SSRN-id2795251

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2795251
1
Airport Business Excellence Model:
development and first application
Elen P. Paraschi*1
, Antonios Georgopoulos
Department of Business Administration, University of Patras, 26504 Rio,
Greece.
Abstract
The purpose of this working paper is to describe the development of a
business excellence model specifically adjusted to the unique
characteristics of the complicated airport sector. Airport Business
Excellence Model (ABEM) has emerged from the basic concept of the
EFQM Excellence Model, extending and customizing the generic model
to form a holistic framework for airport total performance assessment
and benchmarking. ABEM is currently under test application on an
international airport sample in 39 countries.
Keywords: airport performance, total quality management, EFQM
excellence model, structural equation modeling.
*
Corresponding author. Tel. +30 697 34 60 338; Fax: +30 26950 51627. Email address: elen_pa@yahoo.com.

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2795251
2
1. Introduction
The commercialization of the airport industry have forced airport
companies to seek for performance management systems that go
beyond financial and traffic measures, to take account of additional
important aspects of airport operation, such as safety and security,
capacity and delays, service quality, social responsibility and
accountability to stakeholders. Despite the increasing market demand
however, there has been a considerable lack of theoretical research
models able to evaluate the efficiency of the entire airport complex in an
integrated manner (Zografos et al. 2005). Airports try to address this
issue empirically, applying TQM techniques and excellence models,
among which the EFQM model is the most widespread (Table 1).
Technique Percentage use by
responders*
Best Practice Benchmarking
Total Quality Management (TQM)
Activity Based Costing
Environmental Management Systems (e.g. ISO14000)
Balanced Scorecard
Business Process Reengineering
Quality Management Systems (e.g. ISO9000/BS5750 or
similar)
Business Excellence Model/EFQM
Value Based Management
Malcolm Baldridge Award
46
41
36
27
25
23
23
12
9
5
* Note that responders could use more than one method
Table 1. Performance management techniques used by airports
Source: Francis et al. (2002, 2003)
Athens International Airport was the first European Airport to receive
the "Commitment to Business Excellence" award by the EFQM (AIA,
2002). Budapest airport established in 2010 a “Committed to CSR
Excellence” self-assessment program built on EFQM model to evaluate
and develop Corporate Social Responsibility (CRS) practices (BUD,
2010). Aéroports de Lyon Group reported the awarding of a 5 star

3
Excellence Recognition EFQM Diploma and its commitment to
continue the Excellence initiative with the objective of competing for the
2016 European EFQM Excellence Award, or of just improving its
scoring in the EFQM self-assessment model (LYS, 2016). Strasbourg
Airport, having experience with ISO 9001:2000 since 2001, decided in
2002 to launch a more global quality approach based on the EFQM
model with the double aim of airport performance improvement and
various stakeholder parties satisfaction (SXB, 2005). The airport gained
the "Recognised for Excellence" EFQM Certificate in December 2005,
being the first French airport to obtain this distinction.
Despite these individual initiatives, there still not exists an official
airport-specific EFQM framework, like the one that has been developed
for the marine business sector (EFQM Framework for Marine
Excellence) developed by the Hellenic Management Association (EEDE)
in 2014 (EFQM, 2014). The wide literature gap suggests that further
research is required to explore the implementation of Business
Excellence Models (BEMs), particularly EFQM, in the context of airport
business.
2. The EFQM conceptual framework
The internal structure of the generic EFQM Model will be discussed in
some detail before proceeding to the formation of the specific Airport
business Excellence Model (ABEM) which will be the methodological
instrument of the study. Moreover, some major application exams of the
Model in various organizations will be presented in the following
sections.
2.1. Enabler KPAs
The Enablers group of the EFQM Excellence Model refers to what an
organization does in order to develop and implement its strategy and
how it does it.
“To achieve sustained success, an organisation needs strong leadership and
clear strategic direction. They need to develop and improve their people,
partnerships and processes to deliver value-adding products and services to
their customers. In the EFQM Excellence Model, these are called the

4
Enablers. If the right Enablers are effectively implemented, an organisation
will achieve the Results they, and their stakeholders, expect” (EFQM, 2015a).
There are five criteria in the Enablers group which, for the needs of the
study will be called Key Performance Areas (KPAs). Each KPA is
further analyzed to a number of sub-criteria (Key Performance
Indicators - KPIs) that help the full criteria meaning to be deployed and
to guide the self-assessment procedure (Table 2).
1. Leadership: Excellent organisations have leaders who shape the future and make it happen,
acting as role models for its values and ethics and inspiring trust at all times. They are flexible,
enabling the organisation to anticipate and reach in a timely manner to ensure the on-going
success of the organisation
1a. Leaders develop the mission, vision, values and ethics and act as role models
1b. Leaders define, monitor, review and drive the improvement of the organisation’s
management system and performance
1c. Leaders engage with customers, partners and representatives of society
1d. Leaders reinforce a culture of excellence with the organisation’s people
1e. Leaders ensure that the organisation is flexible and manages change effectively
2. Strategy: Excellent organisations implement their Mission and Vision by developing a
stakeholder focused strategy. Policies, plans, objectives and processes are developed and deployed
to deliver the strategy.
2a. Strategy is based on understanding the needs and expectations of both stakeholders
and the external environment
2b. Strategy is based on understanding internal performance and capabilities
2c. Strategy and supporting policies are developed, reviewed and updated to ensure
economic, societal and ecological sustainability
2d. Strategy and supporting policies are communicated and deployed through plans,
processes and objectives
3. People: Excellent organisations value their people and create a culture that allows the mutually
beneficial achievement of organisational and personal goals. They develop the capabilities of their
people and promote fairness and equality. They care for, communicate, reward and recognise, in a
way that motivates people, builds commitment and enables them to use their skills and knowledge
for the benefit of the organisation
3a. People plans support the organisation's strategy
3b. People's knowledge and abilities are developed
3c. People are aligned, involved and empowered
3d. People communicate effectively throughout the organisation
3e. People are rewarded, recognised and cared for
4. Partnerships & Resources: Excellent organisations plan and manage external partnerships,
suppliers and internal resources in order to support their strategy, policies and the effective
operation of processes. They ensure that they effectively manage their environmental and societal

5
impact
4a. Partners and suppliers are managed for sustainable benefit
4b. Finances are managed to secure sustained success
4c. Buildings, equipment, materials and natural resources are managed in a sustainable
way
4d. Technology is managed to support the delivery of strategy
4e. Information and knowledge are managed to support effective decision making and
to build the organisational capability
5. Processes, Products & Services: Excellent organisations design, manage and improve
processes, products and services to generate increasing value for customers and other stakeholders
5a. Processes are designed, managed to optimise stakeholder value
5b. Products and Services are developed to create optimum value for customers
5c. Products and Services are produced, delivered and managed
5d. Products and Services are effectively promoted and marketed
5e. Customer relationships are managed and enhanced
Table 2. The criteria and sub-criteria of EFQM Excellence Model Enablers
Sources: EFQM (2013, 2015b).
2.2. Result KPAs
The Result group of criteria refer to the organizational achievements, in
line with their strategic goals. Excellent organizations share some
common result characteristics (EFQM, 2015c):
Develop a set of key performance indicators and related outcomes to determine
the successful deployment of their strategy, based on the needs and expectations
of the relevant stakeholder groups
Set clear targets for key results, based on the needs and expectations of their
business stakeholders, in line with their chosen strategy
Segment results to understand the performance of specific areas of the
organisation and the experience, needs and expectations of their stakeholders
Demonstrate positive or sustained good business results over at least 3 years
Clearly understand the underlying reasons and drivers of observed trends and
the impact these results will have on other performance indicators and related
outcomes
Have confidence in their future performance and results based on their
understanding of the cause and effect relationships established

6
Understand how their key results compare to similar organisations and use this
data, where relevant, for target setting
There are four areas (KPAs) of business results inbuilt to the model. In a
way similar to the Enablers part, Results KPAs are further divided to
sub-criteria (KPIs), tailored to the features of the particular business
sector. The generic form of Results KPAs and KPIs is described in Table
3.
1. Customer Results: Excellent organisations achieve and sustain outstanding results that
meet or exceed the need and expectations of their customers.
1a. The customer’s perception of the organization’s products, services and customer
relationships (obtained, for example, from customer surveys, focus groups, vendor
ratings, compliments and complaints)
1b. Additional measures relating to the satisfaction of the organization’s customers
2. People Results: Excellent organisations achieve and sustain outstanding results that
meet or exceed the need and expectations of their people.
2a. The peoples’ perception of the organization (measured through their assessment on
their motivation and their satisfaction)
2b. Additional measures relating to people satisfaction (involvement and engagement,
target setting, competency and performance management, leadership performance,
training and career development, internal communications)
3. Society Results: Excellent organisations achieve and sustain outstanding results that
meet or exceed the need and expectations of relevant stakeholders within society.
3a. The perception of the community at large of the organization’s impact on society
(obtained, for example, from surveys, reports, public meetings, public
representatives, governmental authorities)
3b. Additional measures relating to the organization’s impact on society (such as
quantity, frequency, volume or weight, measured by the organisation)
4. Business Results: Excellent organisations achieve and sustain outstanding results that
meet or exceed the need and expectations of their business stakeholders.
4a. Financial measures of the organization’s success
4b. Non-financial measures of the organization’s success
Table 3. The criteria and sub-criteria of EFQM Excellence Model Results
Sources: Gadd (1995); EFQM (2015c).

7
2.3. Criterion Weights
Although the importance is equally distributed (50%-50%) between
Enablers and Result groups, each of the nine criteria is assigned with
difference weight, reflecting its relevant importance to the achievement
of excellence.
In the original EFQM Business Excellence Model, Processes was
assumed as the most important Enabler criterion (14%), whereas
Customer Satisfaction (20%) was attracting the attention in the Results
area, followed by Business Results (15%) (Michalska, 2008; Zink, 2012, p.
90). In 2010, the Model was reviewed to attribute equal weights to all
five Enablers and to adjust Business with Customer Results (Table 4).
EFQM Excellence
Model 2003
Criterion Weights
(%)
EFQM Excellence
Model 2010
Criterion Weights
(%)
ENABLERS 50 ENABLERS 50
Leadership 10 Leadership 10
People 9 People 10
Policy & Strategy 8 Strategy 10
Partnership &
Resources
9
Partnership &
Resources
10
Processes
14
Processes, Products &
Services
10
RESULTS 50 RESULTS 50
People Results 9 People Results 10
Customer Results 20 Customer Results 15
Society Results 6 Society Results 10
Key Performance
Results
15
Business Results
15
INNOVATION & LEARNING LEARNING, CREATIVITY &
INNOVATION
Table 4. EFQM Excellence Model 2003 and 2010.
Source: Samardžija (2010)
Research however suggests that criterion weights should not be pre-
determined, since the relevant importance of input elements tend to
vary among different business sectors, due to diverse market structure
and business strategic focus (Eskildsen et al. 2001, 2002; Osseo-Assare &
Longbottom, 2002; Dahlgaard et al. 2013 ; Escrig & Menezes, 2015).
Williams et al. (2006) and Nazemi (2010) argue that organizations using

8
BEMs should not rest on the one-size-fits-all model but they have better
adjust the dimensions and the weightings to the specific needs and
priorities of their own business strategy. Similarly, Khaleghi & Haji
(2011) searching 52 Iranian companies found that the perceived weights
of the Results criteria are inconsistent with the Model’s weight structure,
suggesting a customized framework. Soriano (1999) explored the
EFQM factors that hoteliers considered as most important, determining
deviations from the model’s formula. Politis et al. (2009) and Litos et al.
(2011) developed an EFQM-based Business Excellence Model for the
hotel sector, using linear programming to estimate the weights of the
model criteria and sub-criteria from a totally new basis.
Under this light, the research model formed in this study to evaluate
airport business excellence will not use pre-determined criterion
weights. Instead, they will emerge through the assessment process,
based on the assumptions of the key-informants for the airport sector.
2.4. KPAs Relations and Interrelations
The EFQM Model is structured in a cause-and-effect logic, with
Learning, Creativity and Innovation helping to improve the Enablers
that in turn lead to improved Results (EFQM, 2013). Many researchers
have explored the causal linkages between Enablers and Results
elements as well as among the KPAs of each of the above groups,
aiming to identify the drivers of excellence.
Dijkstra (1997), Calvo-Mora et al. (2005, 2006) and Rosa & Amara (2007)
refer to the existence of positive associations among the Enabler
variables. Leadership is seen as the primary driving force of the entire
performance improvement process, affecting all the Enablers criteria
(Davies et al. 2001; Heras-Saizarbitoria et al. 2012; Gómez et al. 2015).
Policy and Strategy also play a central role directly affecting People
Resources and Process management. Appropriate Human Resources
Management leads to processes improvement that consequently affects
Results KPAs, especially People Results (Calvo-Mora et al. 2005).
Management and People have also been found to be positively related
to Partnerships and Resources as well as to Processes management with
the last two Enablers being also related and strongly influencing Key
Business Results (Calvo-Mora et al. 2013).

9
Eskildsen & Dahlgaard (2000), have traced a number of causal linkages
between EFQM Enablers and People Results. Santos-Vijande & Alvarez-
Gonzalez (2007) directly correlate Enablers with Customer, People,
Society and Key Performance Results and provide evidence of linkages
between all pairs of elements within Enabler and Result groups,
establishing their unidimensional construct. Bou-Llousar et al. (2005,
2009) and Heras-Saizarbitoria et al. 2012 investigated the associations
both between and within the criteria groups, providing empirical
validation of the implicit causal structure of the Model. Similarly, Sadeh
et al. (2013) spotted eight significant linkages within Enablers and four
significant linkages within Results. Moreover, Processes Enabler was
found to pose strong influence to three Result dimensions (Customer,
People and Society Results), following the presumptions of the EFQM
model.
The relations and interrelations nexus within EFQM reflect its holistic
nature, since excellence is proved to be not the result of independently
acting critical success factors but the resultant of a number of
interconnected primary components together with their synergies, all
making up a coherent TQM management system (Ghobadian & Woo,
1996; Bou-Llousar et al. 2009; Santos-Vijande & Alvarez-Gonzalez 2007;
Calvo-Mora et al. 2013).
3. The ABEM conceptual framework
The great resonance of EFQM model is attributed to its non-prescriptive
nature that makes it able to fit well to any organization, regardless of
size, sector or maturity. Business Excellence however may rather be a
matter of individualistic than commonality logic (Fan & Lu, 2014), which
means that every business excellence framework should take into
account firm’s ‘unique voice’. In this vein, the Airport Business
Excellence research Model (ABEM) has been constructed using EFQM
model as a reference point and embodying airport business specific
standards and features to fulfill the individualistic approach
requirements.

10
3.1. The Measurement Model
A measurement model is consisted of theoretical constructs (latent
variables) and their related observable variables (Diamantopoulos et al.
2008). It happens very often that latent constructs are multidimensional,
consisting of several interrelated factors. In this case, it is meaningful to
organize latent factors into distinct levels, building a hierarchical model
(Edwards, 2001; Wetzels et al. 2009). Most hierarchical models are
extended in two levels of analysis, with one level relating the
measurable manifest variables to first-order latent variables and a
second level relating the first-order latent variables to third-order
constructs.
In addition to being a more elegant form of representing hierarchical
structures, multi-level modeling can alleviate several methodological
issues (Koufteros et al. 2009), such as multicollinearity,
unidimensionality, discriminant validity and “bloated” specific factors.
Moreover, they allow to first-order latent variables to retain their
“individuality” so as to be able to assess the importance of each of them,
something that is of particular importance in our case that we need to
distinguish which first-order latent variables have a significant
contribution to airport performance.
Based on the theoretical concept of the EFQM, a three-level model
(ABEM) was constructed. The top level (second-order factors) refers to
Key Performance Areas (KPAs), corresponding to the EFQM model’s
criteria of Enablers, including the following six KPAs: Leadership (E1),
Strategy (E2), People (E3), Suppliers & Resources (E4), Partners &
Customers (E5), Processes, Products & Services (E6), and Results,
covering the areas of People Results (R1), Customer Results (R2),
Society Results (R3), Operational Results (R4), Quality Results (R5)
and Financial Results (R6).
In the second level (first-order factors) of the ABEM, various sets of Key
Performance Indicators (KPIs) in relation to the EFQM model’s sub-
criteria are built on the twelve KPA’s backbone.
In the third level, a number of pre-determined phrases are engaged to
translate latent variables into measurable manifest variables.
A general overview of the Airport Business Excellence Model is given in
Fig.1, followed by a detailed discussion of the Model’s criteria.

11
Fig. 1. The Airport Business Excellence Model (ABEM).
Source: Own illustration.
Hierarchical models are often constructed under a reflective/molecular
(top-down) approach which means that every observed variable is
considered as a reflective indicator of a first-order factor, which in turn
serves as a reflective indicator of a second-order factor (Coffman &
MacCallum, 2005). In molar/formative (bottom-up) approach on the
other hand, correlated variables aggregate to a form higher-order
factors (Chin & Gopal, 1995).
Hybrid models resulting from the combinations of the above are also
possible in different hierarchical levels (Diamantopoulos & Siguaw,
2006; Becker et al. 2012), i.e. in a three-level model four combinations
can be made (Becker et al. 2012): Reflective-Reflective (Type I),
Leadership
Strategy
People
Suppliers &
Resources
Partners &
Customers
Processes,
Products &
Services
People
Results
Customer
Results
Society
Results
Operational
Results
Financial
Results
Quality
Results
Enablers Results
Learning, Creativity and Innovation

12
Reflective-Formative (Type II), Formative-Reflective (Type III) and
Formative-Formative (Type ΙV). Our approach falls under Type II
typology, in the notion that second-order factors (KPAs) are considered
to be constructed from the aggregation of first-order factors (KPIs)
which in turn, are reflected in explanatory manifest variables.
Attempting to the formation of an airport-specific assessment
instrument, the final content of the Airport Business Excellence research
Model resulted from the combination of the TQM literature described
above with the EFQM general guidelines (EFQM, 2016) and airport
performance academic literature review (Niemeier, 2010; Merkert et al.
2012, Graham, 2013, p.93), as well as several airport industry sources:
IATA’s Global Airport Monitor (TRB, 1999), ACI’s AETRA customer
satisfaction survey (ACI, 2004), Airport Quality Surveys (ACI, 2015a)
and Guide to airport performance measures (ACI, 2012), ACCC’s
Airport monitoring report (ACCC, 2012), ATRS’s Airport
Benchmarking Report (ATRS, 2014), ACPR’s Report 55 on passenger
level of service and spatial planning for airport terminals (ACRP, 2011)
and CAA’s service quality elements included in the regulation of
Heathrow and Gatwick airports (CAA, 2008).
After analyzing the abstract concepts of second and first-order
constructs, the complete measurement model is summarized in
Appendix I.
3.1.1. ABEM Enablers
E1. Leadership
Leadership has been considered the heart and soul of every TQM and
business excellence construct (Zairi, 1999; Kanji & Moura, 2001; Calvo-
Mora et al. 2005). Our holistic approach has been described in the best
way by Puffer & McCarthy’s (1996) model, which integrates the
leadership theory and the TQM principles (Fig. 2).

13
Fig. 2. A Leadership framework for Total Quality Management
Source: Puffer & McCarthy (1996)
The traits (creating vision, promoting change, innovation and risk-
taking) that an effective leader must be equipped with, are placed in the
centre of the model. Four main clusters of behaviors (decision making,
information exchange, people influencing and relationships building)
and their associated activities deploy the leadership traits across the
organization with all these efforts pointing to the satisfaction of the
stakeholders’ spectrum.
E2. Strategy
Leadership and Strategy are inseparably linked. Organizational policies
and strategies are developed in alignment to Leadership-shaped
Mission and Vision to ensure successful implementation of corporate
governance principles. Essential key practices for effective strategic
planning include (Evans & Lindsay, 2012, p. 559):
- a thorough understanding of the firm’s external environment and the
needs and expectations of major stakeholders.
- an accurate competitive positioning of the firm and the identification
of its core competencies.

14
- a meticulous mapping of the organizational strengths, weaknesses,
opportunities and threats (SWOT analysis).
- the development of short-term action plans in alignment with long-
term strategic objectives and the associated procedures to measure and
monitor the progress of the plans and modify them if necessary.
- the proper allocation of resources and the provision of workforce
capacity and capability, required for the accomplishment of the firm’s
strategic plans.
Any strategic planning model must take into account systems theory,
organizational theory and corporate social responsibility (Freeman, 2010,
p. 32). A stakeholder approach to strategic management should be
materialized through the steps exhibited in Fig 3.
Fig.3. A stakeholder model to strategic management
Source: Adopted from Freeman (2010, p. 44)
E3. People
Human resource management holds a fundamental role among TQM
‘soft’ elements linked closely with firm’s Strategy and posing a very
important impact to other EFQM’s criteria (Calvo-Mora et al. 2005;
Osseo-Assare & Longbottom, 2009).
To guarantee the success of TQM, HRM systems must be aligned with
quality goals and to include synergistic policies, such the following
(Ching-Chow, 2006; Boon et al. 2007; Jiménez-Jiménez & Martínez-Costa,
2009; Vouzas, 2009):
Strategic
Direction
Strategic Program
Formulation
Budgeting
Control
Structure
and Systems

15
- People Empowerment, providing them with sufficient information,
greater autonomy and responsibility and encouraging their active
participation to decision-making
- Formal planning of job tasks and broad job descriptions to allow for
flexibility
- Communication, free exchange of ideas, promotion of team spirit and
creation of cross-functional teams
- Sophisticated internal and external recruitment techniques to ensure
that the company is manned with employees equipped with
appropriate skills, abilities and quality attitudes.
- Continuous staff training to quality issues and process methodology in
order to establish a sustainable TQM culture
- Career development with fair promotion opportunities and horizontal
movement with job rotation.
-A 360o performance appraisal and people coaching system.
- Incentive schemes based on quality criteria and including financial
and non-financial (ethical) rewards.
- Work health and safety provisions, social support and retirement
systems.
An HRM system holding the characteristics described above is known
to have a positive contribution both to TQM successful implementation
and to the overall organizational performance, due to improvements of
employees’ job satisfaction and commitment and lower turn-over,
accident and absence rates resulted in decreased disputes between staff
and management, increased productivity, profits and competitive
position, improved business image, as well as fewer clients’ complains
and better customer satisfaction (Chandler & McEvoy, 2000; Ugboro &
Obeng, 2000; Ching-Chow, 2006; Jamal, 2012).
E4. Suppliers & Resources
The “Partnerships and Resources” criterion of the EFQM model was
modified to “Suppliers and Resources” for two reasons: first, both
Suppliers and Resources laying in the upstream of the airport supply
chain, have an input orientation explaining their grouping together,
before the Processes criterion. Second, due to the systemic nature of
airports, Partnerships’ involvement to the core business is much more
important compared with other industries, calling for a closer

16
examination in a separate KPA group, together with customers that also
participate actively in the formation of the airport product.
Firm’s resources and their management can form the basis of
sustainable competitive advantage, according to the Resource-Based
Theory (Wernerfelt, 1984; Barney, 1991; Peteraf, 1993) which is used as
an implicit theoretical basis of the EFQM model (Ruiz-Carrillo &
Fernández-Ortiz, 2005). Resources may be external and internal,
tangible and intangible assets (Barney & Clark, 2007). Financial
resources refer to firm’s debt, equity, earnings, etc. Physical resources
are indicated by the firm’s location, buildings, facilities and equipment
and have particular importance for capital-intensive, long-lived
business such as airports (Savas, 2000). Human resources include
people’s knowledge, training, experience and commitment, whereas
Organizational resources describe the formal and informal systems of
planning, controlling and coordinating as well as the relationships
formed in the internal and external business environment. In addition
to the above, intangible assets including technology (specific software,
best practices, process methodologies, know-how, databases), innovation
(patents, trademarks, copyrights, formulas) and reputation (goodwill,
brand-name, logos, customer loyalty) (Kaplan & Norton, 2004, p. 13;
Anson & Drews, 2007, p.5). The more rare, valuable, inimitable and
non-substitutable firm’s resources are, the greater their contribution is
to competitive advantage (Barney, 1991). According these criteria,
intangible assets are more likely to act as strategic resources because
their nature creates barriers to imitation and substitution (Hitt et al.
2006).
Suppliers lay to the upstream side of supply chain and they take part to
the airport value system, providing not only supplies but exchanging
knowledge and experience, too. Building strong and long-lasting
relations with suppliers can enrich firm’s resources portfolio (Paulraj,
2011). In-sourcing supplier capabilities can bring performance benefits
(Weigelt, 2013) but supply-chain management has also to do with
outsourcing decisions. Outsourcing is considered an important input
production factor that should not be omitted from any airport
productivity measurement aspiring to produce unbiased results
(Gonzalez, 2004; Oum & Yu, 2004). The utilization of outsourcing
techniques is thought to have a positive impact to airport’s efficiency
(Tovar & Martín-Cejas, 2009; Abrate & Erbetta, 2010), since it allows

17
them to reduce operational costs focusing to their core business and
even act as a substitute to both labour and capital (Low & Tang, 2006).
E5. Partners and Customers
Due to the inseparability feature of services, partners and customers are
themselves actively involved in the production process, contributing to
the final service delivered to the ultimate consumer (Lovelock &
Gummesson, 2004). For example, airlines act both as customers (as they
receive airport services such as air traffic control) and as partners, as
they mediate between airport and passengers. Both airlines and
passengers using an airport as customers rarely interact directly with
airport employees. In most of the cases, airport partners (handler
agents) are responsible for their service. Security, migration, customs,
air traffic control, meteorology, aircraft, passengers, luggage and cargo
handling are services provided in the airport but not by the airport. The
systemic nature of airport business designates a profound role to airport
partners to the co-creation of airport service experience (Halpern &
Graham, 2013, p. 5).
Business that have realized the importance of network configurations
act in service systems, forming intra - and interfirm interactive
relations, to integrate mutually beneficial resources so as to co-create
and share value (Lavie, 2006; Vargo et al. 2008; Ordanini & Pasini, 2008).
This extended view of the Resource-based Theory explores competitive
advantage beyond firm’s boundaries, within a broader network of
relations that are able to generate ‘’collaboration-specific quasi-rents’’
(Madhok & Tallman, 1998). In the turbulent, unregulated aviation
world, such a network is expected to reduce environmental uncertainty.
While strategic alliances has become a common place for airlines, in the
case of airports long-term partnerships has only recently emerged as a
widespread strategy. In most of the cases it takes the form of the hub
airport which is used by one or more airlines as home-base (van der
Zwan et al. 2009). There are examples however that airlines take up a
more active role. Public-owned USA airports operate very closely with
their airline customers which provide private funding and have
considerable influence on airport policy and strategic decisions,
including privatization (Doganis, 2002, p.188). In other cases, airlines
hold shares of airport ownership company or participate in joint

18
investment projects, usually terminal expansion, with the bargain of
exclusive or preferential operation (Lufthansa, 2005; Albers et al. 2005).
Vertical governance structures between airports and airlines are
thought to reduce transaction costs and boost efficiency (Fuhr & Beckers,
2006; Fu et al. 2011). Nevertheless, this aim can be achieved without the
need of high capital investments, with the utilization of sophisticated
decision support systems and application of corporate governance
principles. Airport Collaborative Decision Making (A-CDM) and OPAL
Decision Support System (OPAL-DSS) can increase operational capacity
in congested airports by involving all major airport stakeholders in
time-optimization initiatives (Auerbach & Koch, 2007; Zografos &
Madas, 2006).
E6. Processes & Products and Services
Processes constitute the crucial intermediate link that connects system
inputs to outputs. Process management involves developing, bundling
and leveraging firm’s resources in an efficient and effective manner, to
produce dynamic capabilities. Capabilities create core competencies
which are sources of sustainable competitive advantage (Sirmon et al.
2007).
The airport production process includes airside and landside operations
such as aircraft, passenger, baggage and cargo handling, air traffic
control, apron management, rescue and fire fighting, safety and security
systems, operational and financial administration, emergency and
contingency procedures, environmental and wildlife management,
technical maintenance, gate assignment, slot allocation, airline
scheduling and so on (Ashford et al. 2013). Suboptimal planning of
airport operations results to time- and labour- consuming unproductive
processes, often associated with x-inefficiency (Pels et al. 2003; McLay &
Reynolds-Feighan, 2006). What is more, airports have limited
independence in the way they organize their aeronautical processes,
since they must be consistent with numerous standards and
recommended practices imposed by ICAO, EASA, IATA and other
international aviation organizations (Kazda & Caves, 2015, p.14).
Despite the great importance of airport operations, the way of their
contribution to performance remains unexplored (Yu, 2010, Adler et al.
2013) denoting the necessity for further operations management (OM)
research in the airport field.

19
Current OM studies gives prominence to qualitative and empirical
methods, quality metrics, holistic and systemic perspectives of
performance measurement and stakeholder theory (Craighead &
Meredith, 2008; Pilkington & Meredith, 2009; Taylor & Taylor, 2009).
Moreover, as airports run as operational systems with multiple
participants (Ashord et al. 2013, p.1), information and communication
technology (ICT) contribution is also crucial to effective coordination
and On-Time Performance (Auerbach & Koch, 2007) and should be
considered an essential element of airports operations management
systems and business excellence frameworks (Sadeh, 2013).
Commercialization of airport business dictates that airports do not
longer strive to satisfy customers’ predictable expectations but they are
able to act in a proactive manner to anticipate customer wishes and
develop new products and services before the market needs have been
made apparent. With airport competition being intensifying, airport
marketing explores new aviation and non-aviation avenues to create
demand and gain competitive advantage.
Incentive schemes are often used by airports to re-allocate existing
demand in off-peak days and hours and stimulate traffic growth,
pointing mainly to price-sensitive low-cost carriers (Malina et al. 2012).
Airport Service Development (ASD) is a more cooperative means of
attracting new flight services, by sharing the new route risks with the
airlines involved (Auerbach & Koch, 2007).
Airports use differentiation and niche strategies to distinguish from
their competitors. Differentiation can be achieved through real or
perceived airport product uniqueness gained through active
advertisement, logos, design and other branding methods (Graham,
2014, p. 239). Some airports aim to market positioning as a primary or
secondary hub, regional, cargo, business, charter or low-cost airport
(Jarach, 2001), offering customized services.
Furthermore, airport product has been expanded from the core benefit
of passengers and cargo transfer to augmented levels, encompassing
commercial, consulting, logistic and cultural dimensions to form a
multi-service offer package (Jarach, 2001). Active marketing techniques
such as public relations (PR) and sponsoring activities, internet and
social media presence, passenger loyalty schemes (Halpern & Graham,
2013; Jarach, 2005) are engaged by airports to stand out from the
competition.

20
3.1.2. ABEM Results
R1. People Results
People are the internal business customers. Proper HR management
results in motivated and empowered employees, actively involved in
goal setting and decision-making. These attributes built fulfilment,
loyalty, commitment and job satisfaction, which in turn lead to boosted
job performance (Ugboro & Obeng, 2000). Organizational culture is
reflected on employees’ attitudes about rewarding systems, job climate,
management competency and it’s directly related to firm’s performance
and customer satisfaction (Ugboro & Obeng, 2000).
People results measure employees’ perceptions about their working
conditions, top-down and bottom-up information flow, equitability,
work culture, promotion and career development opportunities,
availability and quality of training programs (Safari et al. 2012; EFQM,
2016). More indirect indicators such as absenteeism and turnover rates
are also used to evaluate staff satisfaction (Zink, 2012, p.188).
R2. Customer Results
Business excellence is inextricably linked to the firm’s ability to meet or
exceed their customers’ expectations (Ugboro & Obeng, 2000).
Customer satisfaction is considered as a key-success factor for any
business, affecting cash flows, profitability and market share
(Demetriades, 2006). Satisfied customers are less price sensitive and
remain loyal for longer time making repeated purchasing (Fecikova,
2004). The same holds true not only for Business-to-Customer (i.e.
airport-passengers) interactions (Yeh & Kuo, 2003) but for Business-to-
Business (i.e. airports-airlines, -tenants, - concessionaires), too (Williams
& Naumann, 2011).
Excellent firms are constantly in touch with their clients through
surveys, focus groups, vendor ratings, compliments and complains and
customer relations departments. Measures of customers’ results should
detect issues such as knowledge of customer groups and market
segments, determination and development of customer satisfaction,
prediction of future market expectations and benchmarking customer
results with competitors (Zairi, 2012; EFQM, 2016).

21
R3. Society Results
An important innovation of the EFQM model in comparison with other
TQM frameworks is the incorporation of the society dimension as a
measure of business excellence (Zink, 2012, p. 198; Panayiotou et al.
2009). Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is connected with
improved financial and non-financial business results (Waddock &
Graves, 1997), since the social value produced strengthens firm’s
competitiveness. Effective CSR implementation should expand beyond
responsive and fragmented philanthropic initiatives, to a coherent
social strategy traversing all operating units and embracing all
stakeholder groups (Porter & Kramer, 2007). Companies should
consider themselves as integrated cells of a healthy society, a concept
similar in principle with Solomon’s (2004) ‘’Aristotelian approach to
business’’, as corporate citizens. Synergistic equilibrium between the
organization and its’ systemic context leads to successful companies
operating in a flourishing society, mutually leveraging each other.
Another significant CSR dimension, in addition to corporate
governance and corporate citizenship is the sustainable use of natural
resources such as land, water and energy (Westlund, 2001). Operating
in an environmentally responsible way is not only a social or legal
obligation but results in reduced business costs and risks, too (Caroll &
Shabana, 2010), something that is of particular importance for the
airport business, where noise, air quality and expansion projects being
sources of major conflicts with the neighbor society (Upham et al. 2003;
Graham, 2014, p. 287). An increasing number of airports seek for
certification under EMAS or ISO14001, as indicators of a formal
environmental management system.
R4. Operational Results
EFQM’s Business Results include financial and non-financial measures
of business success (EFQM, 2016). In the Airport Business Excellence
Model a further division of Airport Business Results to Operational
Airport Results, Quality Airport Results and Financial Airport Results
was seen fit, as airport operations constitute a crucial part of the airport
business, calling for special attention. Safety, security, check-in, aircraft

22
turn-around and air traffic efficacy may not be measured in monetary
units but they all have a major impact on business excellence (Sarkis,
2000; Pels et al. 2003). The particular importance of operational
efficiency for the airport business is reflected on the airport
benchmarking studies almost exclusively focused on air traffic
movements, passenger and cargo volumes, rather than business
earnings and profits (Humphreys & Francis, 2002; Oum & Yu, 2004;
Graham, 2005).
R5. Quality Results
Airport quality measures are also included in the key business results,
according the contemporary international practice in airport
benchmarking (Rhoades et al., 2000; Oum & Yu, 2004; Graham & Francis,
2005; Fodness & Murray, 2007). Quality improvements are known to
affect business financial performance, often in contradictory ways
(Zeithaml, 2000; Raju & Lonial, 2002; Oum & Yu, 2004).
R6. Financial Results
Financial results are in a close relation with operational results, as
increased volumes of traffic generate more aeronautical and non
aeronautical revenues. “Aeronautical Revenues” refer to revenues
generated by activities connected directly to the flight, e.g Aircraft
parking and Landing fees, ATC charges, Passenger charges, Freight
charges, Apron services and Aircraft handling, Airport improvement
fees - AIF (or Passenger facility charge), Terminal rentals paid by
airlines for space utilization, etc. “Non Aeronautical Revenues” refer to
revenues generated by other, commercial airport activities, e.g Rent or
lease income (from tenants), Concession income (from shops, car parks,
hotels etc), Recharges to tenants (for water, electricity etc), Advertising,
Direct sales (operated by airport), Real estate development, etc.
Studying the levels of both aeronautical and non-aeronautical revenues
and the their ratio can reveal a lot about the commercial orientation and
the financial efficiency of the particular airport business.

23
3.2. The Structural Model – Research Hypotheses
The structural model goes beyond the measurement model to explore
relationships between latent variables. Path analysis relates
independent to dependent variables with headed cause-to-effect arrows
(Iacobucci, 2009).
The causal structure of the EFQM model is well established in the
literature, since multiple linkages have been detected between Enablers
an Results and among each of the above KPA groups (Ghobadian &
Woo, 1996; Dijkstra, 1997; Oakland & Oakland, 1998; Eskildsen et al.
2000; Eskildsen & Dahlgaard, 2000; Ugboro & Obeng 2000; Davies et al.
2001; Calvo-Mora et. al. 2005, 2006; Bou-Llousar et al. 2005, 2009; Rosa &
Amara, 2007; Santos-Vijande & Alvarez-Gonzalez 2007; Zade et al. 2011;
Heras-Saizarbitoria et al. 2012; Safari et al. 2012; Calvo-Mora et al. 2013;
Sadeh et al. 2013; Gómez et al. 2015).
In the same vein, possible cause and effect correlations are explored
within the Airport Business Excellence Model, in three dimensions:
among Enabler KPAs, among Result KPAs and between Enablers and
Results. These causal relations are described by sixty six working
hypotheses analyzed in Appendix II and summarized on Table 5.

24
Airport Business Excellence Model
Enablers Results
E1. Leadership R1. People Results
E2. Strategy R2. Customer Results
E3. People R3. Society Results
E4. Suppliers & Resources R4. Operational Results
E5. Partners & Customers R5. Quality Results
E6. Processes, Products & Services R6. Financial Results
Research Hypotheses
1. Interrelations between Enabler KPAs
H1. E1 → E2 H6. E2 → E3 H10. E3 → E4 H13. E4 → E5 H15. E5 → E6
H2. E1 → E3 H7. E2→ E4 H11. E3 → E5 H14. E4 → E6
H3. E1 → E4 H8. E2 → E5 H12. E3 → E6
H4. E1 → E5 H9. E2 → E6
H5. E1 → E6
2. Interrelations between Result KPAs
H16. R1 →R2 H21. R2 → R3 H25. R3→ R4 H28.R4→ R5 H30.R5 → R6
H17. R1 → R3 H22. R2 → R4A H26. R3 → R5 H29.R4 → R6
H18. R1 → R4A H23. R2 → R4B H27. R3 → R6
H19. R1 → R4B H24. R2 → R4C
H20. R1 → R4C
3. Relations between Enabler and Result KPAs
H31.E1 → R1 H37.E2 → R1 H43.E3 → R1 H49.E4 → R1 H55.E5 → R1 H61.E6 → R1
Table 5. An overview of the ABEM model and the research hypotheses.

25
4. Methodology
4.1. The Research Tool
Self-assessment methods used by EFQM include Questionnaire
approach, Matrix approach, Pro Forma approach, Workshop approach,
and Award Simulation approach (Samuelsson & Nilsson, 2001; Hides et
al. 2004; Dodangeh & Yusuff, 2011).
Using existing EFQM Questionnaires is the simplest and quickest
approach, however not being able to determine strengths and areas for
improvement.
In Matrix chart approach, the organization creates its own number of
achievement statements which are rated both for the degree of
achievement and for their importance.
In Pro Forma approach, self-assessment teams collect organizational
information and use pro-formas to evaluate the business position.
Workshop approach involves training of company’s management and
assessment teams.
Award Simulation approach makes use of external assessors to prepare
the organization for the submission to an EFQM Excellence Award.
Considering the benefits and the risks of the approaches described
above, the Matrix approach was selected as the most suitable for the
aims of the current study, since it allows the organization to adjust and
prioritize the assessment areas and is able to deliver accurate results
without being too demanding in experience, time and human resources.
Moreover, its Excel-worksheet format makes it easy to fill out and it can
automatically produce particular and total scoring and a graphic
representation of the assessment criteria.
A Matrix chart Excel-based research tool was created, following the
structure of the three-level research model described in Section 6.2.
Every KPA of the model was developed in a single worksheet. Second-
level KPIs and third-level assessment questions were described on the
y-axis, linked to a 5-point Likert Scale on the x-axis.
Responders were asked to assess the airport’s performance in every
Enabler and Result criteria, as well as to directly attribute an importance
score to every KPI of the Model.

26
4.2. Research Sample
The Matrix-chart questionnaire described above was addressed to the
senior management team of a global sample of airports. A Pilot Survey
took place before the questionnaires were officially released, where a
sample of eight airport managers gave their remarks on the content and
structure of the research tool. After this phase, the survey took an online
formed in order to be easily accessible from all over the world.
The final version of the online survey was released on May 31st, 2016
and is expected to be completed at the end of July, 2016.
In the first two weeks, 78 airports from 41 countries had already
participated.
4.3. Statistical procedure
Causal models are helpful instruments in the service to social
researchers who effort to explore the roots and the branches of certain
variables. In order to establish a causal relationship between two
variables χ and y, where χ represents the independent variable (cause)
and y the dependent one (effect), three classic conditions must be
fulfilled simultaneously (Kenny, 1979 as cited in Antonakis et al. 2010):
1. χ must precede y temporally
2. χ must be reliably correlated with y (beyond chance)
3. the relation between χ and y must not be explained by other causes
Structural equation modeling (SEM) is an influential and widespread
statistical methodology used to test a structural theory of “causal”
nature (Sit et al. 2009; Hair et al. 2011; Byrne, 2013, p. 3). SEM displays
several advantages over conventional statistical techniques (ANOVA
for example), since it is able to account for random measurement error,
simultaneously estimate competing models with different causal
directions and evaluate model fit before proceeding to hypotheses
testing (Fabrigar et al. 2010). Despite its popularity however, scholars
suggest that it should be used with caution and only for the
mathematical confirmation of established causal relations emerged from
a robust theoretical basis (Kline, 2013, p.16).

27
In the case of EFQM the above prerequisites are adequately satisfied, as
the very structure of the model is based on the logic that the
manipulation of Enablers that precede Results have a direct effect on
the latter. For the same reason, SEM is considered an appropriate
statistical method for the exploration of the causal structure of the
EFQM model, utilized by a strong number of relevant studies (Hackl &
Westlund, 2000; Eskildsen, 2000; Eskildsen 2002; Calvo-Mora et al. 2005,
2006; Dermibag et al. 2006; Rosa & Amaral, 2007; Chinda and Mohamed,
2007; Vijande and Gonzalez, 2007; Tutuncu & Kucukusta, 2007; Tari et
al. 2007; Bou-Llusar et al. 2008; Fotopoulos & Psomas, 2009; Sit et al.
2009; Zade et al. 2011; Yao et al. 2012; Heras-Saizarbitoria et al. 2012;
Sadeh et al, 2013; Calvo-Mora et al. 2014; Mesgari et al. 2015; Gomez et
al. 2015).
6. Expected Results
Having in mind that the objective of this study is to explore in depth the
internal composition of the airport system, the research questions
expected to be answered by the application of the research model are as
follows:
1. What are the criteria (Key Performance Areas – KPAs) and sub-
criteria (Key Performance Indicators – KPIs) forming Business
Excellence in the airport business?
2. What is the relevant weight attributed to KPAs and KPIs by key
airport experts?
3. Are there causal relations between Enabler and Results KPAs?
4. Are there causal interrelations among KPAs in the same criteria
group?
5. What are the software Critical Success Factors that drive airport
excellence?
All in all, the application of the Airport Business Excellence Model will
be of primary importance for all major airport stakeholders:
Airport operators will gain precious insight into their business
‘software’. Criteria weights will reveal the Critical Success Factors
(CSF) for the airport sector. Tracking cause and effect

28
relationships between Enablers and Results and interrelations
inside the same KPA will help understanding the impact of
management actions and will increase business self-awareness.
Assessment will show the link between strategic and operational
level and measure the effectiveness of business strategy
deployment. Combined Importance-Performance Analysis (IPA)
will serve the recognition of current strengths and the detection
of high-priority areas that need further attention, facilitating
strategic decision-making and resources allocation.
The procedure of self-assessment itself will enhance engagement
and motivation of airport employees. Active participation will
cultivate a culture of improvement and contribution to business
progress.
A multidimensional and realistic picture of airport business as
drawn by ABEM, will relieve information asymmetry, a common
problem in cases of split ownership and management and will
contribute to the transaction costs reduction between regulators
and operators. Identifying the endogenous factors that have a
significant impact to airport performance, policy makers can take
into consideration the heterogeneous operational environment
when planning their airport regulatory policy.
Benchmarking results will be of the interest of the entire aviation
system. Airport companies are always intrigued by comparing
their performance against competition. ‘Scoring’ can also provide
the organisation with an internal benchmark, establishing a
baseline position for its next self assessment. Airlines constantly
seek information about the level of service at the airports they
operate. Recognising the impact of various stakeholder groups in
the overall business performance will improve the interaction of
airport with ground handlers, airport suppliers, concessionaries,
and local communities. In this manner, airport can better serve its
role in maximizing social welfare.

29
References
Abrate, G., & Erbetta, F. (2010). Efficiency and patterns of service mix in airport
companies: an input distance function approach. Transportation Research
Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 46(5), 693-708.
ACI (2012). Guide to airport performance measures. Geneva: Airport Council
International.
ACPR (2011). Report 55: Passenger Level of Service and Spatial Planning for Airport
Terminals. Airport Cooperative Research Program. Washington DC.
Adler, N., Liebert, V. & Yazhemsky, E., (2013). Benchmarking airports from a
managerial perspective. Omega (United Kingdom), 41(2), pp.442–458.
AIA (2002). Athens International Airport: Award for "Commitment to Business Excellence".
Press Release. 20 March 2002. Online. Available https://www.aia.gr/company-
and-business/press-and-Media/press-office/press-releases/athens-
international-airport-award-for-commitment-to-business-excellence (accessed
22 January, 2016).
Albers, S., Koch, B., & Ruff, C. (2005). Strategic alliances between airlines and
airports—theoretical assessment and practical evidence. Journal of Air
Transport Management, 11(2), 49-58.
Andersen, H. V., Lawrie, G., & Shulver, M. (2000). The Balanced Scorecard vs. the
EFQM Business Excellence Model–which is the better strategic management
tool. 2GC Active Management, 1-15.
Anson, W., & Drews, D. C. (2007). The intangible assets handbook: maximizing value
from intangible assets. American Bar Association.
Antonakis, J., Bendahan, S., Jacquart, P., & Lalive, R. (2010). On making causal
claims: A review and recommendations. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(6),
1086-1120.
Ashford, N., Coutu, P., & Beasley, J. (2013). Airport operations. McGraw- Hill Ryerson
Ltd.
ASQ (2015). Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award (MBNQA). Online. Available
HTTP< http://asq.org/learn-about-quality/malcolm-baldrige-
award/overview/overview.html (accessed 18 December 2015). American
Society for Quality.
Auerbach, S., & Koch, B. (2007). Cooperative approaches to managing air traffic
efficiently—the airline perspective. Journal of Air Transport Management,
13(1), 37-44.
Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of
management, 17(1), 99-120.
Barney, J. B., & Clark, D. N. (2007). Resource-based theory: Creating and sustaining
competitive advantage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Becker, J.M., Klein, K. & Wetzels, M., (2012). Hierarchical Latent Variable Models in
PLS-SEM: Guidelines for Using Reflective-Formative Type Models. Long
Range Planning, 45(5-6), pp.359–394.

30
Boon, O.K., Arumugam, V., Safa, M.S. and Abu Baker, N. (2007), “HRM and TQM:
association with job involvement”, Personnel Review, Vol. 36 No. 6, pp. 939-
62.
Bou-Llusar, J. C., Escrig-Tena, A. B., Roca-Puig, V., & Beltrán-Martín, I. (2005). To
what extent do enablers explain results in the EFQM excellence model?: An
empirical study. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management,
22(4), 337-353.
Bou-Llusar, J. C., Escrig-Tena, A. B., Roca-Puig, V., & Beltrán-Martín, I. (2009). An
empirical assessment of the EFQM excellence model: evaluation as a TQM
framework relative to the MBNQA model. Journal of Operations
Management, 27(1), 1-22.
Brah, S. A., Li Wong, J., & Madhu Rao, B. (2000). TQM and business performance in
the service sector: a Singapore study. International Journal of Operations &
Production Management, 20(11), 1293-1312.
BUD (2010). Budapest Airport: Social Responsibility. Online. Available
http://www.bud.hu/english/budapestairport/environment_and_sustainability
/social_responsibility (accessed 22 January, 2016).
Byrne, B. M. (2013). Structural equation modelling with AMOS: Basic concepts,
applications, and programming. Routledge.
CAA (2008). Economic Regulation of Heathrow and Gatwick Airports: CAA Decision.
London: Civil Aviation Authority.
Calvo-Mora, A., Leal, A., & Roldán, J. L. (2005). Relationships between the EFQM
model criteria: a study in Spanish universities. Total quality management &
business excellence, 16(6), 741-770.
Calvo-Mora, A., Leal, A., & Roldán, J. L. (2006). Using enablers of the EFQM model
to manage institutions of higher education. Quality Assurance in Education,
14(2), 99-122.
Calvo-Mora, A., Picón, A., Ruiz, C., & Cauzo, L. (2013). The relationships between
soft-hard TQM factors and key business results. International Journal of
Operations & Production Management, 34(1), 115-143.
Camisón, C. (1996). Total quality management in hospitality: an application of the
EFQM model. Tourism management, 17(3), 191-201.
Carroll, A. B., & Shabana, K. M. (2010). The business case for corporate social
responsibility: A review of concepts, research and practice. International
Journal of Management Reviews, 12(1), 85-105.
Chandler, G. N., & McEvoy, G. M. (2000). Human resource management, TQM, and
firm performance in small and medium-size enterprises. Entrepreneurship:
Theory and Practice, 25(1), 43.
Chin, W.W. and Gopal, A. (1995), “Adoption intention in GSS: relative importance of
beliefs”, Database, Vol. 26, pp. 42-64.
Ching-Chow Yang, (2006),"The impact of human resource management practices on
the implementation of total quality management: An empirical study on high-
tech firms", The TQM Magazine, Vol. 18 Iss 2 pp. 162-173
Coffman, D.L., MacCallum, R.C., (2005). Using parcels to convert path analysis
models into latent variable models. Multivariate Behavioral Research 40 (2),
235–259.

31
Craighead, C., Meredith, J., (2008). Operations management research: evolution and
alternative future paths. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 28, 710e726.
Davies, J., Douglas, A., & Douglas, J. (2007). The effect of academic culture on the
implementation of the EFQM Excellence Model in UK universities. Quality
Assurance in Education, 15(4), 382-401.
Davies, J., Hides, M. T., & Casey, S. (2001). Leadership in higher education. Total
Quality Management, 12(7-8), 1025-1030.
Deming W.E. (1994). The New Economics. MIT Centre for Advanced Engineering
Study, Massachusetts.
Deming, W. E. (1982). Quality, productivity, and competitive position. Massachusetts
Institute of Technology Center for Advanced En.
Diamantopoulos, A. & Siguaw, J.A., (2006). Formative versus reflective indicators in
organizational measure development: A comparison and empirical
illustration. British Journal of Management, 17(4), pp.263–282.
Diamantopoulos, A., Riefler, P., & Roth, K. P. (2008). Advancing formative
measurement models. Journal of Business Research, 61(12), 1203-1218.
Dijkstra, L. (1997). An empirical interpretation of the EFQM framework. European
Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 6(3), 321-341.
Dimitriades, A.S. (2006), “Customer satisfaction, loyalty and commitment in service
organizations: some evidence from Greece”, Management Research News,
Vol. 29 No. 12, pp. 782-800.
Dodangeh, J., & Yusuff, R. M. (2011). A decision model for selecting of Areas for
Improvement in EFQM model. In Quality and Reliability (ICQR), 2011 IEEE
International Conference on (pp. 529-535). IEEE.
Dodangeh, J., Yusuff, R. M., Ismail, N., Ismail, Y., Zadeh, B., Reza, M., & Jassbi, J.
(2012). A review on major business excellence frameworks. Technics
Technologies Education Management, 7(3), 1386-1393.
Edwards, J. R. (2001). Multidimensional constructs in organizational behavior
research: An integrative analytical framework. Organizational Research
Methods, 4(2), 144-192.
EFQM (2013). Business Excellence Matrix: User Guide – EFQM Model 2013 Version.
Broussels: EFQM.
EFQM (2014). EFQM framework for Marine Excellence. Broussels: EFQM
EFQM (2015a). Model Criteria. EFQM official website. Online . Available
HTTP<http://www.efqm.org/efqm-model/model-criteria (accessed 3 January
2016).
EFQM (2015b). Enablers. EFQM official website. Online . Available HTTP<
http://www.efqm.org/efqm-model/criteria/enablers (accessed 3 January 2016).
EFQM (2015c). Results. EFQM official website. Online . Available HTTP<
http://www.efqm.org/efqm-model/criteria/results (accessed 3 January 2016).
Escrig, A. B., & de Menezes, L. M. (2015). What characterizes leading companies
within business excellence models? An analysis of “EFQM Recognized for
Excellence” recipients in Spain. International Journal of Production
Economics, 169, 362-375.
Eskildsen, J. K., & Dahlgaard, J. J. (2000). A causal model for employee satisfaction.
Total Quality Management, 11(8), 1081-1094.

32
Eskildsen, J. K., Kristensen, K., & Juhl, H. J. (2001). The criterion weights of the EFQM
excellence model. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management,
18(8), 783-795.
Eskildsen, J.K., Kristensen, K., & Juhl, H.J. (2002). Trends in EFQM criterion weights;
the case of Denmark 1998-2001. Measuring Business Excellence, 6(2), 22-28.
Evans, J., & Lindsay, W. (2012). Managing for quality and performance excellence.
Cengage Learning.
Fabrigar, L. R., Porter, R. D., & Norris, M. E. (2010). Some things you should know
about structural equation modeling but never thought to ask. Journal of
Consumer Psychology, 20(2), 221-225.
Fan, X., & Lu, D. (2014). Re-balancing the excellence frameworks with individualistic
logic. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 25(5-6), 478-493.
Fecikova, I. (2004), ‘‘An index method for measurement of customer satisfaction’’.
The TQM Magazine, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 57-66.
Fotopoulos, C. V., & Psomas, E. L. (2010). The structural relationships between TQM
factors and organizational performance. The TQM Journal, 22(5), 539-552.
Francis, G., Humphreys, I. & Fry, J., (2002). The benchmarking of airport
performance. Journal of Air Transport Management, 8, pp.239–247.
Francis, G., Humphreys, I., & Fry, J. (2002). The benchmarking of airport
performance. Journal of Air Transport Management, 8(4), 239-247.
Francis, G., Humphreys, I., & Fry, J. (2003). An international survey of the nature and
prevalence of quality management systems in airports. Total Quality
Management and Business Excellence, 14(7), 819-829.
Freeman, R. E. (2010). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Cambridge
University Press.
Fu, X., Homsombat, W., Oum, T. H., (2011). Airport-airline vertical relationships,
their effects and regulatory policy implications. Journal of Air Transport
Management, 17, 347–353.
Fuhr, J., & Beckers, T. (2006). Vertical Governance between Airlines and Airports – A
Transaction Cost Analysis. Review of Network Economics, 5(4): 386-412.
Gadd, K. W. (1995). Business self-assessment: a strategic tool for building process
robustness and achieving integrated management. Business Process Re-
engineering & Management Journal, 1(3), 66-85.
Gadenne, D., & Sharma, B. (2009). An investigation of the hard and soft quality
management factors of Australian SMEs and their association with firm
performance. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management,
26(9), 865-880.
Ghobadian, A. & Woo, H.S. (1996). Characteristic, benefits and shortcomings of four
major quality awards,International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, 13, pp. 10–44.
Gómez, J. G., Martínez Costa, M., & Martínez Lorente, A. R. (2015). An in-depth
review of the internal relationships of the EFQM model. The TQM Journal,
27(5), 486-502.
Gonzalez, J. (2004). Outsourcing and Airport Services. Airport Magazine, 16(3).
Graham, A. (2004). Airport strategies to gain competitive advantage. Airport
Competition and Benchmarking of Airports.

33
Hair, J.F., Ringle, C.M. & Sarstedt, M., (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a Silver Bullet. The
Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(2), pp.139–152.
Hakes, C. (2007). The EFQM Excellence model for assessing organizational
performance. Van Haren Publishing, Zaltbommel.
Halpern, N., & Graham, A. (2013). Airport marketing. Routledge.
Heaton, C. (2000). External peer review in Europe: an overview from the ExPeRT
Project. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 12(3), 177-182.
Hendricks, K. B., & Singhal, V. R. (1997). Does implementing an effective TQM
program actually improve operating performance? Empirical evidence from
firms that have won quality awards. Management science, 43(9), 1258-1274.
Heras-Saizarbitoria, I., Marimon, F., & Casadesús, M. (2012). An empirical study of
the relationships within the categories of the EFQM model. Total Quality
Management & Business Excellence, 23(5-6), 523-540.
Hides, M., Davies, J. & Jackson, S., (2004). Implementation of EFQM excellence model
self-assessment in the UK higher education sector - lessons learned from
other sectors. , 16(3), pp.194–201. Available at: http://usir.salford.ac.uk/769/.
Hides, M., Davies, J. & Jackson, S.,(2004). Implementation of EFQM excellence model
self-assessment in the UK higher education sector - lessons learned from
other sectors. , 16(3), pp.194–201. Available at: http://usir.salford.ac.uk/769/.
Hitt, M.A., Bierman, L., Uhlenbruck, K., Shimizu, K., (2006). The importance of
resources in the internationalization of professional service firms: the good,
the bad and the ugly. Acad. Manag. J. 49, 1137e1157.
Hitt, M.A., Xu, K. & Carnes, C.M., (2015). Resource based theory in operations
management research. Journal of Operations Management, 41, pp.77–94.
Iacobucci, D. (2009). Everything you always wanted to know about SEM (structural
equations modeling) but were afraid to ask. Journal of Consumer Psychology,
19(4), 673-680.
ISO, (2015). Official homepage. Available HTTP< http://www.iso.org/iso/home.htm
(accessed 18 December 2015). International Organization for Standardization.
Izadi, M., Kashef, A. E., & Stadt, R. W. (1996). Quality in higher education: Lessons
learned from the Baldrige award, Deming prize, and ISO 9000 registration.f
Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 33(2), 60-76.
Jafari, H. (2013). Application of EFQM Excellence Model to Persian Gulf Marine
Passenger Terminal. Journal of Asian Business Strategy, 3(8), 200.
Jamal Daoud Abu-Doleh, (2012),"Human resource management and total quality
management linkage– rhetoric and reality: Evidence from an empirical study",
International Journal of Commerce and Management, Vol. 22 Iss 3 pp. 219-234
Jarach, D. (2001). The evolution of airport management practices: towards a multi-
point, multi-service, marketing-driven firm. Journal of air transport
management, 7(2), 119-125.
Jarach, D. (2005). Airport marketing: strategies to cope with the new millennium
environment. Gower Publishing, Ltd.
Jiménez-Jiménez, D., & Martínez-Costa, M. (2009). The performance effect of HRM
and TQM: a study in Spanish organizations. International Journal of
Kanji G.K. and Moura P. (2001). Measuring leadership excellence, Total Quality
Management, Vol. 12, No. 6, pp. 701-718.

34
Kanji, G. K. (1998). Measurement of business excellence. Total Quality Management,
9(7), 633-643.
Kanji, G. K. (2012). Measuring business excellence (Vol. 10). Routledge.
Kanji, G. K., & Moura E Sá, P. (2001). Kanji's business scorecard. Total Quality
Management, 12(7-8), 898-905.
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1996). The balanced scorecard: translating strategy
into action. Harvard Business Press.
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1996). The balanced scorecard: translating strategy
into action. Harvard Business Press.
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2004). Strategy maps: Converting intangible assets
into tangible outcomes. Harvard Business Press.
Kazda, A., & Caves, R. E. (Eds.). (2015). Airport design and operation. Emerald
Group Publishing.
Keating, M., & Harrington, D. (2003). The challenges of implementing quality in the
Irish hotel industry. Journal of European Industrial Training, 27(9), 441-453.
Kenny, D. A. (1979). Correlation and causality.New York: Wiley-Interscience.
Khaleghi, A.H. & Haji, K.A. (2011). Customization of criterion framework of EFQM
Business Excellence Model case of: IDRO affiliated companies. Journal of
Management Research. Spring-Summer 2011, Vol.3. No 5, pp.44-67.
Kim, D.Y., Kumar, V. and Murphy, S.A. (2010), “European foundation for quality
management business excellence model: an integrative review and research
agenda”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 27
No. 6, pp. 684-701.
Kline, R. B. (2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modelling. Guilford
publications.
Koufteros, X., Babbar, S. & Kaighobadi, M., (2009). A paradigm for examining
second-order factor models employing structural equation modeling.
International Journal of Production Economics, 120(2), pp.633–652.
Kumar, V., Choisne, F., de Grosbois, D., & Kumar, U. (2009). Impact of TQM on
company's performance. International journal of quality & reliability management,
26(1), 23-37.
Lavie, D., (2006). The competitive advantage of interconnected firms: an extension of
the resource-based view. Acad. Manag. Rev. 31, 638e658.
Lawler, E. E., Mohrman, S. A., & Ledford, G. E. (1998). Strategies for high performance
organizations: The CEO report: Employee involvement, TQM, and reengineering
programs in Fortune 1000 corporations. Jossey-Bass.
Lewis, W. G., Pun, K. F., & Lalla, T. R. M. (2006). Exploring soft versus hard factors
for TQM implementation in small and medium-sized enterprises.
International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 55(7),
539-554.
Litos, C. I., Politis, Y. N., Grigoroudis, E. T., & Moustakis, V. S. (2011). A Sector-
Oriented Methodology for the Development of Business Excellence Model—
An Application in the Greek Hotel Industry. Journal of Quality Assurance in
Hospitality & Tourism, 12(2), 83-103.
Lovelock, C., & Gummesson, E. (2004). Whither services marketing? In search of a
new paradigm and fresh perspectives. Journal of service research, 7(1), 20-41.

35
Low, J. M., & Tang, L. C. (2006). Factor substitution and complementarity in the Asia
airport industry. Journal of Air Transport Management, 12(5), 261-266.
Lufthansa (2005). Development initiatives at European Airport. Internal working
paper. Lufthansa German Airlines, Frankfurt.
LYS (2016). Aéroports de Lyon: Our commitments. Online. Available
https://www.lyonaeroports.com/eng/The-Aeroports-de-Lyon-Group/Our-
commitments/Our-awards (accessed 22 January, 2016).
Madhok, A., & Tallman, S. B. (1998). Resources, transactions and rents: Managing
value through interfirm collaborative relationships. Organization science, 9(3),
326-339.
Mahoney, F. X., & Thor, C. G. (1994). The tqm trilogy: Using iso 9000, the deming
prize, and the baldrige award to establish a system for total quality
management. American management association.
Malina, R., Albers, S., & Kroll, N. (2012). Airport incentive programmes: a European
perspective. Transport Reviews, 32(4), 435-453.
Martínez-Lorente, A. R., Dewhurst, F., & Dale, B. G. (1998). Total quality
management: origins and evolution of the term. The TQM Magazine, 10(5),
378-386.
McLay, P., & Reynolds-Feighan, A. (2006). Competition between airport terminals:
The issues facing Dublin Airport. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and
Practice, 40(2), 181-203.
Moeller, J. (2001). The EFQM Excellence Model. German experiences with the EFQM
approach in health care. International Journal for Quality in Health Care,
13(1), 45-49.
Moeller, J., Breinlinger-O’Reilly, J., & Elser, J. (2000). Quality management in German
health care–the EFQM Excellence Model. International Journal of Health Care
Quality Assurance, 13(6), 254-258.
Nabitz, U., Klazinga, N., & Walburg, J. A. N. (2000). The EFQM excellence model:
European and Dutch experiences with the EFQM approach in health care.
International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 12(3), 191-202.
Nabitz, U., Klazinga, N., & Walburg, J. A. N. (2000). The EFQM excellence model:
European and Dutch experiences with the EFQM approach in health care.
International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 12(3), 191-202.
Nazemi, J. (2010). A process model for improvement through EFQM. World Applied
Sciences Journal, 8 (3), 279-287.
Nikolaidis, Y., & Terpos, C. (2010). The evolution of quality management in DOKPY,
Magnesia-Greece: from basic quality initiatives to EFQM. International
Journal of Productivity and Quality Management, 5(4), 384-400.
NIST, (2013). Baldrige Performance Excellence Program-Criteria for performance excellence.
US Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and
Technology, Gaithersburg MD.
Oakland, J. S., & Oakland, S. (1998). The links between people management,
customer satisfaction and business results. Total Quality Management, 9(4-5),
185-190.
Ordanini, A., & Pasini, P. (2008). Service co-production and value co-creation: The
case for a service-oriented architecture (SOA). European Management Journal,
26(5), 289-297.

36
Ordanini, A., & Pasini, P. (2008). Service co-production and value co-creation: The
case for a service-oriented architecture (SOA). European Management Journal,
26(5), 289-297.
Osseo-Asare, A. E., & Longbottom, D. (2002). The need for education and training in
the use of the EFQM model for quality management in UK higher education
institutions. Quality Assurance in Education, 10(1), 26-36.
Panayiotou, N. A., Aravossis, K. G., & Moschou, P. (2009). A new methodology
approach for measuring corporate social responsibility performance. Water,
Air, & Soil Pollution: Focus, 9(1-2), 129-138.
Paulraj, A., (2011). Understanding the relationships between internal resources and
capabilities, sustainable supply management and organizational
sustainability. J. Supply Chain Manag. 47, 19e37.
Pels, E., Nijkamp, P., & Rietveld, P. (2003). Inefficiencies and scale economies of
European airport operations. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and
Transportation Review, 39(5), 341-361.
Pels, E., Nijkamp, P., & Rietveld, P. (2003). Inefficiencies and scale economies of
European airport operations. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and
Transportation Review, 39(5), 341-361.
Peteraf, M. A. (1993). The cornerstones of competitive advantage: A resource-based
view. Strategic management journal, 14(3), 179-191.
Pilkington, A., Meredith, J., (2009). The evolution of the intellectual structure of
operations management-1980-2006: a citation/co-citation analysis. J. Oper.
Manag. 27, 185e202.
Politis, Y., & Siskos, Y. (2010). Self-assessment for measuring business excellence: the
MUSABE method. Total Quality Management, 21(11), 1063-1083.
Politis, Y., Litos, C., Grigoroudis, E., & Moustakis, V. S. (2009). A business excellence
model for the hotel sector: implementation to high-class Greek hotels.
Benchmarking: An International Journal, 16(4), 462-483.
Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2007). The Link Between Competitive Advantage and
Corporate Social Responsibility. Harvard business review.
Puffer S.M. and McCarthy D.J. (1996). A framework for leadership in a TQM context,
Journal of Quality Management, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 109-130.
Rahman, S. U., & Bullock, P. (2005). Soft TQM, hard TQM, and organisational
performance relationships: an empirical investigation. Omega, 33(1), 73-83.
Raju, P. S., & Lonial, S. C. (2002). The impact of service quality and marketing on
financial performance in the hospital industry: an empirical examination.
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 9(6), 335-348.
Rosa M.J. & Amaral, A. (2007). A self-assessment of higher education institutions
from the perspective of the EFQM excellence model. In Quality assurance in
higher education (pp. 181-207). Springer Netherlands.
Ruiz-Carrillo, J. I. C., & Fernández-Ortiz, R. (2005). Theoretical foundation of the
EFQM model: The resource-based view. Total Quality Management &
Business Excellence, 16(1), 31-55.
Rusjan, B. (2005). Usefulness of the EFQM excellence model: Theoretical explanation
of some conceptual and methodological issues. Total Quality Management
and Business Excellence, 16(3), 363-380.

37
Russell, S. (2010). ISO 9000: 2000 and the EFQM excellence model: competition or co-
operation?. Total quality management, 11(4-6), 657-665.
Sadeh, E., Arumugam, V. C., & Malarvizhi, C. A. (2013). Integration of EFQM
framework and quality information systems. Total Quality Management &
Business Excellence, 24(1-2), 188-209.
Safari, H., Abdollahi, B., & Ghasemi, R. (2012). Canonical correlation analysis
between people criterion and people results criterion in EFQM model. Total
Quality Management & Business Excellence, 23(5-6), 541-555.
Samardzija, J. & Kralj, D. (2010). EFQM excellence model 2010 solid framework for
introducing environmental innovation. Recent advances in circuits, systems and
signal : international conference on circuits, systems, signal (CSS), Malta,
September 15-17, 2010, (International Conference on Circuits, Systems and
Signals – Proceedings). WSEAS Press, cop. 2010, pp 146-152.
Samuelsson, P., & Nilsson, L. E. (2002). Self-assessment practices in large
organisations: Experiences from using the EFQM excellence model.
International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 19(1), 10-23.
Sánchez, E., Letona, J., González, R., García, M., Darpón, J., & Garay, J. I. (2006). A
descriptive study of the implementation of the EFQM excellence model and
underlying tools in the Basque Health Service. International journal for
quality in health care, 18(1), 58-65.
Santos-Vijande, M. L., & Alvarez-Gonzalez, L. I. (2007). TQM and firms performance:
An EFQM excellence model research based survey. International Journal of
Business Science and Applied Management, 2(2), 21-41.
Sarkis, J. (2000). An analysis of the operational efficiency of major airports in the
United States. Journal of Operations management, 18(3), 335-351.
Savas, E. S. (2000). Privatization and public-private partnerships (p. 31). New York:
Chatham House.
Schaltegger, S., & Lüdeke-Freund, F. (2011). The sustainability balanced scorecard:
Concept and the case of Hamburg airport. Centre for Sustainability
Management (CSM), Leuphana Universität Lüneburg, ISBN, 978-3.
Sirmon, D.G., Hitt, M.A., Ireland, R.D., (2007). Managing firm resources in dynamic
environments to create value: looking inside the black box. Acad. Manag. Rev.
32, 273e292.
Sit, W. Y., Ooi, K. B., Lin, B., & Yee-Loong Chong, A. (2009). TQM and customer
satisfaction in Malaysia's service sector. Industrial Management & Data
Systems, 109(7), 957-975.
Sit, W.-Y. et al., 2009. TQM and customer satisfaction in Malaysia’s service sector.
Industrial Management & Data Systems, 109, pp.957–975.
Steed, C. (2002). Excellence in higher education. Evaluating the implementation of
the EFQM excellence model in higher education in the UK. Beiträge zur
Hochschulforschung, 24(1), 74-99.
SXB (2005). Strasbourg Airport. Online Available
http://www.atlasnavigator.com/airports/strasbourg-airport.html (accessed 22
January, 2016).
Taylor, A., & Taylor, M. (2009). Operations management research: contemporary
themes, trends and potential future directions. International Journal of

38
Taylor, W.A. and Wright, G.H. (2003), “A longitudinal study of TQM
implementation: factors influencing success and failure”, Omega, Vol. 31, pp.
97-111.
Terziovski, M., & Samson, D. (1999). The link between total quality management
practice and organisational performance. International Journal of Quality &
Reliability Management, 16(3), 226-237.
Tovar, B., & Martín-Cejas, R. R. (2009). Are outsourcing and non-aeronautical
revenues important drivers in the efficiency of Spanish airports?. Journal of
Air Transport Management, 15(5), 217-220.
TRB (1999). IATA Global Airport Monitor. Transportation Research Board. Washington
DC.
Ugboro I.O. and Obeng K. (2000). Top management leadership, employ
empowerment, job satisfaction, and customer satisfaction in TQM
organizations: an empirical study, Journal of Quality Management, Vol. 5, No.
2, pp. 247-272.
Upham, P., Thomas, C., Gillingwater, D., & Raper, D. (2003). Environmental capacity
and airport operations: current issues and future prospects. Journal of Air
Transport Management, 9(3), 145-151.
Vallejo, P., Saura, R. M., Sunol, R., Kazandjian, V., Ureña, V., & Mauri, J. (2006). A
proposed adaptation of the EFQM fundamental concepts of excellence to
health care based on the PATH framework. International Journal for Quality
in Health Care, 18(5), 327-335.
van der Zwan, F., Santema, S., & Curran, R. (2009). Creating Value by Measuring
Collaboration Alignment of Strategic Business Processes. In Global
Perspective for Competitive Enterprise, Economy and Ecology (pp. 825-832).
Springer London.
Vargo, S. L., Maglio, P. P., & Akaka, M. A. (2008). On value and value co-creation: A
service systems and service logic perspective. European management journal,
26(3), 145-152.
Vernero, S., Nabitz, U., Bragonzi, G., Rebelli, A., & Molinari, R. (2007). A two-level
EFQM self-assessment in an Italian hospital. International Journal of Health
Care Quality Assurance, 20(3), 215-231.
Vokurka, R. J., Stading, G. L., & Brazeal, J. (2000). A comparative analysis of national
and regional quality awards. Quality Progress, 33(8), 41.
Vouzas, F. K. (2009). Business excellence and human resources: investigating best
practices in European Quality Awarded Hellenic organisations. International
Journal of Business Innovation and Research, 3(3), 281-297.
Vroeijenstijn, A. I. (2003). Towards a quality model for higher education. Journal of
Philippine Higher Education Quality Assurance, 1(1), 78-94.
Waddock, S. A., & Graves, S. B. (1997). The corporate social performance-financial
performance link. Strategic management journal, 18(4), 303-319.
Weigelt, C., 2013. Leveraging supplier capabilities: the role of locus of capability
deployment. Strat. Manag. J. 34, 1e21.
Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic management
journal, 5(2), 171-180.
Westlund, A. H. (2001). Measuring environmental impact on society in the EFQM
system. Total Quality Management, 12(1), 125-135.

39
Williams, P., & Naumann, E. (2011). Customer satisfaction and business
performance: a firm-level analysis. Journal of services marketing, 25(1), 20-32.
Williams, R., Bertsch, B., Van der Wiele, A., Van Iwaarden, J., & Dale, B. (2006). Self-
Assessment against Business Excellence Models: A Critique and Perspective.
Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, 17(10), 1287-1300.
Wongrassamee, S., Simmons, J. E. L., & Gardiner, P. D. (2003). Performance
measurement tools: the Balanced Scorecard and the EFQM Excellence Model.
Measuring Business Excellence, 7(1), 14-29.
Yeh, C.H. & Kuo, Y.L., (2003). Evaluating passenger services of Asia-Pacific
international airports. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and
Transportation Review, 39, pp.35–48.
Yu, M.M., (2010). Assessment of airport performance using the SBM-NDEA model.
Omega, 38(6), pp.440–452.
Zade, E. A., Safari, H., Abdollahi, B., & Ghasemi, R. (2011). Canonical correlation
analysis between enabler and results in EFQM Model; a case study in
TAVANIR Company in Iran. European Journal of Social Sciences, 21(3), 483-
492.
Zairi M. (1999). Managing excellence leadership, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 11, pp.
215- 220.
Zeithaml, V. A. (2000). Service quality, profitability, and the economic worth of
customers: what we know and what we need to learn. Journal of the academy
of marketing science, 28(1), 67-85.
Zink, K. J. (2008). Corporate Sustainability as a Challenge for Comprehensive
Management. Springer Science & Business Media.
Zink, K. J. (2012). Total Quality Management as a holistic management concept: the
European model for business excellence. Springer Science & Business Media.
Zografos, K. G., Madas, M. A., van Enige, M. J., & Valdes, R. A. (2005). Integrated
airport performance analysis through the use of the OPAL platform. Air
Traffic Control Quarterly, 13(4).
Zografos, K.G. & Madas, M. A., (2006). Development and demonstration of an
integrated decision support system for airport performance analysis.
Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 14(1), pp.1–17.

40
APPENDICES
Appendix I. The ABEM three-level-structure
Second-order
factors
First-order
factors
Manifest variables
KPAs KPIs
Enablers
E1. Leadership L1. Mission and
Vision
Our Airport has a clear Mission and Vision
Leaders act as role models for the Airport’s values and ethics.
L2.Improvement
& Change
Leaders are fully committed to innovation.
Leaders stimulate the continuous improvement of services and processes.
Leaders show flexibility to adapt to new industry and market trends.
L3.People
Influencing
Leaders recognize and reward the efforts of their employees
Leaders effectively motivate their employees
L4.Decision
Making
Leaders solve the Airport’s problems successfully
Leaders plan and organize effectively
Leaders take the right decisions
Leaders are successful in crisis management
L5.Relationships
building
Leaders are successful in team building and managing conflicts
Leaders create supportive networks inside and outside the airport
L6. Information
flow
Leaders communicate information to all levels of the airport, in an
effective manner.
S1. Formulation
of Strategy
Our Airport has a clear and definite Strategy.
Our Strategy is based on a thorough understanding of our external
environment.
Our Strategy is based on a thorough understanding of our internal
performance and capabilities
Our Strategy is based on a thorough understanding of our stakeholders
needs.
S2. Deployment
of Strategy
Our Strategy is widely communicated to airport’s employees.
Our Airport has clear Policies, plans, objectives and processes.
Resources and workforce are allocated properly to accomplish airport’s
strategic plans.
E2. Strategy
S3. Assessment
of Strategy
Our Airport has procedures to review the progress of strategic plans.
Our Strategy is regularly reviewed and modified if necessary.
E3. People P1. HRM &
work culture
Our airport is adequately manned with employees having the required
skills.
There is an effective Human Resource Management for airport
employees.
There is a formal planning of job tasks and clear job descriptions.

41
There is a strong culture linking together airport’s employees.
Airport takes care of employees’ health and safety and provides good
working conditions.
P2.People
development
There are formal plans for the identification & improvement of the staff’s
knowledge, competencies and skills.
Employees continuously update their skills in their specific area of
knowledge.
There are good chances for career development within the airport.
P3.People
Motivation &
Evaluation
Employees’ performance evaluation system is fair and effective.
Employees’ payment system is fair and effective.
Airport measures employee satisfaction in a regular basis.
P4.People
Collaboration &
Coordination
Internal communication is open and transparent.
Employees voluntary share information & data.
Airport departments cooperate effectively.
Teamwork is a common practice in our airport.
SR1. Suppliers Our airport has close and long-term relations with our suppliers.
Our suppliers help to improve our products and/or services and also
provide technical assistance.
The suppliers of our airport offer good quality and service.
The outsourcing choices of our airport are successful.
SR2.Financial
Resources
Our Airport manages its financial resources appropriately, in order to
support its Policies and Strategies.
Our Airport applies specific and clear financial management procedures.
Our Airport regularly evaluates its financial management and
investment performance.
There is a lack of necessary financial resources.
There is a mismanagement of Airport’s financial resources.
E4. Suppliers &
Resources
SR3.Fixed
Assets
The current use of our Airport infrastructure fully exploits its abilities.
The general condition of assets in our airport is very good.
The airport capacity is sufficient.
Our airport makes efficient use of technology
There is an urgent need for infrastructure upgrading in our airport
PC1. Partners Our airport has formed alliances with strategic partners (i.e. other
airports, airlines, tour operators, etc) in an attempt to achieve
competitive advantage.
Our airport is an active member to the major aviation organisations (e.g
ACI, IATA, …)
Our airport participates regularly to aviation forums and events.
Our airport should develop its partnerships further/ seek for new
partners.
Our airport has built partnerships with other stakeholders (e.g.
universities, research centres, tour operators, hoteliers, etc)
E5. Partners
and Customers
PC2. Customers Our airport has a broad and clear knowledge of our customers’ needs and
preferences.
Airport customers are encouraged to tell their complaints and give

42
feedback.
Customers complaints and requests are handled/answered in short time.
Our airport is constantly trying to define new market and customer
targets.
Our airport separates its customer to different groups, based on their
needs/preferences and treats them accordingly.
Customer satisfaction is measured periodically and the results are used to
drive improvement.
PPS1. Processes There are clear and definite processes for all airport operations.
Processes manuals are periodically revised.
The processes are evaluated and improved continuously to achieve better
performance.
Each employee taking part in a process has clear duties and
responsibilities.
All employees taking part in a process are properly and adequately
trained.
Overall design and management of our airport processes is effective.
E6. Processes,
Products &
Services
PPS2. Products
& Services
Airport’s Products & services are designed & developed based on
customer needs & expectations.
There is an active marketing department in our airport.
The airport knows the main competitors, and is aware of its own
competitive position in the market.
Our airport is constantly seeking to improve service levels.
Our airport is flexible to develop new services if need arises.
Airport stakeholders are encouraged to tell their opinion and make
recommendations regarding airport services.
Results
R1.People
Results-
Communication between employees
Skills of employees.
Employees’ levels of initiative
Employees’ absenteeism has reduced
Employees’ levels of know-how
Communication between management and employees
Employees’ job satisfaction
Employees’ involvement at work
Employees’ loyalty & commitment to airport company
Employees’ evaluation system
Employees’ promotion system
Employees’ rewarding system
Work health and safety levels
Employees’ productivity
R2.Customer
Results
Improved customer perception of the company.
Customer satisfaction relative to competitors.
Communication with our customers.
A reduction in the number of customer complaints and grievances.
Customer consolidation, returning customers and loyal customers
Services offered to customers comparing to competitors.
New customers/airlines/new routes/new countries

43
R3.Society
Results
Airport’s positive impact in society.
Reduced Noise levels.
Reduced Pollution and toxic emissions.
Increased recycling levels (paper, cartons, toner, etc.).
Reduction and elimination of airport waste.
Health risks and accidents elimination.
Airport collaboration with environmental organisations.
Active participation in cultural activities.
Development of a formal Environmental management system (ISO
14001, EMAS, other).
Reduction in energy and water consumption.
Usage of renewable energy resources.
R4.Operational
Business
Results
OR Bureaucracy elimination
Airport processes efficiency
Service provision times have improved
Air traffic volume
Passenger volume
Improvement of Aircraft turnaround times
Apron capacity management
Airport terminal management
Airport runway management
Airport Security levels
Airport Safety levels
R5.Quality
Business
Results
QBR Number and duration of aircraft delays
Check-in waiting times
Passport control waiting times
Security check-points waiting times
Customs inspection waiting times.
Handling services quality levels
Fire-fighting service levels
ATC service levels
Availability of luggage trolleys
Availability & frequency of public transport
Taxi service availability & frequency
Car parking facilities
Flight information system
Airport online presence (e.g web page, online applications)
Facilities for Persons with Reduced Mobility (PRM)
Inbound baggage delivery times
Application of Information Technology (IT) innovations (e.g electronic
bag tags, RFID baggage handling, mobile boarding pass, Automated
Passport Control-APC, free Wi-Fi, etc.)
Cleaning services levels
Availability of passengers’ seats
Variety of shops/concessionaries in the airport
R6.Financial
Business
Results
FBR Cash flow
Aeronautical Revenues
Non Aeronautical Revenues
Non Aeronautical/Aeronautical Revenues Ratio

44
Cost reduction
Revenues/ Costs Ratio
Ratio of own/third-party resources
Market share
Profit levels
Economic management
Appendix II. The Research Hypotheses
I.1. Interrelations between Enabler KPAs
H1. Leadership has a positive effect on Strategy
H2. Leadership has a positive effect on People
H3. Leadership has a positive effect on Suppliers & Resources
H4. Leadership has a positive effect on Partners & Customers
H5. Leadership has a positive effect on Processes, Products & Services
H6. Strategy has a positive effect on People
H7. Strategy has a positive effect on Suppliers & Resources
H8. Strategy has a positive effect on Partners & Customers
H9. Strategy has a positive effect on Processes, Products & Services
H10. People has a positive effect on Suppliers & Resources
H11. People has a positive effect on Partners & Customers
H12. People has a positive effect on Processes, Products & Services
H13. Suppliers & Resources has a positive effect on Partners & Customers
H14. Suppliers & Resources has a positive effect on Processes, Products & Services
H15. Partners & Customers has a positive effect on Processes, Products & Services
I.2. Interrelations between Result KPAS
H16. People Results has a positive effect on Customer Results
H17. People Results has a positive effect on Society Results
H18. People Results has a positive effect on Operational Business Results
H19. People Results has a positive effect on Quality Business Results
H20. People Results has a positive effect on Financial Business Results
H21. Customer Results has a positive effect on Society Results
H22. Customer Results has a positive effect on Operational Business Results
H23. Customer Results has a positive effect on Quality Business Results
H24. Customer Results has a positive effect on Financial Business Results
H25. Society Results has a positive effect on Operational Business Results
H26. Society Results has a positive effect on Quality Business Results
H27. Society Results has a positive effect on Financial Business Results
Η28. Operational Business Results has a positive effect on Quality Business Results
H29. Operational Business Results has a positive effect on Financial Business Results
H30. Quality Business Results has a positive effect on Financial Business Results

SSRN-id2795251

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (11)

Similar to SSRN-id2795251

Similar to SSRN-id2795251 (20)

SSRN-id2795251