Home / Services / Business Excellence
Performance practice · Excellence models
Business excellence, evidenced in practice.
An award submission is read once; the operating discipline behind it is read every day. If you are entering SKEA, DQA or an EFQM recognition cycle, or want to know how you would score, we build the evidence the model asks for and prepare you the way it will be examined: evidence first, narrative second, and no claims the site visit cannot survive.
The award programmes
Know the model you will be judged against.
The UAE's excellence awards share a common ancestry but are run by different authorities, and the model they assess against is revised periodically. Submissions written against a superseded edition read as dated before an assessor finishes the first section. Business excellence consulting starts here rather than at the submission: EFQM consulting against the EFQM Model 2025, and the organisational excellence disciplines the assessors will actually test.
| Framework / award | Administered by | What to know |
|---|---|---|
| EFQM Model 2025 | EFQM | Structured around Direction, Execution and Results. Earlier model editions are superseded; entrants are assessed against the edition the award administrator names. |
| Sheikh Khalifa Excellence Award (SKEA) | Abu Dhabi Chamber | The Abu Dhabi excellence award, based on the EFQM model. |
| Dubai Quality Award (DQA) | Dubai Department of Economy and Tourism | Dubai's business excellence award for private-sector organisations. |
| Government excellence (GEM) | Sheikh Khalifa Government Excellence Program | Government excellence in the UAE operates under the Government Excellence Model, a distinct system with its own assessment logic. |
How the work runs
Prepared the way assessors examine.
Award cycles are unforgiving of improvisation. The work runs in the same order an assessment does: score candidly, build the evidence, rehearse the scrutiny, and grow the internal capability so the next cycle needs less of us:
Diagnostic scoring and gap assessment
A structured assessment against the EFQM Model 2025 (Direction, Execution, Results), scored the way an assessor would score it rather than the way an internal review would prefer to. The output is a gap map ordered by scoring impact.
Submission document architecture and evidence
The submission built as an evidence structure rather than a writing exercise: every claim traced to a result, a process or a record that a site visit can verify. Narrative polish comes last, and only over substance.
Mock site-visit assessment
A rehearsal conducted with the rigour of the assessment itself: interviews, evidence walkthroughs and challenge on the weakest claims. Findings feed back into the submission and the operation while there is still time to act on them.
Capability mentoring
Your excellence team mentored through the cycle in model logic, self-assessment technique and evidence discipline, so the capability stays in the organisation after the cycle ends.
A necessary caution: no consultant can promise an award or a score. Assessment juries are independent, and any promise to the contrary should end the conversation. What we build is genuine readiness: an organisation whose evidence, on the day, supports its submission.
Typical deliverables
What an engagement typically produces.
Configured to scope; a proposal states exactly which apply.
- Diagnostic scoring report
- Gap and priority plan
- Submission document architecture
- Evidence file structure
- Mock-assessment reports
- Excellence-team mentoring plan
Is this the right service?
Right when an assessment is in sight.
- A SKEA, DQA or EFQM cycle is planned and the submission must survive a site visit.
- Leadership wants a candid score against the EFQM Model 2025 before committing to a cycle.
- A previous cycle scored below expectation and the gaps need ordering by impact.
- Tenders ask for a certificate, not an award: ISO 9001 and its siblings serve procurement requirements.
- The weaknesses an assessor would find are operational: close them first through Operational Excellence.
- Performance management, not recognition, is the underlying gap: Strategy & Performance.
Scope boundary
Conflicts and programme rules.
A practitioner who holds an assessment or judging role that creates an actual or perceived conflict for the applicant must be excluded from that engagement, and the conflict must be disclosed and managed under the applicable programme rules.
The client remains responsible for complying with the programme's eligibility, submission and disclosure rules, including any conflict-of-interest or external-support declaration that applies.
Delivery
A named Engagement Lead.
The proposal names the Engagement Lead responsible for coordinating the business excellence consultancy work, client communication and delivery. A second senior practitioner, not involved in day-to-day delivery, provides quality review. Team size is configured to scope: a diagnostic scoring exercise is a compact assignment; a full award cycle is a programme.
How we work →Questions buyers ask
Straight answers.
Is there such a thing as EFQM certification?
No. EFQM operates assessment and recognition, not certification: an organisation is scored against the EFQM Model 2025 and may earn recognition through its programmes, but there is no certificate of conformity to a standard. A tender that asks for a certificate is asking for a management system standard, most commonly ISO 9001, which is a different engagement. We deliver both and can tell you which one the requirement in front of you actually calls for.
Can you guarantee an award, or at least a score?
No, and neither can anyone else. Award and recognition decisions are made through the programme's appointed assessment and judging process. ExSolution prepares the organisation and its evidence but does not control or guarantee the outcome. What rigorous preparation changes is the relationship between your submission and your reality, so that site visits confirm rather than contradict. That is the outcome we work towards.
Which EFQM model will we be assessed against?
The EFQM Model 2025, structured around Direction, Execution and Results. Submissions, self-assessments and internal scoring built on earlier editions need restructuring, not relabelling: the model's logic changed along with its headings. Reviewing your material against the edition the award administrator names is usually the first task of an engagement.
Is this only worth doing if we intend to enter an award?
No. A diagnostic scoring against the EFQM Model 2025 examines how the organisation is directed, how it executes and what results prove it. Many organisations let the score decide whether an award cycle is the right next step: entering before you are ready can cost a year, and knowing your score in advance does not.
Business Excellence Governance Readiness Index
Our diagnostic suite includes a structured self-assessment for organisations weighing an excellence cycle: the questions an assessor would ask, arranged for you to answer first.
Experience across sectors and systems.
Explore representative anonymised assignments across government, aviation, healthcare, retail and real estate, manufacturing, and maritime services.
Considering an award cycle?
Tell us which award, which cycle, and where your last self-assessment landed, or whether one exists. We aim to respond within two business days.
Related: Strategy & Performance · Integrated Management Systems