TQM in Higher Education - Literature review Example

Literature Review According to Andrea Luxton 2005, all aspects related to quality in higher education can be divided into Quality Management and Quality Improvement. Quality management refers to the structures in the education system that help in resolving the management issues while quality improvement refers to specific improvement processes and best practices which can be chosen by educational institutes to fit into their systems. According to the author, the end results of implementing TQM in higher education should be an open institutional culture, high satisfaction level among students, employees and recruiters, commitment to quality improvement, measurable evidence of quality improvement, open communication between departments and self confidence. According to the author, the internal quality management process should complement external accreditation and quality management decisions must have linkage with the overall strategic plan. The quality management plan needs to be supported by facts. Efforts should be made to develop a culture of learning within the institution. The procedures used for quality management should be measurable, comprehensible and manageable. Also there should be enough space for feedback. The quality management plan has to be driven from the top but the management process is the responsibility of faculty, staff as well as students. A central driving committee has to be formed along with several subcommittees depending upon the size of the institution. The institutes must follow a continuous improvement cycle such as a PDCA cycle. The proposed structure for quality management by the author is shown in Figure 1. Figure 1: Proposed institutional structure for Quality Management Source: Andrea Luxton 2005 According to Andrea Luxton 2005, quality improvement can be of two types – academic and non academic improvement. Academic quality improvement starts with the faculty members and extends to the department and school levels. Feedback is the most important in ensuring faculty improvement. At school level, there should be cross-marking and departmental approvals on syllabi and grades to ensure quality. There must be exit interviews as well as alumni surveys to reflect upon the performance. On the non-academic front, changes need to be made to ensure great campus, positive staff attitude, great spiritual environment, less bureaucracy and an enriching student life. According to Gary A. Berg 2008, a large amount of research on Total Quality Management has been focused on for private organizations. However, TQM has been widely used in student service and education fields. Lozier and Teeter (1993) were among the first researchers to focus on application of TQM to higher education. These researchers stress on stakeholder satisfaction as the most significant aspect of TQM in higher education. Juran defined quality as fitness for use and Crossby as conformance to requirements. However, Deming’s definition of is to follow quality as surpassing customer needs and expectations is the one that applies the most to higher education. One of the approaches to quality in higher education is to follow ISO 9000 in educational setup. According to this approach, the staff can be trained to control the behavior of the students (who are customers) rather than their ideas. A combination of responsive systems, implementation framework and staff empowerment would enable successful implementation of ISO 9000 in higher education system. However, some researchers have suggested a change in the education process by eliminating non-productive activities and hence improve the quality of higher education. According to H.J. De Jager & F.J. Nieuwenhuis 2005, there are three important features of TQM in educations according to a specific TQM model. These are leadership, scientific methods & tools and problem solving through teamwork. These three features are integrated to form a great organizational climate, a healthy training & education environment and provision of meaningful data. Customer service acts as the focal point of this model. The authors emphasize on the use of an Outcomes based approach in implementing TQM within the higher education system. According to this approach, all learners have the capability to learn and succeed. It is the responsibility of educational institutes to optimize the conditions needed for their success. The outcomes based approach differs from the traditional competency based approach aimed at completing a fixed syllabus by the teacher or the trainer through textbooks and lectures. The outcomes based learning is driven by the learner based on certain intended outcomes. The source of knowledge or skills needed to achieve those outcomes may be any. There is a stress on critical thinking, reasoning and action. The outcomes in this approach are determined by a wide range of internal and external customers. According to the authors, the shift from competency based to outcomes based learning is similar to the total quality movement seen in business and manufacturing set-ups. In both TQM and Outcomes based learning, the focus is on establishing the key outcomes based on customer expectations. The strategies and processes within the organization are then customized to deliver those outcomes. As TQM stresses on change in processes to ensure quality, outcomes base approach suggests changes in learning systems to ensure student quality. The outcomes based model proposed by the authors in realtion to TQM is shown in Figure 2. Figure 2: Key principles of Outcomes Based Education in relation to TQM Source: Jager & Nieuwenhuis 2005 According to Nina Becket & Maureen Brookes 2008, there are some challenges in managing quality in higher education. One of the challenges is that quality has different meaning for different stakeholders. Sometimes these meanings may be totally contradicting. External stakeholders consider quality in terms of quality assurance. Accountability, audit and assessment are a part of this aspect of quality. Many a time, this form of quality is imposed as a result of external regulatory pressures. For internal stakeholders, the concern is also regarding quality enhancement along with quality assurance. They aim for overall increase in quality through efficient and effective learning, teaching and innovation. Therefore, these stakeholders aim to rise above just fulfilling regulatory norms. This leads to a culture of quality management and continuous improvement within the institutes. The second big challenge is the complicated nature of educational product. The product of education system can be perceived different by different people. Some may consider it as the start of a learning process, others as end of learning. Some may consider it as result of efficient teaching, others may consider as a source of employment. Hence, the outcomes are both tangible and intangible. The value added may be noticed immediately or after a number of years. Therefore, because of different expectations of different people, it becomes difficult to apply TQM in education. Harvey and Knight have made an attempt at breaking quality in educations into five dimensions. These are exceptional, consistency, fitness for purpose, value for money and transformative. One of the widely acknowledged models for quality in education is Quality Management in Education (QME) model by Srikanthan and Dalrymple. The three core elements of this model are focus on transformation, synergistic collaboration and encouragement by senior management. According to Saba Rana 2009, the application of total quality management and continuous improvement to education may seem optional for the time being. But sooner or later, they would be made mandatory by external accreditation councils. When this happens, the institutes who already have quality systems in place would have a considerable edge over others. The author distinguishes between quality enhancement and quality assurance in education. The former aims at continuous improvement in the education system while the latter aim at maintaining standards from compliance to external bodies. According to one of the TQM models for higher education suggested by Bradley, the trainees are teachers, faculty members as first line managers, administrators as middle managers and board for education as board of directors of the institution. The model also describes the job responsibility of all members where board and dean are responsible for planning and innovation while the faculty and administration are facilitators and implementers. One of the higher education commissions has created a roadmap for TQM implementation in education industry. The first phase of this framework comprises of input in form of human, physical and financial resources. The second phase is the process management phase where internal stakeholders work on the implementation of quality principles through a learner centered approach. The third phase is the output which consists of knowledgeable and satisfied students. According to Sanjaya Mishra 2006,the quality dimensions in higher education can be defined as shown in Table 1. These dimensions are based on SERVQUAL and other models. Table 1: Quality dimensions in higher education According to the author, quality in education can be assessed by self-evaluation, benchmarking and external monitoring. This is facilitated by use of tools such as process flow chart, graphs, Pareto analysis, Fish bone diagram, scatter diagram, check sheets, control charts and brainstorming. Certain standard methodologies such as Baldrige criteria, ISO 9000:2000, Capability Maturity model and Six Sigma can be used for large scale changes or reengineering of systems. According to Mary Anderson 2004, the Australian higher education institutions have always striven for quality. Large changes were made in Australian universities in the 1980s. These included mergers of colleges with universities and granting of university status to many institutions. These changes were based on the belief that they would have an impact on the economy. The Australian universities brought improvements in their efficiency and accountability while realizing the benefits of economies of scale. These universities were provided additional funds by the government to enable quality assurance practices. However, most of the universities were self-accrediting and lacked external control. Australian Universities Quality Agency was formed to address this limitation. The author also gives example of the Swedish experience in implementing quality in higher education. Here the processes in the universities were decentralized and an improvement led model was followed. The funds were provided to institutions based on their performance and the quality models were customized as per the needs of each institution. National Agency for Higher Education was established in Sweden in 1995 to monitor and review the TQM initiatives in Swedish universities. Allan Schofield 1998 discusses the importance of benchmarking for implementation of TQM in higher education. Benchmarking has been effectively used in higher education in U.S and Canada. Benchmarking was developed in U.S. by Xerox Corporation and later adapted by other organizations. APQC is the main benchmarking organization in the U.S.. APQC proposes a Clearinghouse benchmarking methodology which proposes a cyclical improvement process. National Association of College and University Business Officers (NACUBO) is the main driver of benchmarking for American universities. It encourages the use of best practices and data by universities to improve operations. It also arranges training workshops for the same. The data provided by NACUBO is a comparative data which can be used by individual universities for benchmarking, TQM implementation and Process reengineering depending upon their needs. Along with NACUBO, there are several other quality improvement projects in progress in American universities. The quality initiatives in Canadian Universities remain limited to performance indication. This was also introduced with growing pressure from local magazines and government. Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada (AUCC) came up with performance indicators but they were not well accepted by the universities or the public. Most of the universities prefer to use their own list of performance indicators. Therefore, there has been an avoidance of public participation in quality assurance by Canadian universities. Najafabad, Sadeghi and Habizadeh 2008 cite an example of University of Boras for successful implementation of TQM. In this university, the visions and goals are driven from the top by the board. The board is supported by a coordinating committee or a quality council and several other committees. Some of these are Committee for Sustainable Development, Committee for Equality and Multiplicity, Committee for Evaluation and Self-Assessment and Internationalization Committee. There are quality coordinators and quality improvement teams who work according to the quality improvement policies. There are regular assessment audits to find problems and areas of improvement. There are clearly defined roles and responsibilities. Every department is involved in quality improvement in one way or other. The university has also used ISO14000 as a tool to tackle environmental issues. 2. References Luxton, Andrea 2005, ‘Quality Management in Higher Education’, Higher Education Management Series, Number 2 Anderson,Mary 2004, ‘TQM in Higher Education: The Australian and Swedish Experience’, Monash University Business and Economics Schofield, Allan 1998, ‘Benchmarking in Higher Education’, Commonwealth Higher Education Management Service, UNESCO Jager, H.J. D & Nieuwenhuis, F.J. 2005, ‘Linkages Between Total Quality Management and the Outcomes based Approach in an Education Environment’, Quality in Higher Education, Vol. 11, No. 3, November 2005 Becket, N & Brookes,M 2008, ‘Quality Management Practice in Higher Education – What Quality Are We Actually Enhancing?’, Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism Education Volume7,Number 1, pp. 40 – 54 Najafabadi,H, Sadeghi,S & Habizadeh,P 2008, ‘Total Quality Management in Higher Education-Case Study: Quality in Practice at University College of Boras’ Berg, Gary A. 2008, ‘Total Quality Management in Higher Education’, IGI Global, Chapter 6.9 Brookes, Maureen, ’Quality Management in Higher Education: A Review of International Issues and Practice’. International Journal for Quality and Standards Mishra, Sanjaya 2006,’Quality Assurance in Higher Education: An Introduction’, National Assessment and Accreditation Council, Bangalore, India & Commonwealth of Learning, Vancouver,Canada Rana, Saba 2009, ‘Quality Management in Higher Education- A perspective’, 2nd CBRC, Lahore, Pakistan, November 14, 2009 Read More