institutions, which aligns with community-based design education methodologies documented in architecture programs where students engage with local cultural contexts and vernacular design traditions. The concept of “liquid learning” in higher education reflects flexible, socially valuable approaches to creativity through group endeavor and collective intelligence, though balance with structured learning remains essential for comprehensive creative development [67]. Creative education increasingly recognizes the importance of developing creative ecosystems that support diverse and adaptive learning environments, particularly relevant for preparing students for uncertain futures in rapidly changing urban contexts [68], while the mandala of creative pedagogies offers frameworks for incorporating creativity into higher education while connecting global and local knowledge systems, essential for architecture and design programs addressing sustainability challenges [69].

However, sociocultural narrative pedagogy presents implementation challenges including disruptions and paradoxes that highlight the complexity of integrating cultural narratives into standardized educational frameworks [68,69]. The traditional focus on standardized curricula and assessment methods can hinder development of culturally responsive pedagogies in creative disciplines, such as architecture, art, and design education requires adaptive approaches that accommodate diverse cultural backgrounds, learning styles, and design traditions while maintaining academic rigor and professional preparation standards. By embracing inclusive and flexible pedagogical approaches, creative education institutions can better support development of critical thinking and cultural competency, preparing graduates for the complexities of contemporary global practice while addressing the sustainability integration gaps identified in current excellence models for creative education contexts.

Analysis: sociocultural pedagogical approaches in creative education reveal fundamental tensions between standardized Western educational paradigms emphasizing individual achievement and collaborative, culturally responsive frameworks. These frameworks recognize diverse ways of knowing and creating through community-centered methodologies. Implementation challenges emerge from institutional resistance to adaptive curricula that accommodate multiple cultural perspectives. Assessment methodologies struggle to evaluate culturally situated creative expression within traditional academic structures. Faculty preparation inadequacies create barriers for navigating complex intercultural pedagogical relationships. The emphasis on liquid learning and creative ecosystems conflicts with traditional structured learning requirements and standardized assessment protocols.

The proposed initial framework operationalizes sociocultural pedagogical dimensions through systematic integration of culturally responsive design methodologies with sustainability competency development. This framework establishes “cultural adaptation protocols” that enable systematic incorporation of diverse design traditions and local knowledge systems. Implementation occurs through portfolio-based evaluation systems, community-engaged project methodologies, and peer assessment protocols. These mechanisms recognize multiple ways of knowing while maintaining academic rigor through structured assessment frameworks designed for intercultural creative education contexts.

• Case Studies: The Fulbright Specialist Project for Sustainable Urban Design Education

Bradecki et al. [51] illustrate how the Fulbright Specialist Project facilitated the sharing of sustainable urban development best practices from the United States with Polish faculty members, students, and professionals, recognizing that contemporary sustainability challenges demand transnational collaboration in educational innovation.

Methodological Approach: The research design utilized a single-case longitudinal study spanning eight months, incorporating three primary data collection mechanisms: structured international collaboration through the Fulbright Program, intensive Project-Based Learning workshops, and community engagement through public presentations.

The specialist consultation model leveraged short-term expertise deployment (two to six weeks) to maximize knowledge transfer efficiency while minimizing institutional disruption. The invited specialist, Anyeley Hallova, brought cross-disciplinary experience spanning municipal policy, urban planning, and sustainable development implementation from Portland, Oregon. This selection provided both theoretical grounding and practical expertise essential for bridging American sustainability practices with Polish educational contexts.

The pedagogical framework centered on campus-as-laboratory methodology, utilizing the 20,000-student Silesian University campus in downtown Gliwice as an authentic testing ground for sustainable urban design interventions. Students engaged with real-world challenges including dormitory area revitalization, river corridor enhancement, campus-city connectivity improvements, and sustainable mobility solutions. The intensive two-week workshop format replaced traditional semester-long studios, creating focused immersion experiences that enhanced student engagement through compressed learning cycles.

Integration of sustainability frameworks employed systematic questioning protocols addressing environmental, social, and economic dimensions. Students were guided through structured evaluation processes examining energy consumption, stormwater management, renewable materials usage, community space development, economic viability, and stakeholder engagement strategies. This comprehensive approach addressed the identified gap between theoretical sustainability knowledge and practical application capabilities among architecture and urban design students.

Critical Analysis: The case study demonstrates significant pedagogical innovations while revealing important methodological limitations. The project’s strength lies in its systematic international knowledge transfer, successfully adapting American sustainability practices to Polish educational contexts through structured multi-modal delivery. However, the single-case study design limits generalizability across different educational contexts and cultural settings. The campus-focused approach, while providing familiar learning environments, may inadequately prepare students for broader urban design challenges involving complex policy frameworks and multi-stakeholder coordination processes. The compressed timeframe creates intensive learning experiences but potentially insufficient time for long-term curricular integration. The evaluation framework relies primarily on student project outcomes and qualitative feedback rather than systematic assessment of learning objectives or long-term educational impact.

Implications for Creative Education Framework Development: This case study provides transferable models for international collaboration in creative education. The systematic expertise integration framework offers replicable approaches for leveraging short-term partnerships to enhance curricular offerings while building institutional capacity. The campus-as-laboratory methodology demonstrates effective integration of real-world problem-solving into design education while maintaining student engagement through familiar contexts. The multi-stakeholder engagement through TEDx presentations and community consultations illustrates the value of extending educational initiatives beyond academic boundaries, creating opportunities for public dialog and institutional visibility. The structured sustainability integration protocols provide actionable templates for embedding comprehensive environmental, social, and economic assessment into creative curricula. The documentation of implementation challenges—including time constraints, industry limitations, and measurement difficulties—offers practical guidance for institutional preparation and capacity building in creative education contexts.

4. Creating the Initial Framework

This initial framework addresses the epistemological misalignment between traditional performance management models, such as the Baldrige framework, and the nature of creative design education (urban, architecture, art, and design). By reframing each category through the lens of process-oriented, non-linear, and sustainability-driven learning, it seeks to establish a more contextually appropriate model for architectural and design education.

Whereas the original Baldrige framework emphasizes efficiency, standardization, and measurable outputs, creative disciplines require a framework that foregrounds ambiguity, iteration, embodied knowledge, and long-term societal impact. This reframing is not merely a translation exercise; it represents a paradigm shift from control to cultivation, moving from managing outputs to nurturing transformation.

In operational terms, the framework broadens evaluative tools to include portfolios, reflective journals, stakeholder feedback, and SDG-mapped rubrics. These instruments capture learning dimensions often overlooked in conventional audits, such as ethical reasoning, material experimentation, and design empathy. Moreover, the reframed categories encourage leadership and strategy to embrace intellectual risk-taking and community co-creation as indicators of institutional excellence.

From a sustainability perspective, this framework positions urban, architectural, and design education at the forefront of social innovation. It incorporates the UN SDGs not as peripheral targets but as central design challenges, equipping institutions to educate future professionals who are not only technically competent but also ecologically literate and socially responsive.

This synthesis of creative epistemology and systemic accountability opens new possibilities for quality assurance in higher education. It supports a more dynamic, inclusive, and transformative understanding of educational excellence, particularly in disciplines where traditional performance indicators fail to capture the depth and complexity of learning.

4.1. Responding to Epistemological Misalignment

The traditional Baldrige framework—while valuable in institutional management, as noted above—was developed primarily for business and industrial contexts, and thus reflects epistemological assumptions that are misaligned with the nature of creative disciplines such as architecture, art, and design [11,12]. Creative education emphasizes conceptual development, open-ended exploration, and learning-by-doing, which are poorly served by performance metrics that prioritize linear productivity, fixed outcomes, and economic efficiency [35,38]. Creative learning is inherently non-linear, iterative, and reflective [70,71]. Students often explore both the problem and the solution simultaneously by experimenting with ideas and testing possible answers, thereby defying the input–output logic typically associated with the Baldrige framework. Moreover, knowledge acquisition in studio-based education involves tacit, embodied, and experiential modes that resist codification [36,37]. This calls for a framework that values developmental trajectories and knowledge-in-action over static deliverables.

4.2. Gap Identification and Reframing Dimensions

By synthesizing insights from both the Baldrige literature and creative education research presented in the previous section, the researchers identify critical gaps and propose a reframed model that integrates creative epistemologies with sustainability education. Figure 7 and

Table 3. Gap-to-Framework Reframing.

Baldrige Category	Original Emphasis	Creative Discipline Gap	Reframed Emphasis	Key References
(1) Leadership	Efficiency and mission alignment	Lack of support for experimentation and intellectual freedom	Vision-led, risk-tolerant, participatory leadership	[1,22]
(2) Strategy	Goal-driven plans, productivity metrics	Inflexible structures inhibit open inquiry	Adaptive scaffolds for exploration, SDG-aligned strategies	[16,47]
(3) Stakeholder Focus	Satisfaction and market responsiveness	Overlooks cultural diversity in creative expression and community-centered pedagogical approaches	Culturally responsive assessment, indigenous knowledge integration, social equity considerations	[66]
(4) Measurement and Knowledge Management	Performance indicators, benchmarking	Inability to assess tacit/embodied learning	Portfolios, critiques, SDG-aligned developmental metrics	[36,37]
(5) Workforce	Alignment and productivity	Ignores the complexity of academic roles in creative fields	Facilitator roles, collaborative studio culture	[16,34]
(6) Operations	Process standardization	Conflicts with the iterative and improvisational design process	Iterative design workflows, flexible scheduling	[35,70]
(7) Results	Output metrics (graduation rates, job placement)	Ignores cultural, social, and sustainability impact	Long-term, contextualized impact (e.g., SDG contribution)	[1,72]

present a synthesis of these transformations.

4.3. Toward a Creative-Sustainability Framework

The researchers propose a new interpretive framework grounded in three core epistemological pivots:

A.

Process Over Product

Creative disciplines prioritize iterative development, risk-taking, and formative feedback over fixed deliverables [35,38]. Studio learning involves continuous redefinition, making it essential that performance evaluation tools—such as portfolios and critique logs—capture learning transformation rather than merely end outcomes.

B.

Non-Linear and Reflective Learning

Design thinking follows recursive and overlapping stages—such as ideation, prototyping, and user feedback—that resist traditional linear planning [71,73]. Educational quality frameworks must accommodate ambiguity, iteration, and improvisation, incorporating flexible assessment points to reflect developmental growth over time [70].

C.

Tacit, Embodied, and Experiential Knowledge

Studio-based learning is inherently sensory and embodied. Students internalize knowledge through material engagement, spatial reasoning, and intuitive judgment—forms often invisible to conventional measurement tools [36,37]. Evaluative criteria must include multisensory outputs and reflections, such as sketches, physical models, video documentation, and studio critique narratives.

4.4. Integrating Sustainability and the SDGs

Following Faludi et al. [47], the researchers recommend mapping curriculum strategies directly to the United Nations SDGs, placing emphasis on ecological literacy, social responsibility, and systems thinking. Community-based, project-driven learning should be leveraged to tackle real-world sustainability challenges in a locally grounded and culturally sensitive manner [48,51].

Assessment frameworks should extend beyond environmental indicators to encompass cultural preservation, social cohesion, and long-term well-being [63]. For example, design projects may be assessed based on their contribution to Sustainable Cities and Communities (SDG 11) or Climate Action (SDG 13), promoting civic engagement and global stewardship.

4.5. Proposed the Initial Framework: Baldrige Adaptation for Sustainable Creative Education

To operationalize this reframing, Figure 8 and

Table 4. Baldrige Adaptation for Sustainable Creative Education.

Dimension	Tool	What It Captures	Related SDGs
Process Thinking	Portfolio + Iterative Review	Conceptual growth and design evolution	SDG 4, SDG 11
Reflective Practice	Studio journals, peer critiques	Critical thinking, empathy, and insight	SDG 16, SDG 17
Stakeholder Engagement	Community feedback loops	Relevance, social impact	SDG 10, SDG 13
Embodied Learning	Physical modeling, performative design	Material intelligence, spatial awareness	SDG 9, SDG 12
Sustainability Competence	SDG Mapping Rubrics	Environmental and social literacy	All SDGs

outline proposed tools and metrics aligned with creative epistemologies and sustainability integration.

Table 4 presents a set of proposed tools designed to capture dimensions of learning that conventional metrics often overlook. For example, portfolios combined with iterative review processes document conceptual growth and design evolution over time, reinforcing a process-based approach to learning and addressing Quality Education (SDG 4) and Sustainable Cities and Communities (SDG 11).

Studio journals and peer critiques foster reflective practice, supporting the development of empathy, critical thinking, and mutual learning—competencies aligned with SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions) and SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals). Recognizing the central role of community engagement in socially responsive design, community feedback loops are proposed as tools to evaluate stakeholder relevance and social impact, contributing to Reduced Inequalities (SDG 10) and Climate Action (SDG 13).

Additionally, creative education frequently involves embodied and spatial learning; therefore, physical modeling and performative design are key tools for assessing material intelligence and spatial awareness, linked to Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure (SDG 9) and Responsible Consumption and Production (SDG 12). Finally, SDG mapping rubrics are introduced as integrative instruments for assessing students’ understanding of environmental and social sustainability, enabling alignment across all SDGs and reinforcing the broader mission of sustainable development through creative disciplines.

Together, these tools offer a multidimensional approach to evaluation that reflects the complexity and transformative potential of creative education.

Ultimately, this proposed framework seeks to reconcile the strengths of the Baldrige framework—its clarity, systemic integration, and focus on continuous improvement—with the epistemological realities and sustainability imperatives of creative education. It redefines excellence not as the achievement of fixed outputs but as a developmental journey shaped by ambiguity, co-creation, and long-term impact.

4.6. Framework Operationalization for Implementation

While the preceding sections establish the conceptual foundation for adapting Baldrige principles to creative education, practical implementation demands specific indicators, measurable criteria, and standardized assessment protocols. This section addresses the operationalization gap by providing detailed specifications for each framework component, including learning objectives, performance indicators, assessment methodologies, and reliability measures presented in

Table 5. Framework Operationalization Example: Categories to Implementation.

Baldrige Category	Learning Objective	Indicators	Assessment Tools	Assessment Method	Example Artifact
Process Thinking	Students demonstrate iterative design development through multiple refinement cycles	Number of design iterations documented Evidence of conceptual evolution Integration of feedback loops	Portfolio + Iterative Review	Self-reflection rubric Peer critique evaluation Faculty assessment of process documentation	Digital portfolio documenting multiple design iterations with reflective annotations explaining conceptual shifts
Reflective Practice	Students critically analyze their learning journey and design decisions	Quality of self-assessment narratives Evidence of critical thinking Demonstration of empathy development	Studio Journals + Peer Critiques	Analytical depth rubric (Novice/Developing/Proficient/Expert) Inter-rater reliability	Reflective journal entries analyzing design failures and breakthroughs with peer feedback integration
Stakeholder Engagement	Students demonstrate responsiveness to community needs in design solutions	Incorporation of stakeholder feedback Evidence of community co-creation Social impact measurement	Community Feedback Loops	Stakeholder satisfaction survey Community engagement rubric Social relevance assessment	Design proposal developed through community workshops with documented feedback
Embodied Learning	Students show material intelligence and spatial awareness through physical exploration	Quality of physical prototypes Spatial reasoning demonstration Material experimentation evidence	Physical Modeling + Performative Design	Material competency checklist Spatial awareness assessment Fabrication skill rubric	Physical architectural model with material sample library and construction process documentation
Sustainability Competence	Students integrate UN SDGs as central design challenges rather than peripheral considerations	SDG integration depth Environmental impact analysis Social sustainability metrics	SDG Mapping Rubrics	SDG alignment matrix Life-cycle assessment competency Triple bottom line evaluation	Urban design project addressing SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities) with quantified environmental and social impact metrics

. The operationalization framework transforms abstract educational concepts into concrete evaluation tools, enabling institutions to implement systematic quality assessment while preserving the epistemological characteristics essential to creative learning. Through standardized rubrics, reliability protocols, and exemplar artifacts, this operationalization provides the practical foundation necessary for immediate institutional adoption and empirical validation of the adapted Baldrige framework in creative education contexts.

5. Conclusions

This research has developed an initial framework that adapts the Baldrige framework for urban design, architecture, art, and design education while integrating sustainability principles to enhance educational quality and institutional performance in creative disciplines. The study addressed two key research problems: the framework misalignment problem, which underscored the inadequacy of business-oriented performance metrics in capturing creative educational outcomes, and the sustainability integration gap, which revealed the limited incorporation of environmental and social sustainability dimensions in current excellence models for creative education.

The initial framework introduces three fundamental paradigm shifts: prioritizing process over product, accommodating non-linear and reflective learning pathways, and recognizing tacit, embodied, and experiential knowledge as central to creative education. By reframing each of the seven Baldrige categories through these lenses, the framework reorients traditional performance management from a control-based model to a cultivation-focused methodology.

The integration of the United Nations SDGs as central design challenges—rather than peripheral targets—positions this framework at the forefront of educational innovation. It introduces evaluation tools such as portfolios with iterative review processes, studio journals and peer critiques, community feedback loops, physical modeling assessments, and SDG mapping rubrics. These tools capture multidimensional aspects of learning often overlooked by traditional metrics—particularly in creative disciplines where innovation, iteration, and societal impact outweigh conventional productivity measures.

• Contribution to Knowledge

First, this research provides a novel epistemological framework that bridges business excellence models with creative education paradigms. It introduces three fundamental pivots that reframe quality assessment in creative disciplines, where traditional performance metrics fail to capture design creativity and innovation. Second, the study develops a comprehensive integration model that embeds the United Nations SDGs as central design challenges rather than peripheral considerations. This marks a paradigmatic shift—from treating sustainability as an added requirement to positioning environmental and social stewardship as fundamental educational objectives. The research contributes innovative evaluation methodologies, including portfolios, community feedback loops, and SDG mapping rubrics, addressing the longstanding challenge of measuring outcomes in creative fields where learning is process-oriented and experiential.

• Implications

For urban design, architecture, art, and design curriculum development, the framework highlights the need to restructure creative education programs by embedding sustainability principles throughout the learning experience rather than treating them as supplementary content. This entails fundamental changes in pedagogical strategies, faculty development, and institutional support structures to promote interdisciplinary collaboration and community engagement.

For urban development and planning practice, the framework has important implications for addressing contemporary urban challenges. By integrating sustainability competencies within creative education, it prepares graduates to tackle complex issues such as climate resilience, sustainable urban mobility, and environmental justice. Urban design and architecture programs adopting this framework can better align their outcomes with urban sustainability goals, producing professionals equipped to address urban heat islands, sustainable housing, and circular economy principles in city planning.

For urban policy and governance, the framework’s emphasis on community engagement and stakeholder co-creation aligns with participatory planning approaches. Institutions implementing this model can act as catalysts for urban innovation, fostering partnerships among students, communities, and municipal authorities to address local challenges through design-based solutions.

• Limitations

First, the proposed framework represents a theoretical construct developed through literature synthesis rather than empirical validation. The framework has not yet been tested in actual educational settings, which may limit the assessment of its practical applicability and effectiveness across diverse institutional contexts. Second, due to limited resources on applying the Baldrige framework in creative education, this research draws only from English language studies available in the Scopus and ScienceDirect databases. Third, the study’s focus on four specific creative disciplines—urban design, architecture, art, and design—may limit its generalizability to other creative fields such as music, theater, or other areas within the arts.

• Future Studies

Future research should prioritize empirical validation of this framework through pilot implementation studies in diverse educational institutions to assess its practical effectiveness and identify areas for refinement. The next study should focus on comparative research across different cultural and educational contexts. Examining the framework’s applicability to other creative disciplines beyond the four investigated would expand its theoretical scope and practical utility. Finally, future studies could track graduate career outcomes, community engagement, and contributions to sustainable development to demonstrate the framework’s long-term effectiveness. Such research would help strengthen the empirical foundation for sustainability-integrated creative education excellence.