Keywords

Proposed Model, Institutional Excellence, Saudi Universities, The European Model For Quality.

Introduction

The topic of institutional excellence receives great attention from researchers and those interested in developing the performance of organizations in various fields of work, as it is a comprehensive development approach through which organizations can achieve their goals and face continuous changes at the level of their internal and external environments, to ensure their ability to achieve the aspirations of stakeholders, from Organization employees, and those dealing with it. At the level of educational institutions, institutional excellence is at the forefront of modern trends and approaches to developing the performance of universities, as the excellence of universities helps to ensure the spread of the concept of quality in all university facilities and services, improve the efficiency of processes at all organizational levels, absorb new technologies, confirm the competitive position, build and develop and activate their competitive capabilities and investing its resources in providing better university services per the international standards (Psomas & Antony, 2017) .

Furthermore, the practices and efforts of educational institutions - around the world - in their pursuit of institutional excellence finds that they have based on the most famous and most used models, for example, Abbas (2018) mentioned three models: the Japanese model for institutional excellence represented by the Deming Prize and the American Excellence Model represented by the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award (MBNQA), and the Excellence Model of the European Foundation for Quality Management, EFQM, which is known as the European Model for Institutional Excellence, this model, as defined by the European Foundation for Quality Management (EFQM, 2020)is “a globally-recognized management framework which allows organizations to achieve success by measuring where they are on the path towards transformation, helping them understand the gaps and possible solutions available, and empowering them to progress and significantly improve their organization’s performance”

This model is one of the most famous and most widespread models around the world, especially in developing the performance of universities, which is guided on the road to excellence, knowledge of gaps and solutions, and enhancing the competitiveness of the organization by keeping pace with global developments in the field of leadership, human resources, partnership and the quality of services provided to beneficiaries and improve the various processes, it applies to most service institutions, regardless of their size and the field in which they operate, with a satisfaction rate of 86% (EFQM, 2017) .

Institutional excellence as described in Tasopoulou & Tsiotras (2017) represents an entry through which higher education institutions can improve their level of excellence, through their ability to self-assess and work to achieve the aspirations of students and faculty beyond their normal expectations.

The concept of institutional excellence in higher education institutions as mentioned Kok & McDonald (2017) refers to the behavior directed towards its superiority in all its functions of research, teaching and community service, through excellence in strategy and shared values, leadership, organizational culture, reward systems, staff, and management. University and academic departments, including contributing to increasing their competitiveness at the regional and international level.

Hence, the model of the European Foundation for Quality and Excellence Management has become one of the internationally approved means of excellence to raise the level of performance of organizations and enable them to evaluate themselves, keep abreast of successive developments, and then enhance their ability to apply contemporary management concepts, apply international standards of excellence awards in pursuit of excellence and creativity, and enter the market International competition and achieving quality in a way that achieves the beneficiaries' satisfaction, works to develop their human resources, establishes their creativity and unlocks their talents and capabilities (Ahmad, 2017) .

The result of the study Ahmad (2015) also confirms that universities are among the most societal institutions required to take measures to ensure development, improvement, and achievement of excellence, to keep pace with global changes, to achieve continuity in development, to meet the needs of society and to achieve its expectations, the European Excellence Model is an integrated tool for self-evaluation, which helps Universities to define a roadmap to excellence, and allows the institution to evaluate strengths and weaknesses in its performance, identify opportunities for improvement, and compare with best international practices, and then develop and implement improvement plans that provide sustainable growth and improve performance.

The study Al-Ashqar & Al-Hindawi (2017) indicates that what supports the importance of institutional excellence as a necessity for universities is the emergence of international university rankings at the global level, which has increased universities' interest in identifying gaps Choosing the best practices in support of excellence and improving its competitive position, to enhance its ranking among universities.

Whereat the level of the model, the results of the study in Calvo et al., (2006) confirms which aimed to analyze the relationship between the potentials of the European model for excellence and the possibility of using it as a general framework for managing and developing quality in higher education institutions. The study was conducted on 111 public universities and centers of higher education in Spain on the importance of the enablers of the model in achieving excellence, as the study concluded that there is a strong correlation between the enablers criteria with the European model for excellence and that the model is based on the integration between the five enablers elements to achieve the four results criteria included in the model, the study also concluded the validity of the enablers criteria within The European model for excellence in the management of higher education institutions and their ability to help different higher education institutions to achieve distinction.

The European Model for Quality and Excellence (EFQM, 2013) is based on nine basic criteria divided into two groups, the first of which includes five criteria describing the components (enablers) necessary to achieve excellence in all aspects of institutional performance, namely: leadership, human resources, policies and strategies, partnerships and resources, processes and services.

The second group includes four criteria to describe the results that have been achieved based on the components: results for individuals, results for customers, and society, in addition to the main performance results.

In light of the previous presentation of the criteria of the European model for Quality and Excellence, and in light of the studies ’confirmation of its importance as an entry point for institutions’ self-evaluation and measuring their efforts for institutional excellence, the focus of this study will be on the five criteria that represent the components/enablers, that the university institution cannot achieve distinction except through excellence in them, which are those criteria that cover all the activities and efforts of the university in its march towards excellence. Based on the importance of the European model as an entry point to achieve excellence in universities, researchers have tended to study this topic extensively in recent years. Al-Rakf (2019) conducted a study aimed at uncovering the reality of applying the criteria of excellence in the scientific departments' deputies at Imam Muhammad bin Saud Islamic University in light of the criteria of the European model for excellence from the point of view of the faculty members in the scientific departments, the study relied on the descriptive approach, through a questionnaire applied to a simple random sample of the study population of (310) faculty members, the results revealed that the degree of application of the criteria of excellence of the departments' vice deans was mean.

Al-Osaimi (2018) conducted a study aimed at developing the performance of consulting research institutes in Saudi universities in light of the criteria of institutional excellence, the study relied on the descriptive approach, used the questionnaire to collect data from the study individuals who represented 12 of the leaders in the consulting research institutes and 135 consultants and 107 leaders from the entities benefiting from the services of consulting research institutes. The results of the study showed that the reality of the performance of consulting research institutes in Saudi universities came with a moderate degree (Al-Olayani, 2019) ; (Al-Ayadi, 2009) .

Al-Luqan (2018) conducted a study aimed at identifying the degree of Hail University’s readiness for institutional excellence in light of the criteria of the King Abdulaziz Award for Quality and Excellence from the point of view of its academic leaders. The study used the descriptive approach through a questionnaire constructed in light of the criteria for the award, namely: (Administrative leadership, Strategic planning, human resources, suppliers and partners, operations management, focus on beneficiaries, influence on society) it was applied to all academic leaders in the university, of whom (66) individuals responded, the results of the study showed that the overall degree of university readiness was mean.

Also, Zeps et al., (2017) conducted a study on the extent of integration of the European Excellence Model EFQM with the development strategy in higher education institutions in universities. The study was applied at Riga Technical University in Europe, where the study was a review of the pilot project in the university for the model application, one of the most important results of the study was that Riga Technical University provides a set of activities to improve strategic planning and the structure of internal processes and quality management, also that the EFQM model allows creating a valuable process to reach the strategic goals of universities identified in the strategy.

Al-Dabaan, (2016) conducted a study aimed at identifying the degree of availability of global institutional excellence criteria for developing performance in emerging Saudi universities, and knowing the degree of importance of global institutional excellence criteria in developing the performance of emerging Saudi Arabian universities, from the point of view of academic leaders. The study used a descriptive survey approach, through a questionnaire that was applied to a stratified random sample of university vice presidents, deans, and department heads in emerging universities, their number reached 270 leaders, the results of the study concluded that the degree of availability of criteria of institutional excellence for the development of performance in emerging Saudi universities was medium, and the degree of importance of criteria of Institutional excellence in developing the performance of emerging universities, of all dimensions, is very high.

Al-Alfi (2016) conducted a study aimed at determining the degree of availability of the criteria of the European model for Excellence at the University of Hail, the study relied on the descriptive approach, using a questionnaire that was applied to 400 members of the university's faculty, the study found that the degree to which the University of Hail meets the criteria of the European Excellence model from the point of view of the faculty members came with a medium degree. Nenadal (2015)conducted a study aimed at assessing the overall quality of educational institutions in Czech universities according to the European model for excellence, in order to achieve the objectives of the study, several meetings and brainstorming sessions seminars, comparative analysis and interviews were conducted, with a group of experts in 12 Czech higher education institutions, in order to validate the suitability of the European model for assessing the quality of these institutions. The study concluded that the European model for excellence is the most comprehensive tool for evaluating and ensuring the quality of universities’ achievements and evaluating the future potential of universities using leading indicators.

Khajeh & Salami (2013) also conducted a study aimed at determining the degree of self-evaluation of the performance of Islamic Azad University in Iran based on the European model for excellence. The descriptive approach was used, and the modified version of the EFQM questionnaire was used to collect data from a random sample to which the study was applied. They were 207 faculty members, managers and experts from the Islamic Azad University, one of the most prominent results of the study was that the mean self-evaluation of the university’s performance in the field of enabling factors was 2.29 and in the results area 2.33, the highest score obtained in the area of enablers was related to the leadership criterion (4.80 ± 2.22), and the lowest score related to strategy and policy (4.41 ± 2.18).

Through what has been presented from previous studies related to the subject of the current study, it is clear that previous studies have confirmed in their entirety the importance of institutional excellence for universities, the role of the European Foundation for Quality Management model in achieving it, and that the effectiveness of the European Excellence Model is clearly shown when it is used as a tool to measure the university’s efforts in the field of institutional excellence. As previous studies, unite the importance of adopting the European Excellence Model as an entry point for developing the performance of universities and enhancing their competitive value.

The researcher has benefited from previous studies in many aspects related to the subject of the study, especially with regard to building a study tool, which represents one of the most important means of institutional self-evaluation, and a method of measuring efforts for institutional excellence in universities, by building a questionnaire based on the components of the European Excellence Model in its first aspect that represents the enablers (components/causes), represented in five areas: (university leadership, university policies, and strategies, university human resources management, partnerships management and university resources, management of university operations, services and products). The researcher saw limiting the criteria related to the enablers - This is what distinguishes the study from previous studies - because the universities’ focus on these criteria will lead them towards achieving results in the light of which the university’s level of excellence can be judged.

The aim of this study is not to measure the level of institutional excellence for universities as most previous studies have gone to. Rather, the aim is to provide a model that helps universities to assess the level of their efforts in order to reach excellence, to be able to recognize the reality of these efforts and to stand on the strengths and weaknesses and work on improve its efforts in light of the results of this evaluation.

Study Problem

The interest in education and higher education, in particular, is one of the most important manifestations of concern for the future, therefore, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has given this educational stage great attention and generously spent on it, the effect of which has emerged in the creation of a large number of universities in a short period which are 28 governmental universities covering all regions of the Kingdom after it was 8 universities until the year 2000. The interest in higher education in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia did not stop on quantitative expansion, as successive development plans emphasized the importance of caring for the development of higher education and taking care of its quality. The strategic plan for higher education (2008-2018) and the prospects for developing higher education included a set of directions and goals for the development of higher education, achieving an integrated higher education based on three dimensions: expansion, quality and differentiation, it addresses four main issues: quality, alignment with the labor market, absorption, admission and financing.

Perhaps the development of Saudi universities today is a matter of great importance at this stage in which we embark on the future with an ambitious vision. (A vibrant society - a thriving economy - an ambitious nation) the vision has therefore aimed that the Kingdom, with its products and services, be a global standard for quality and perfection, and that there is no way for the Kingdom to compete and actively participate globally except when quality is the primary criterion in everything it offers to the world, as the Kingdom's vision has targeted (2030) to have at least five Saudi universities among the best (200) international universities by 2030 (The Kingdom's Vision Document 2015). From this standpoint, it can be said that institutional excellence has become an inevitable necessity and a strategic choice for Saudi universities to achieve this vision. Our universities today are in dire need to search for excellence and work on making it, this is confirmed by the study of both the Dabaan (2016) and Al-Luqan (2018), which emphasized the importance of Saudi universities adopting standards of institutional excellence. The recommendations of the Conference on the Role of Saudi Universities in Activating Vision 2030 during the period 11-12 January 2017 came to emphasize the importance of Saudi universities’ orientation towards achieving institutional excellence, and the necessity for their endeavors to raise their classification according to international criteria, and to upgrade their classification globally, by setting a guiding framework for improving practices in Saudi universities in the paths of national and international academic accreditation and international rankings to achieve tangible qualitative leaps in educational, research and community services (Qassim University Conference, 2017).

Despite the increased interest in recent years in achieving the competitive advantage of Saudi universities, many studies and research have indicated that there are some shortcomings in the field of universities' efforts towards institutional excellence, where the results of a recent study conducted by Al-Raqb (2020) on 175 academic leaders in Saudi universities in Riyadh indicated that Saudi universities apply quality to a moderate degree.

The results of the study of Al-Rakf (2019) revealed that the degree of application of the excellence management at the Scientific Departments at Imam Muhammad bin Saud Islamic University in light of the criteria of the European model for Excellence from the viewpoint of the faculty members was moderate.

The recommendations of the Al-Hamidi study (2019) stressed the importance of linking the university’s programs and colleges with quality standards and academic accreditation in order to achieve the university’s competitive advantage. Also, the results of the study revealed that the level of competitive advantage at Taif University from the viewpoint of the academic staff was of a medium degree. Daoud's study (2017) , also in its development proposals that would contribute to activating the participation of universities in achieving the Kingdom’s vision, stressed the importance of taking care of the quality of university education, provided that university management intensifies its efforts in the field of quality control and institutional evaluation and enabling faculty members to participate in the evaluation procedures in these universities. Based on the importance of institutional excellence and the need to achieve it in universities, in light of the need for our universities to make more efforts in order to achieve it, in light of the confirmation of theoretical literature and field studies on the importance of the European model for quality and excellence, this study aims to present a model that hopefully will contribute to leading Universities towards institutional excellence by helping them stand on the level of efforts made by universities in their pursuit of quality and institutional excellence.

Study Questions

1. What is the degree of appreciation of educational administration and leadership experts for the importance of the European model for quality and excellence in evaluating the efforts of institutional excellence in Saudi universities?

2. What is the degree of appreciation of educational administration and leadership experts for the suitability of the proposed model to evaluate the efforts of institutional excellence in Saudi universities in light of the components of the European model for quality and excellence?

3. What is the proposed model to evaluate the efforts of institutional excellence in Saudi universities in light of the components of the European model for quality and excellence?

Study Objectives

1. Recognizing the degree of appreciation of educational administration and leadership experts for the importance of the components of the European model for quality and for excellence in evaluating the efforts of institutional excellence in Saudi universities.

2. Recognizing the degree of appreciation of educational administration and leadership experts for the suitability of the proposed model for evaluating the efforts of institutional excellence in Saudi universities in light of the components of the European model for excellence.

3. Presenting a proposed model to evaluate the efforts of institutional excellence in Saudi universities in light of the components of the European model for quality and institutional excellence by making use of theoretical literature and previous studies related to the subject of study, and the results of the survey of opinions of experts in management and educational leadership.

Study Significance

Scientific significance: The scientific importance of the study stems from the following:

1. The importance of its subject matter, and the increasing attention it receives from scholars and those interested in developing the performance of organizations.

2. Universities adopting the approach to institutional excellence and the benefits resulting from that.

3. Based on the most important components of excellence emanating from the European model for quality and institutional excellence, which all emphasized the theoretical literature and applied studies on its importance in achieving excellence in organizations in general, and universities in particular.

Practical importance: It is hoped that the results of the study will contribute to the following:

1. Presenting a model that universities can use to assess the level of their efforts in the field of institutional excellence, by identifying strengths and weaknesses in their performance.

2. Helping universities to develop improvement plans that provide sustainable growth and improve performance and implement them.

3. Rationalize development efforts for the sake of Universities' access to excellence.

Study Scope

The Objective Limit: The study was limited to researching the possibility of improving the efforts of institutional excellence in Saudi universities in light of the components of the European model for quality and institutional excellence according to the following areas: (university leadership, university policies and strategies, human resources management at the university, management of university partnerships and resources, management of university operations, services and products).

Time Limit: The study was applied during the second semester of the academic year 2019/2020.

Spatial Limit: The study was applied to a group of experts in leadership and educational administration in (17) Saudi universities.

Human Limit: The study was applied to 36 leadership and educational administration experts in Saudi universities.

Terms of the Study

The proposed model in this study means the conceptual framework that includes the tool by which the university’s efforts in the field of institutional excellence can be improved, which the researcher prepared based on theoretical literature and the views of management and educational leadership experts in Saudi universities.

Improving institutional excellence efforts in this study means the process by which the university’s efforts to reach institutional excellence are identified through the tool prepared for this purpose, it is the model that will be presented in light of the results of this study.

It is meant by the components of the European model for Quality and Institutional Excellence in this study: The five enablers on which the European model for quality and institutional excellence is based, which was formulated in light of the study’s targeting of the university institution as follows: (university leadership, university policies and strategies, university human resources management, partnerships and university resources management, management of university operations, services and products) to contribute to measuring the efforts of Saudi universities in the field of institutional excellence.

Methodology and Procedures

Study Approach

The current study used the descriptive approach, in both documentary and survey types, by presenting and analyzing the components of the European Foundation for Quality Management (EFQM) excellence model and the possibility of using it in developing a model for evaluating the efforts of excellence in university institutions in the light of the literature and studies related to the subject of the study. On the survey side, the study relied on the "Delphi" method to explore the opinions of management and educational leadership experts in the Saudi universities on the suitability of the proposed model to evaluate the university's efforts in the field of institutional excellence.

Study Sample

The study sample consisted of a group of management and educational leadership experts in 17 universities from Saudi Arabia, who were intentionally selected; their opinions were surveyed in two rounds as follows:

The First Round

The number of experts whose opinions were surveyed in the first round was 33 experts from the administration and educational leadership experts in Saudi universities.

The following is a presentation of the distribution of experts according to their academic ranks (Table 1).

Table 1 Distribution Of The First-Round Sample According To The Scientific Rank
Academic Rank	Number	Percentage
Professor	13	39.4
Associate Professor	16	48.5
Assistant Professor	4	12.1
Total	33	100.0

The Second Round

The number of experts whose opinions were surveyed in the second round was 36 experts from the administration and educational leadership experts in Saudi universities.

The following is a presentation of the distribution of experts according to their scientific ranks (Table 2):

Table 2  Distribution Of The Second-Round Sample According To Their Scientific Rank
Academic Rank	Number	Percentage
Professor	12	33.3
Associate Professor	20	55.6
Assistant Professor	4	11.1
Total	36	100.0

Study Tool (Construction and Application Stages)

The study tool was built in light of the theoretical literature related to the subject of the study, and it is a measure to evaluate the university’s efforts in the field of excellence in light of the components of the European model for quality and institutional excellence, then it was presented to a group of experts in management and educational leadership in Saudi universities in two rounds, where the first round is a survey of the opinions of management and educational leadership experts in Saudi universities on the degree of importance of the components of the European model for evaluating the university’s efforts towards institutional excellence. The tool included in this round five areas that represent the components of the European model for institutional quality and excellence, and under it (26) statements representing the importance of each criterion for judging the university's efforts in the field of institutional excellence, as follows:

1. Leadership criterion, which includes (6) statements.

2. Policies and strategies criterion, which includes (4) statements.

3. Human resources management criterion, which includes (5) statements.

4. University partnerships and resources management criterion, which includes (5) statements.

5. Operations Management criterion, which includes (6) statements.

This round also included five open questions to add and express opinions on the terms of each field. The number of experts participating in this round reached (33) experts.

As for the second round, the tool was more standardized in light of the results of the first round, as the main criteria remained the same with a change in their language formulation. As for the indicators, they were developed, and some were added and modified so that there is a new model that represents a measure for judging the efforts of the university excellence from the point of view the faculty members looked at five main areas that represented the components of the university’s excellence. Statements were included under them that represent indicators to measure the degree of achievement, as follows:

1. Leadership criterion, which includes (11) statements.

2. Policies and strategies criterion, which includes (8) statements.

3. Human resources management criterion, which includes (12) statements.

4. University partnerships and resources management criterion, which includes (10) statements.

5. Operations, services and products management criterion, which includes (9) statements.

Experts in this round were asked to express their views on the suitability of the scale to evaluate the university's efforts in the field of institutional excellence by judging the importance and measurability of the statements contained in each of the five areas and to express their opinions and observations on the statements contained in each area.

The tool also included in this round a question in which experts were asked to express their opinions about the appropriate grading of the categories to measure the degree of achievement of institutional excellence efforts at the university. The number of experts participating in this round reached 36 experts.

The researcher was satisfied with the results of the two rounds due to the existence of a high degree of agreement between the opinions of the experts in the second round regarding the suitability of the scale to evaluate the university’s efforts in the field of institutional excellence, as will be evident when presenting the results.

Study Tool Reliability

To verify the reliability of the study tool in the two rounds, the reliability coefficient was calculated using the "Alpha Cronbach" equation, as follows:

"Alpha Cronbach's reliability coefficients" for the first round of a survey of opinions of management and educational leadership experts in Saudi universities on the degree of importance of the components of the European model in evaluating the university's efforts in the field of institutional excellence (Table 3).

Table 3 Study Tool’s Reliability Coefficients In The First Round
Areas	Number of Items	Alpha Cronbach's Reliability Coefficients
University Leadership	6	0.90
University Policies and strategies	4	0.90
University Human Resources Management	5	0.94
Management of the University partnerships and resources	5	0.95
University Operations Management	6	0.96
Total reliability	26	0.98

The Alpha Cronbach reliability coefficients for the second round of the survey of opinions of experts in management and educational leadership in Saudi universities on the degree of the suitability of the components of the European model for evaluating the university's efforts in the field of institutional excellence (Table 4).

Table 4 Study Tool’s Reliability Coefficients In The Second Round
Areas	Number of Items	Alpha Cronbach's Reliability Coefficients
		Importance	Measurability
University Leadership	11	0.91	0.88
University Policies and strategies	8	0.97	0.71
University Human Resources Management	12	0.91	0.84
Management of the University partnerships and resources	10	0.81	0.87
University Operations Management	9	0.85	0.86
Total reliability	50	0.98	0.96

It is evident from the two previous tables that the tool has high-reliability rates in both rounds.

Study Results

Results of the First Round

The answer to the first question: “What is the degree of appreciation of educational administration and leadership experts for the importance of the European model for quality and excellence in evaluating the efforts of institutional excellence in Saudi universities?”

This question was answered by analyzing the responses of educational administration and leadership experts - in the first round - towards the degree of their appreciation of the importance of the components of the European model for Quality and Excellence in evaluating the efforts of institutional excellence in Saudi universities. The following is a presentation of the results of this round according to its areas of the five criteria/components of the European Model for Organizational Excellence (Table 5).

Table 5 Arithmetic Means Of Experts’ Responses About The Degree Of Their Appreciation Of The Importance Of The Components Of The European Model For Quality And Institutional Excellence In Evaluating The University’s Efforts In The Field Of Institutional Excellence
Components/ criteria	Arithmetic means*	SD	Degree of importance	Rank
Human resource management	3.41	0.65	Very high	1
Policies and strategies	3.38	0.56	Very high	2
Leadership	3.38	0.58	Very high	2
Partnerships and resources management	3.37	0.70	Very high	4
Operations management	3.26	0.72	Very high	5
Total degree	3.36	0.61	Very high	-
* Means are out of 4 degrees

It is evident from the previous table that the degree of appreciation of educational administration and leadership experts for the importance of the criteria /components of the European model for quality and excellence in evaluating the efforts of institutional excellence in Saudi universities was very large, as the overall mean of the combined criteria/components reached (3.36). This confirms the growing need of universities for what would enhance its efforts in the path of institutional excellence; perhaps this confirms the importance of developing a model to employ these components in evaluating the efforts of excellence in universities, especially since the experts who shared their views are specialists and practitioners in the field of university development.

It is also evident from the table that the human resource management standard has ranked first in terms of its importance in evaluating the efforts of institutional excellence in Saudi universities in light of the components of the European model for quality and excellence from the point of view of educational administration and leadership experts, with a mean of 3.41,this result confirms and agrees with what was stated in the management and leadership literature on the importance of the human element and its pivotal role in organizations excellence , and the standard of policies and strategies and leadership criterion came in second place with a mean of 3.38, followed by the criterion of managing partnerships and resources with a mean of 3.37, in the last place came the area of operations management with a mean of 3.26. This result is consistent with what was stated in the theoretical literature of emphasizing the importance of the European model for quality and institutional excellence as an important tool for self-evaluation and achieving institutional excellence as reported by (Al-Aidi, 2009; Tasopoulou & Tsiotras, 2017 ; Moradzadeh, 2015).

These results also agree with the result of the Nenadal study (2015) , which concluded that the European Excellence Model is the most comprehensive tool for evaluating and ensuring the quality of universities’ achievements, as well as the result of the study (Al-Dabaan, 2016) that evaluating the importance of institutional excellence standards in developing the performance of emerging universities, it was very high for all dimensions.

Results of the Second Round

The answer to the second question: “What is the degree of appreciation of educational administration and leadership experts for the suitability of the proposed model for evaluating the efforts of institutional excellence in Saudi universities in light of the components of the European model for quality and excellence?”

To reveal the degree of suitability of the proposed model to evaluate the efforts of institutional excellence in Saudi universities in light of the components of the European model for quality and institutional excellence, the arithmetic means and standard deviations of the experts' responses were calculated about the degree of their appreciation for the importance of the statements contained in each of the five areas, and their measurability, as indicators indicating the achievement of standards. The following is a review according to the areas of study:

University Leadership

The following is a review of the experts’ answers about the degree of their appreciation of the importance and measurability the indicators of the university leadership standard as one of the areas of evaluating the university’s efforts in the field of institutional excellence, according to the following Table 6.

Table 6 Frequencies And Percentages Of Experts' Answers About The Degree Of Their Appreciation Of The Importance And Measurability Of The Indicators Of The University Leadership Standard As One Of The Areas Of Evaluating The University's Efforts In The Field Of Institutional Excellence.
#	Statements		Importance		Feasibility
			Important	Not important	Agree	Disagree
1	University leaders actively contribute to developing the university's vision and mission.	F	36		34	2
		%	100.0		94.4	5.6
2	University leaders are selected at all levels in light of clear and legislated criteria.	F	28	8	33	3
		%	77.8	22.2	91.7	8.3
3	University leaders set a good example for those working with them.	F	33	3	28	8
		%	91.7	8.3	77.8	22.2
4	University leaders can communicate effectively with everyone.	F	34	2	34	2
		%	94.4	5.6	94.4	5.6
5	University leaders are keen to support the creative ideas of those working with them.	F	33	3	32	4
		%	91.7	8.3	88.9	11.1
6	University leaders have the ability to manage change with distinction.	F	32	4	33	3
		%	88.9	11.1	91.7	8.3
7	University leaders have the ability to interact with external stakeholders.	F	31	5	29	7
		%	86.1	13.9	80.6	19.4
8	University leaders participate in reviewing and improving the university management system.	F	35	1	35	1
		%	97.2	2.8	97.2	2.8
9	University leaders are keen to involve employees in improvement activities at the university level.	F	35	1	35	1
		%	97.2	2.8	97.2	2.8
10	University leaders are keen to monitor performance according to the indicators of excellence contained in the university's strategic plan.	F	32	4	36
		%	88.9	11.1	100.0	0
11	University leaders are interested in promoting the values ??that support the culture of institutional excellence among workers at all levels.	F	32	4	30	6
		%	88.9	11.1	83.3	16.7
Average percentage			91%	0.20	91%/p>	0.19

It is evident from the previous table that the rate of appreciation of educational administration and leadership experts for the importance of the statements under the field of university leadership in evaluating the university’s efforts in the field of institutional excellence ranged between 77.8% and 97.2%, while the mean percentage of the importance of the indicator was 91%, as well as the case with regard to the measurability of statements as indicators that can be relied upon to evaluate the university's efforts in the field of institutional excellence, the percentage of experts' agreement about its measurability ranged between 77.8% and 97.2%, the mean percentage for measurability was 91%. This indicates the high level of consensus among experts’ about the importance of this criterion and the measurability of its indicators, which indicates its suitability for evaluating the university’s efforts in the field of institutional excellence.

University Policies and Strategies

The following table is a presentation of the experts ’answers about the degree of their appreciation for the importance and measurability of the indicators of the criterion of university policies and strategies as one of the areas of evaluating the university’s efforts in the field of institutional excellence (Table 7).

Table 7 Frequencies And Percentages Of The Study Sample Responses About The Degree Of Their Appreciation Of The Importance And Measurability Of The Indicators Of The Standard Of University Policies And Strategies As One Of The Areas Of Evaluating The University's Efforts In The Field Of Institutional Excellence.
#	Statements		Importance		Feasibility
			Important	Not important	Agree	Disagree
1	The university has a declared strategic plan that contributes to achieving institutional excellence.	F	34	2	36
		%	94.4	5.6	100.0
2	The university prepares its strategic plan based on an understanding of the current and future needs of those involved.	F	34	2	34	2
		%	94.4	5.6	94.4	5.6
3	The university’s strategic plan is based on a comprehensive analysis of the internal and external environments.	F	33	3	36
		%	91.7	8.3	100.0
4	The university's strategic plan takes into consideration the available capabilities and resources.	F	33	3	35	1
		%	91.7	8.3	97.2	2.8
5	The university has a precise mechanism to follow up on the implementation of its strategic plan.	F	32	4	36
		%	88.9	11.1	100.0
6	The university's strategic plan is characterized by the flexibility that helps to adapt to emergencies and potential changes.	F	34	2	34	2
		%	94.4	5.6	94.4	5.6
7	The university's strategic plan is reviewed and updated periodically.	F	33	3	36
		%	91.7	8.3	100.0
8	The university is keen to develop its strategic plan by comparing its performance with its peer universities and making use of its distinguished practices.	F	32	4	34	2
		%	88.9	11.1	94.4	5.6
Mean percentage			92%	0.25	98%	0.09

It is evident from the previous table that the rate of appreciation of the administration and educational leadership experts for the importance of the statements under the area of university policies and strategies in evaluating the university’s efforts in the field of institutional excellence ranged between 88.9% and 94%, while the mean percentage of the importance of indicators (92%), as is the case with regard to the measurability of statements as indicators that can be relied upon to evaluate the university’s efforts in the field of institutional excellence. The percentage of experts’ agreement about its measurability ranged between (94.4% and 100%), the mean percentage for measurability was (98%). This is an indication of the high level of consensus among experts’ about the importance of this criterion and the measurability of its indicators, which indicates its suitability to evaluate the university’s efforts in the field of institutional excellence.

University Human Resources Management

The following is a review of the experts’ answers about the degree of their appreciation of the importance and measurability of the indicators of the human resource management criterion at the university as one of the areas of evaluating the university’s efforts in the field of institutional excellence, as in the following Table 8.

Table 8 Frequencies And Percentages Of The Study Sample Answers About The Degree Of Their Appreciation Of The Importance And Measurability Of The Indicators Of The Human Resource Management Standard At The University As One Of The Areas Of Evaluating The University's Efforts In The Field Of Institutional Excellence.
#	Statements		Importance		Measurability
			important	Not important	Agree	Disagree
1	The university has clear standards for recruitment and promotion that achieve the principle of justice and equal opportunities.	F	34	2	36
		%	94.4	5.6	100.0
2	The qualifications of university employees are commensurate with the nature of their jobs.	F	34	2	35	1
		%	94.4	5.6	97.2	2.8
3	The university has a clear job description that forms a basis for evaluating the performance of employees.	F	33	3	36
		%	91.7	8.3	100.0
4	The university is keen to enhance teamwork and cooperation between employees at the level of individuals and teams.	F	35	1	33	3
		%	97.2	2.8	91.7	8.3
5	The university has clear plans and strategies to develop its human resources.	F	32	4	35	1
		%	88.9	11.1	97.2	2.8
6	The university is keen to attract distinguished talent in all fields.	F	32	4	34	2
		%	88.9	11.1	94.4	5.6
7	The university has various systems to evaluate the performance of employees that allow them to provide them with feedback that contributes to improving their performance.	F	32	4	35	1
		%	88.9	11.1	97.2	2.8
8	The university provides various opportunities to stimulate and support creativity among workers at all levels.	F	33	3	35	1
		%	91.7	8.3	97.2	2.8
9	University systems encourage the empowerment of workers and give them freedom to exercise their duties through delegating powers and assuming responsibilities.	F	34	2	35	1
		%	94.4	5.6	97.2	2.8
10	The university has advanced communication systems that allow communication and dialogue between workers at all levels.	F	35	1	36
		%	97.2	2.8	100.0
11	The university is keen to appreciate and reward distinguished employees.	F	33	3	35	1
		%	91.7	8.3	97.2	2.8
12	The university is keen to provide a suitable job environment for its workers (socially, healthily, and economically).	F	32	4	33	3
		%	88.9	11.1	91.7	8.3
Mean percentage			92%	0.19	97%/p>	0.11

It is evident from the previous table that the rate of appreciation of the administration and educational leadership experts for the importance of the statements mentioned under the area of human resources management at the university in evaluating the university’s efforts in the field of institutional excellence ranged between 88.9% and 91.7%. The mean percentage of importance of indicators reached 92%, the same is the case regarding the measurability of statements as indicators that can be relied upon to evaluate the efforts of the university in the field of institutional excellence. The percentage of experts' agreement about its measurability ranged between 94.4% and 100%, and the mean percentage for measurability was 97%, this indicates the high level of consensus among experts' about the importance of this criterion and the measurability of its indicators, which indicates its suitability to evaluate the university's efforts in the field of institutional excellence.

The Management of University's Partnerships and Resources

The following table includes a presentation of the experts’ answers about the degree of their appreciation for the importance and measurability of the indicators of the university’s partnerships and resources management standard as one of the areas of evaluating the university’s efforts in the field of institutional excellence (Table 9).

Table 9 Frequencies And Percentages Of The Study Sample Responses About The Degree Of Their Appreciation Of The Importance And Measurability Of The Indicators Of The University's Partnerships And Resources Management Standard
#	Indicators		Importance		Measurability
			Important	Not important	Agree	Disagree
1	The university has a body concerned with strengthening the relationship with partners in line with its orientations.	F	34	2	34	2
		%	94.4	5.6	94.4	5.6
2	The university has advanced systems to manage its financial resources in a way that contributes to its continuation and development.	F	33	3	35	1
		%	91.7	8.3	97.2	2.8
3	The university is keen to develop strategies that help diversify its financial resources.	F	36		35	1
		%	100.0		97.2	2.8
4	The university has the capacity to manage buildings, equipment and natural resources sustainably.	F	34	2	33	3
		%	94.4	5.6	91.7	8.3
5	The university is keen to rationalize the use of all its facilities.	F	36		34	2
		%	100.0		94.4	5.6
6	The university is keen to use information and communication technology to support and improve the fields of work at the university.	F	35	1	35	1
		%	97.2	2.8	97.2	2.8
7	The university encourages its employees to invest the available technical resources in improving university work.	F	35	1	33	3
		%	97.2	2.8	91.7	8.3
8	The university is keen to develop a knowledge management strategy in line with its future strategies and directions.	F	34	2	33	3
		%	94.4	5.6	91.7	8.3
9	The university is keen to provide the opportunity for all stakeholders to obtain information and access to useful knowledge at the appropriate time.	F	33	3	33	3
		%	91.7	8.3	91.7	8.3
10	The university is keen to develop systems for protecting intellectual property rights.	F	32	4	34	2
		%	88.9	11.1	94.4	5.6
Mean percentage			95%	0.13	94%	0.16

It is evident from the previous table that the percentage of appreciation of the management and educational leadership experts for the importance of the statements mentioned under the area of managing university partnerships and resources in evaluating the university’s efforts in the field of institutional excellence ranged between 88.9% and 100%, while the mean percentage of importance of indicators 95%, as well as the case with regard to the measurability of statements as indicators that can be relied upon to evaluate the university's efforts in the field of institutional excellence.

The percentage of experts' agreement about its measurability ranged between 91.7% and 97.2%, and the mean percentage of measurability (94%), and this is an indication of the high level of consensus among experts ’opinions about the importance of this criterion and the measurability of its indicators, which indicates its suitability for evaluating the university’s efforts in the field of institutional excellence.

Management of the University's Operations, Services and Products

The following table presents of the experts’ answers about the degree of their appreciation for the importance and measurability of the indicators of the university’s operations management standard, services and products, as one of the areas of evaluating the university’s efforts in the field of institutional excellence, according to the following Table 10.

Table 10 Frequencies And Percentages Of The Study Sample Responses About The Degree Of Their Appreciation Of The Importance And Measurability Of The Indicators Of The Criterion Of Management Of University Operations, Services And Products As One Of The Areas Of Evaluating The University's Efforts In The Field Of Institutional Excellence
#	Indicators		Importance		Measurability
			important	Not important	Agree	Disagree
1	The university is keen to design its core operations considering the needs of the beneficiaries.	F	34	2	33	3
		%	94.4	5.6	91.7	8.3
2	The university is keen to develop its operations by taking advantage of competitors' practices.	F	36		31	5
		%	100.0		86.1	13.9
3	The university is keen to provide guidelines that help improve the level of utilization of its operations.	F	36		36
		%	100.0		100.0
4	The university is keen to apply modern systems standards such as (quality management, health and safety, occupational and environmental health) in managing its operations.	F	35	1	36
		%	97.2	2.8	100.0
5	The university is keen to review and evaluate its operations to ensure its development and improvement of the level of its employees.	F	34	2	34	2
		%	94.4	5.6	94.4	5.6
6	The university is keen to use process re-engineering techniques on an ongoing basis.	F	33	3	34	2
		%	91.7	8.3	94.4	5.6
7	The university is keen to develop its academic programs and professional services in line with the requirements of the labor market.	F	35	1	35	1
		%	97.2	2.8	97.2	2.8
8	The university is keen to effectively market its programs and services.	F	36		35	1
		%	100.0		97.2	2.8
9	The university is keen to follow up and evaluate the level of beneficiaries' satisfaction with its academic programs and services provided.	F	33	3	35	1
		%	91.7	8.3	97.2	2.8
Mean percentage			96%	0.13	95%	0.14

It is evident from the previous table that the rate of appreciation of he administration and educational leadership experts for the importance of the statements mentioned under the area of managing the university’s operations, services and products in evaluating the university’s efforts in the field of institutional excellence, as the percentage of experts’ agreement on its importance ranged between 91.7% and 100%, while the mean percentage of importance of indicators was 96%, as is the case regarding the measurability of statements as indicators that can be relied upon to evaluate the efforts of the university in the field of institutional excellence. The percentage of experts' agreement about its measurability ranged between 86.1% and 100%, the mean percentage of measurability was 95%. This is an indication of the high level of consensus among experts about the importance of this criterion and the measurability of its indicators, which indicates its suitability for evaluating the university’s efforts in the field of institutional excellence (Table 11).

Table 11 Arithmetic Means And Their Rank In Descending Order Of Expert Responses About The Degree Of Suitability Of The Areas To Evaluate The University's Efforts In The Field Of Institutional Excellence According To The Degree Of Their Appreciation Of Its Importance And Measurability
Areas	Importance		Rank	Measurability		Rank
	Arithmetic mean	SD		Arithmetic mean	SD
University leadership	91%	0.20	5	91%	0.19	5
University policies and strategies	92%	0.25	4	98%	0.09	1
University human resources management	92%	0.19	3	97%	0.11	2
University's partnerships and resources management	95%	0.13	2	94%	0.16	4
Management of university operations, services and products	96%	0.13	1	95%	0.14	3
Total marks	93%	0.17		95%	0.13

Ranking of the areas of evaluating the university’s efforts in the field of institutional excellence according to the degree of expert appreciation of the degree of suitability for evaluating the university’s efforts in the field of institutional excellence.

It is clear from the previous table that the degree of suitability in the areas of the proposed model for evaluating the university’s efforts in the field of institutional excellence was high, as the mean percentage of the appreciation of management and educational leadership experts to the degree of its importance ranged between 91% and 96%, as well as the case for its measurability, where the mean percentage for the evaluation of educational administration and leadership experts for its measurability was between 91% and 98% .

With an overview of the results of the second round, we note that the percentage of agreement among the experts regarding the importance of the indicators listed under the five areas 86.1% and 100% in all statements except for one statement where the percentage of experts' agreement on its importance reached 77.8, which is the statement (the university leaderships are chosen at all levels in light of clear and legislated criteria) in the field of university leadership, while the total agreement among experts was not less than 93% in the dimension of importance. Regarding measurability, the percentage of agreement among experts regarding the measurability of the indicators listed under the five areas of measurement ranged between 80.6% and 100% in all statements except for one statement where the percentage of experts' agreement about its measurability reached 77.8, which is the statement: (University leaders represent a good example for those working with them) in the field of university leadership, the overall agreement among experts was not less than 95% in the measurability dimension, which indicates the high approval of the leadership and educational administration experts on the suitability of the proposed model to evaluate the university’s efforts in the field of institutional excellence.

These results are consistent with what the related literature has indicated regarding the importance of institutional excellence, and the need to evaluate the efforts of university institutions in the field of institutional excellence, these results are also consistent with what the results of most previous studies have shown in their emphasis on the insufficiency of the level of institutional excellence in universities, such as the study (Al-Rakf, 2019; Al-Luqan, 2018; Al-Osaimi, 2018; Al-Dabaan, 2016; Ahmad, 2015; Bakr et al., 2019 ) (Table 12).

Table 12 Distributing Expert Responses About Their Opinion Of The Grading Scale Appropriate To Answer The Scale Statements.
Answer	Three-point scale		Five-point scale
	#	Percentage	#	Percentage
Inappropriate	12	33.3	1	2.8
Fairly appropriate	12	33.3	5	13.9
Appropriate	12	33.3	26	72.2
Not specified	-	-	4	11.1
Total	36	100	36	100

Experts' Opinions on the Appropriate Scale Grading to Answer the Scale Statements

It is evident from the previous table that the experts' opinions about the appropriate grading scale have tended towards the five-point grading scale to measure the degree of achievement of indicators which evaluate the university’s efforts in the field of institutional excellence according to the following alternatives: (very high - high - medium - low - very low).

The answer to the third question: “What is the proposed model to evaluate the efforts of institutional excellence in Saudi universities in light of the components of the European model for quality and excellence?”

In light of the results of the study, a proposed model can be presented that can be relied upon in evaluating the efforts of institutional excellence in universities in light of the components of the European model for quality and excellence, which is a tool aimed at measuring the attitudes of the university academic staff towards the level of efforts made by the university in the field of institutional excellence as they are more interactive with leaders at all levels, and more able to observe and understand the nature of relationships and processes within the university.

This tool consists of 50 indicators distributed into five areas to judge the degree of achievement of institutional excellence efforts in universities in light of the standards that represent the components of the European model for quality and institutional excellence, the following is an explanation of the nature of this model (Table 13).

Table 13 The Proposed Model To Evaluate The Efforts Of Saudi Universities In The Field Of Institutional Excellence In Light Of The Components Of The European Model For Quality And Excellence.
The First Area: University Leadership The leadership criterion focuses on the ability of university leaders to achieve the vision and mission of the university, develop the values of excellence, participate in developing and implementing the university management system, the ability to make change, and inspire others to do the same.
#	Indicators	Degree of Achievement
		Very high	High		Medium	Low	Very low
1	University leaders contribute to shaping and developing the university's vision and mission.
2	University leaders are selected at all levels in light of clear and legislated criteria.
3	University leaders set a good example for subordinates.
4	University leaders participate in improvement activities at the university level.
5	University leaders have the ability to communicate effectively with everyone.
6	University leaders are keen to support the creative ideas of subordinates.
7	University leaders encourage subordinates to cooperate and partner in work within the university.
8	University leaders have the ability to manage change with distinction.
9	University leaders have the ability to interact with external stakeholders.
10	University leaders participate - personally and directly - in the process of reviewing and improving the university management system.
11	University leaders are keen to involve employees in the process of reviewing and improving the university management system.
12	University leaders are keen to participate actively in conferences and seminars.
13	University leaders adopt the open door policy with all beneficiaries.
14	University leaders are keen to break hierarchical barriers between them and the workers by visiting them at their worksites and listening to them.
15	University leaders are keen to develop their capabilities in the field of management and leadership.
16	University leaders are interested in change programs that focus on change in culture directed towards institutional excellence.
The Second Area: (University Policies and Strategies) It represents the criterion of policies and strategies, focuses on the university's ability to achieve its vision and mission through a clear strategy that focuses on stakeholders, supported by clear and developed policies, systems, plans, goals, programs and work procedures.
#	Indicators	Degree of Achievement
		Very high	High		Medium	Low			Very low
1	The university has a declared strategic plan that contributes to achieving institutional excellence.
2	The university develops its strategic plan based on an understanding of the current and future needs of those involved.
3	The university's strategic plan is based on a comprehensive analysis of the internal and external environment.
4	The university's strategic plan takes into consideration the available capabilities and resources.
5	The university has a precise mechanism to follow up the implementation of its strategic plan.
6	The university's strategic plan is characterized by the flexibility that helps to adapt to emergency situations and potential changes.
7	The university's strategic plan is reviewed and developed periodically.
8	The university allows direct access to its strategic plan for all those involved in it.
The Third Area: (Human Resources Management at the University) It represents the human resources criterion, focuses on the university's ability to manage and develop its human resources at the individual level, at the level of teams and at the university level, and its ability to communicate with them and motivate them in a way that ensures the release of their energies and abilities and employing them for the benefit of the university.
#	Indicators	Degree of Achievement
		Very high		High	Medium	Low		Very high
1	The university has clear recruitment mechanisms that focus on the merit principle.
2	The qualifications of university employees are commensurate with the nature of their jobs.
3	The university has a clear job description.
3	The university is keen to develop the capabilities and skills of all its employees.
4	The university has clear plans and strategies to develop its human resources.
5	The university is keen to attract distinguished talent in all fields.
6	The university has various systems to evaluate the performance of its employees and provide them with feedback that contributes to improving their performance.
7	The university provides opportunities that stimulate and support creativity among its employees at all levels.
8	The university encourages its employees to participate in the university's activities.
9	The university has advanced communication systems that allow communication between all its employees at all levels.
10	The university is keen to appreciate and reward distinguished employees.
Fourth Area : (University Partnerships and Resources) It represents the partnerships and resources criterion and focuses on the university's ability to excel in planning and managing its partnerships, external relations and internal resources, in a manner that supports its policies and strategy and ensures effective operation, in a manner that achieves a balance between the current and future needs of the university and society.
#	indicators	Degree of Achievement
		Very high		High	Medium	Low		Very low
1	The university has an authority responsible for managing the relationship with partners and suppliers.
2	The university has advanced systems for managing its financial resources.
3	The university has the capacity to manage buildings, equipment and natural resources sustainably.
4	The university is keen to develop strategies that help diversify its financial resources.
5	The university is keen to rationalize the use of all its facilities.
6	The university is keen to use information and communication technology to support and improve the fields of work at the university.
7	The university is keen to develop a knowledge and information management strategy in line with the university's strategies.
8	The university is keen to provide the opportunity for all stakeholders to obtain relevant and useful information and knowledge on time.
9	The university is keen to develop systems for protecting intellectual property rights.
10	The university is keen on the safety and security of information at all levels.
Fifth Area: (Management of the University's Operations, Services and Products) It represents the criterion of operations and services and focuses on the university's ability to excel in designing, managing and improving its processes, services, and products, thus creating additional value for its employees, students and other stakeholders.
#	Indicators	Degree of Achievement
		Very high	High		Medium	Low	Very low
1	The university is keen to design its core operations in light of the needs of the beneficiaries.
2	The university is keen to develop its operations by taking advantage of competitors' practices.
3	The university is keen to provide guidelines that help improve the level of utilization of its operations.
4	The university is keen to apply modern systems standards such as quality management, health and safety, occupational health and environmental - in managing its operations.
5	The university has advanced systems that help develop its operations and improve the level of its employees.
6	The university is keen to develop its academic programs and professional services in line with the requirements of the labor market.
7	The university is keen to effectively market its programs and services.
8	The university is keen to follow up and evaluate the level of beneficiaries' satisfaction with its academic programs and services provided.
9	The university is keen to use process re-engineering techniques on an ongoing basis
10	The university is keen to review its operations to ensure its effectiveness in implementing the university's policies and strategies.

Method For Correcting The Proposed Model

To correct the model and assess the level of the university’s efforts in the field of institutional excellence, a weight is given to the answers of the scale items as follows: very high (5), high (4), and medium (3), low (2), very low (1).

These answers are classified into four levels of equal range, according to the following equation: Class length=(highest value - lowest value)÷number of tool answer choices=(5-1)÷5=0.80 to get the following classification (Table 14).

Table 14 Distribution Of Categories According To The Grading Of The Level Of The University's Efforts In The Field Of Institutional Excellence
Range of Means	Efforts Description
4.21 – 5.00	Very high
3.41 – 4.20	High
2.61 – 3.40	Medium
1.81 – 2.60	Low
1.00 – 1.80	Very low

Based on this distribution, the overall mean is calculated, the degree of the university’s efforts for excellence at the level of each field is estimated, the mean of the five areas combined is calculated, and the overall level of the university’s efforts in the field of institutional excellence is estimated.

Study Recommendations

In light of the results of the study of presenting a proposed model to evaluate the efforts of Saudi universities in the field of institutional excellence, a set of recommendations can be presented that would contribute to improving the university’s level of benefit from the proposed model as follows:

1. Saudi universities have to adopt the proposed model to evaluate their efforts in the field of institutional excellence, provided that the deanships of quality and development in universities undertake the application of the model through their units in the colleges, after preparing the procedural guide that helps the success of the proposed model implementation.

2. Good preparation before applying the model, by spreading the culture of self-evaluation, highlighting its importance in improving the level of performance, and emphasizing the importance of objectivity in the response of the target group in a way that helps the accuracy of the results that will result in making development and improvement decisions in order to reach the university to the stage of institutional excellence.

3. Universities have to use this scale periodically - every semester - as an indicator to judge the extent of the university’s proximity or distance to institutional excellence, so that in light of the results of measuring its performance, it can work to address weaknesses and enhance strengths in performance in a way that helps it achieve results, in the light of which one can objectively judge the university’s excellence.

4. Universities have to work to develop the proposed model and expand its use, by developing it in line with the nature of the target group (academic leaders, employees, etc.).

References

Abbas, Y. (2018). Achieving institutional excellence in Egyptian universities. The International Journal of Quality Assurance, Zarqa University, 1(2), 109-117.

Ahmad, M. (2015). Developing the institutional performance at South Valley University in light of the standards of excellence of the European Foundation for Quality Management: The European model for Excellence Management. Journal of Educational Administration, Egyptian Association for Comparative Education and Educational Administration, 7, 15-176.

Ahmad, S. (2017). Organizational excellence. Journal of Educational Administration, The Egyptian Association for Comparative Education and Educational Administratikon, 14, 11-14.

Al-Ayadi, H.A. (2009). Training course on the model of the European Foundation for Quality Management for Excellence in Higher Education, within the project of re-evaluation and re-engineering of administrative processes, quality unit. Islamic University, translation from the University of Halam Sheffield-UK.

Al-Alfi, H. (2016). The European Model (EFQM) of Excellence and the Requirements for Meeting its Standards at the University of Hail. The Future of Arab Education, 23(104), 12-38.

Al-Ashqar, A., & Al-Hindawi, A. (2017). A proposed vision for achieving the institutional excellence of the faculties of Azhar University in light of the model of the European Foundation for Quality Management EFQM. Journal of Education, Al-Azhar University, 3(175), 611-528.

Al- Dabaan, S. (2016). A proposed strategy to develop the performance of emerging Saudi universities in light of global standards of institutional excellence. PhD Dissertation, College of Education, Umm Al-Qura University, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

Al-Daoud, A. (2017). The responsibility of Saudi universities in achieving the Kingdom's vision 2030. A paper presented at the Conference on the Role of Saudi Universities in Activating the Vision 2030, held on January 11-12, 2017, Qassim University, 356-376.

Al-Hamidi, M. (2019). The role of knowledge management in achieving competitive advantage in Saudi universities: An applied study on Taif University. Journal of Faculty of Education, Assiut University, 35(5), 442-480.

Al-Luqan, M. (2018). The readiness of emerging Saudi universities for institutional excellence in light of the criteria of the King Abdulaziz Award for Quality and Excellence: A case study on the University of Hail. Journal of the Future of Arab Education, Arab Center for Education and Development, 125(115), 16-122.

Al-Olayani, G. (2019). The role of human capital in Saudi universities in achieving competitive advantage in light of the knowledge economy from the point of view of specialized academic leaders. Umm Al-Qura University Journal of Educational and Psychological Sciences, Umm Al-Qura University, 11(1), 1-40.

Al-Osaimi, N. (2018). Developing the performance of consulting research institutes in Saudi universities in light of standards of institutional excellence: a proposed scenario. Journal of Scientific Research in Education, Ain Shams University, 8(19), 325-382.

Al-Rakf, H. (2019). The reality of the application of Excellence Management of the Deputies of the Scientific Departments at Imam Muhammad Ibn Saud Islamic University in light of the criteria of the European model for Excellence. Journal of Scientific Research in Education, Ain Shams University, 13(20), 253-302.

Al-Raqb, T. (2020). The role of Total Quality Management in promoting social responsibility in Saudi universities. The Journal of Education, Sohag University, 72, 879-941.

Bakr, A., Talha, A., & Daoud, A. (2019). Institutional excellence of Egyptian private universities in light of some experiences. Journal of the College of Education, Kafr El-Sheikh University, 19(1), 461-498.

Conference on the Role of Saudi Universities in Activating Vision 2030, held on January 11-12, 2017, Qassim University. Kingdom Vision 2030 document Retrieved from: https://www.saudiembassy.net/sites/default/files/u66/Saudi_Vision2030_EN.pdf

Prospects for the development of higher education. Retrieved from: http://aafaq.mohe.gov.sa

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.

EFQM (2020). Retrieved from: https://www.efqm.org/index.php/efqm-model/.

EFQM (2013). An Overview of the EFQM Excellence Model, Brussels. Retrieved from: http://www.efqm.org/the-efqmexcellence- model.

EFQM (2017). EFQM Global Excellence Award (Recognition Book). Retrieved from: http://www.efqm.org/

Psomas, E., & Antony, J. (2017). Total quality management elements and results in higher education institutions: The Greek case. Quality Assurance in Education, 25(2), 206-223.

Khajeh, M., & Salami, H. (2013). Performance evaluation of Islamic Azad University, Qom branch, using the EFQM organizational excellence model. Education Strategies in Medical Sciences, 6(1), 43-48.

Kok, S.K., & McDonald, C. (2017). Underpinning excellence in higher education–an investigation into the leadership, governance and management behaviours of high-performing academic departments. Studies in Higher Education, 42(2), 210-231.

Nenadál, J. (2015). Comprehensive quality assessment of Czech higher education institutions. International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, 7(2/3), 138-151.

Tasopoulou, K., & Tsiotras, G. (2017). Benchmarking towards excellence in higher education. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 24(3), 617-634.

Zeps, A., Iljins, J., & Ribickis, L. (2017). Integration of EFQM excellence model in RTU development strategy. Pilot project review. In International Scientific Conference, Contemporary Issues in Business, Management and Education, 367-375.