Excellence Self-Assessment: How to Write Evidence Instead of Claims

Why do self-assessment submissions all sound the same?

Many self-assessments are full of phrases such as “the organisation is keen to”, “we apply best practice” and “we place great emphasis on”. These are claims an assessor cannot score, because they do not say what is actually applied, where, or what it achieved.

The problem is not just one of style. In EFQM’s recognition process, for example, the submission document is the assessors’ main working document, and the site visit then gathers evidence through interviews, focus groups and walkabouts. ^[2] Every sentence in the submission is a promise that will be tested.

How does an assessor read what you write?

The EFQM Model assesses organisations using RADAR logic. In the revised second edition of the Model (2021), Direction and Execution are assessed on three elements: approach (sound, with a clear rationale, responding to key stakeholders’ needs), deployment (implemented in relevant areas, effectively and on time) and assessment and refinement (feedback on effectiveness and efficiency is gathered, and trends, measurement and benchmarking drive improvement). ^[1]

The most important rule for the writer: no part of Direction or Execution can score higher than its Sound score. ^[1] If you do not explain why you chose the method and how it links to stakeholder needs, broad deployment will not rescue you.

For Execution specifically, two further attributes apply: the approach should be aligned, supporting the organisation’s direction and integrating with its other approaches, and deployment should be flexible, allowing adaptation to change. ^[1] So state how the approach connects with others, and how it was adjusted when circumstances changed.

EFQM’s chief executive describes the EFQM Model 2025 as the latest version and highlights RADAR logic as a core feature. ^[3] Still, check the attribute names in the guide for the edition you are assessed against.

The same logic in Gulf government models

Government models in the region have their own structures, so do not transfer one model’s criteria to another. The UAE Government Excellence Model, for instance, is presented on the official UAE government portal as GEM 2.1, with three pillars: distinctive value, vision realisation and enablers. ^[4]

The assessment logic, however, is similar. The Abu Dhabi Government Performance and Excellence Model (Version 2, 2026) scores a cycle of plan, implement, check and improve, followed by outcomes: meeting ambitious targets, sustained or improving performance, and favourable comparison with benchmarks. It uses a five-point scale from “None” to “All”, and states that the score for the plan’s foundation caps the scores for its alignment and implementation, while the score for suitable metrics caps the scores for data, improvement and outcomes. ^[5]

The practical lesson is the same in both: start with the foundation, meaning why and how the approach was designed, before writing about its spread and results. Keep a table that maps each criterion in the model you are assessed against to the corresponding approaches and evidence, so the same evidence is not repeated across criteria without adding anything new.

What is the difference between a claim and evidence?

The examples in the table are illustrative. The rule is that evidence answers “what, where, since when, how do we know, and what changed”.

Watch the verbs, too: claims use verbs of intention such as “strive”, “seek” and “emphasise”; evidence uses verbs of action such as “analysed”, “launched”, “reviewed” and “changed”. Changing the verb alone forces you to find the fact that proves it.

A template for evidencing each approach

Write each key approach as a short paragraph in this order, then add a clear reference to the evidence: the name of the document, system or report the assessor can ask for.

• What and why: name the approach as it is known inside the organisation, and state the need or analysis that prompted it.
• Where and since when: specify the departments or services covered, those not yet covered, and the start date.
• How we measure: the indicator, who reviews it and how often.
• What we learned: at least one change that came from a review or comparison.
• What we achieved: the result, with a cross-reference to the results section so figures are not repeated.

Government assessment guides point the same way. The leadership assessment guide issued by the UAE Prime Minister’s Office asks for submissions that are brief, prioritised and evidence-based with quantitative reference points, and encourages links or attachments supporting what is stated. ^[6]

Hypothetical example: rewriting a paragraph on service channels

Before: “The organisation is constantly keen to develop its digital channels in line with best practice, which has had a positive impact on customer satisfaction.”

After: “An analysis of service-centre visits in 2024 showed that most were enquiries about application status. We launched in-app application tracking for all main services, and review phone enquiries and visits monthly. After the first-quarter review we changed notifications to trigger at every status change. Status enquiries have fallen for three consecutive quarters (Service KPI Dashboard report, Appendix 4).”

The second paragraph contains the rationale, scope, measurement, refinement, result and evidence reference. The assessor can question the owner of each element in an interview.

How should results be written?

The EFQM Model assesses results on two elements: relevance and usability, meaning a clear link to purpose, vision and strategy and data that are timely, reliable, accurate and segmented enough to support improvement; and performance, meaning trends, targets, comparisons and future focus based on an understanding of cause and effect. Results cannot score higher than Scope & Relevance. ^[1]

So for every indicator in the submission:

• State why it matters and which strategic objective it serves.
• Show at least three years where available, not a single year.
• Put the target next to the actual and explain any gap.
• Add an external comparison where one exists, and name its source.
• Link the improvement to the approach that produced it.

Common mistakes in presenting results include percentages with no base number, indicators whose definitions change from year to year without explanation, aggregate results that are not segmented by service or group and so cannot guide improvement, and hiding indicators that declined instead of explaining the causes and the plan to address them.

Pre-submission checklist

1. Delete every sentence that starts with “we are keen to” or “we place emphasis on” and is not followed by evidence.
2. Check that every approach has a written rationale linking it to stakeholder needs.
3. Check that scope of deployment is specified: which departments or services, and since when.
4. Cite at least one improvement that resulted from a review, with its date.
5. Check that every figure in the results has a data source you can show.
6. Ask a colleague who did not write it to ask “how do we know?” of every paragraph.

Conclusion

A good self-assessment is not a marketing report about the organisation; it is a map of evidence the assessor can verify. For each approach, write its rationale, scope, measurement, refinement and result, and always start with the foundation, because its score caps what is built on it.