la calidad total en la universidad: ¿podemos hablar de clientes?

TOTAL QUALITY FOR UNIVERSITY:

MAY WE TALK ABOUT CUSTOMERS?

Marta Alvarez Alday

Associated Professor of Universidad Comercial de Deusto.

Apartado 20.044.- 48080 Bilbao (España). Phone: 94 413 90 43. Fax: 94 445 73 81. e-mail:

[email protected]

The philosophy of total quality management, initiated by Deming (1986) and later further

developed, has been successfully applied in the business sector as a new way of thinking

about organisations which are facing a new world situation. This new organisational working

model is based on a sensitivity towards those who are identified as clients, the ones who

receive the benefit of the products or services both inside and outside the organisation. The

whole organisation should share the same vision of its clients and how best to serve them.

The experience of many companies which have managed to survive and grow thanks to

total quality management has, in recent years, generated a series of defenders of its application

to higher education, although up to the present moment, only a few higher education

institutions have ventured along this path. However, there is an increasingly growing number

of writers like Peterson (1995) who believe in Total Quality Management or Continuous

Improvement as a new potential focus on quality. The introduction of this focus on quality

into the university supposes the development of a culture based on continuous improvement,

client-orientation, measuring and benchmarking; a focus based on teamwork and individual

responsibility. For Peterson (1995: 146, 149), “this complex management focus promises to

put an end to many traditional teaching practices. And not only does it suppose changes in

administrative processes, but it will also especially bring new ways of understanding the

teaching / learning process, the research process, the efforts required by interdisciplinary work

or the use of technological networks.”

Indeed, it is considered that quality can be applied to the university in three phases:

- The first phase would be to apply quality methods to administration

management. This is probably the easiest focus, which supposes a lesser threat to

teaching staff, and would be the expected first step in many centres. Most of these

feel that it will be easier to reach teaching staff once success in the administrative

area has been demonstrated. Inasmuch as university administration processes are

similar to company ones, it may well prove easy to implement such quality

methods. Yet their impact on education itself will be either low or insignificant,

even if the administrative task is improved and money is saved.

- The second stage involves introducing quality management courses. This focus

will have an immediate effect on both teachers and students on these courses, with

two possible consequences, both of which will be positive: if students involve

themselves in projects to improve processes in the centre itself, many other people

will take notice of what can be achieved by quality methods. If in addition, teachers

in their own classes are real practitioners of that quality which uses quality

management methods, the results with regards to student behaviour and

performance will serve as examples for other subjects and other teachers. At the

TOTAL QUALITY FOR UNIVERSITY: MAY WE TALK ABOUT CUSTOMERS?

MARTA ALVAREZ 2

same time, if students do learn quality techniques, they themselves will transmit the

new teaching and learning medium. In general, incorporating a new course or

subject on quality is usually relatively easy (AACSB, 1995a and Labein, 1994 ),

although if the results mentioned here are to be obtained, the philosophy of total

quality management has to be deeply rooted at least at the level of the teaching

staff. The mere putting on of a course about quality will not bring about any

significant advances.

- Finally, using total management quality control as a way of life inside the

centre can become an aspiration. This implies absorbing the philosophy and

methodology into the whole organisation. All this implies that continuous

improvement should be present not only in back up and administrative tasks, or in

classes, but that all aspects of the centre should be affected including research,

student-tutoring, academic and extra-academic activities, although the field of

research seems to be the one which presents most difficulties for applying the

philosophy (AACSB,1995a: 4). In any case, it does appear difficult to get

everybody committed to embarking upon the task, that is, the difference between

wanting and doing. Quality methodology provides both the tools and techniques for

it. To quote the opinion of the College of Business at Oregon State University

(Parker et al., 1995: 224):” The spreading of total quality has progressed in our

organisation. Total quality principles have been introduced into our programmes,

many teachers are practising it and a team of teachers are working very hard to turn

the college into a total quality organisation. One of the unexpected consequences of

our analysis is that there is a long, hard road ahead for us to work on in our

continuous improvement to achieve our objectives.”

To reach this third phase, with total quality management having become the higher

education institution’s way of life, requires reflection of two fundamental issues: key activities

and clients, both of which will be considered below.

1. KEY ACTIVITIES

First of all, it is necessary to define the product. Although Van Vught and Westerheijden,

in an excessively technical focus, identify the higher education product with graduate and

process with a programme, it seems clear that the student is not a product. In any case the

product would be the education of the student, and, to be more precise, what the student

knows and what s/he is capable of doing (i.e. knowledge and skills). In terms of the EFQM

(1995: 8) the product is the value added to the knowledge, skills and personal development of

s/he who is learning.1

However, this focus might be considered too narrow: it would be necessary to ask what the

essence of higher education is, and following these lines, the product would be the process of

learning for both student and teacher. In this sense the philosophy of total quality implies the 1 An increasing effort to integrate values as an essential part of the student’s education is being appreciated more and more.


MARTA ALVAREZ 3

need of not only for the teacher, but also for the student, to take an active part in the design

and creation of their own learning process and in the continuous improvement of this process.

For Engelkemeyer (1995), the majority of quality initiatives in higher education do not

attack the very core of the process / product of education. The product of higher education is

delivered with the curriculum, which is of the teachers’ dominion; but since teachers normally

resist change, most quality initiatives begin, but as has already been mentioned, in back up

services. In his opinion, a dual quality process bringing both changes into harmony would be

desirable. In this sense, teachers should develop and modify the curriculum in accordance with

the different segments of their clients, including students and employers among others.

Meade (1996b) has represented graphically the two great areas of Quality Management in

the University: organizational effectiveness and quality of education.

Areas of Quality Management in the University

ORGANISATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS QUALITY OF EDUCATION

ADMINISTRATION TEACHING SUP P ORT ACADEMIC AREA

Exhibit 1.

Exhibit 1 purports to reflect how important quality in the teaching/learning process in the

academic area really is: this implicates student and teacher, and not organizational

effectiveness which belongs to the realm of quality management in the administration, and

even to teaching support tasks. To achieve quality in education, educator and quality expert

must join together. This is not merely a question of applying Total Management Quality tools

to the classroom, but rather one of integrating these tools into student/teacher interaction with

a view to increasing the learning process with the help of specialists in education. At present,

least importance is being given to this, yet it is where the greatest impact lies.

Barnett (1992) proposes an integrated scheme by grouping into four the key activities

characterising an institution which is seriously concerned about the quality of the higher

education it offers. These four activities affecting quality can be structured as appears in

Exhibit 2 (on the following page).

The essential activity can be seen in the centre of the diagram: student learning and

educational development. Surrounding this are the four educational activities which influence


MARTA ALVAREZ 4

in the quality of this core activity: quality of education (method), of process of student

evaluation, quality of the courses and also of the programme for staff development ( inasmuch

as it is oriented towards improving teacher efficiency). These four activities constitute a safety

belt which guarantees the quality of the student’s experience. They are common to any higher

education institution and are elements which cannot be avoided when revising the

performance of an institution.

Around this circle is a ring of auxiliary institutional activities with an important, though

less direct, influence on the quality of the student’s educational experience. They can vary

from one institution to another and indicate the type of activity which each one wishes to

invest its greatest efforts in and which it wishes to be judged for.

In order to reach the very nucleus of higher education, student learning and educational

development, it is convenient to go into the key activities in more depth, and to try and

identify the possible relations between those who offer and clients. Tribus (1995) makes an

initial analysis from the student’s perspective, which I feel could be completed by teachers,

the business community and other participants in society. The table presented in Exhibit 3 will

serve as an initial thought-provoking example.

Structure of an institution’s activities affecting quality (Barnett, 1992: 113).


MARTA ALVAREZ 5

Exhibit 2

To close this section, it is necessary to underline the importance, which has been

mentioned above, of the concept of higher education underlying this whole approach. Four

categories might be considered:

- Knowledge, which enables us to understand what we learn in relation to what we

already knew. Knowledge can be theoretical or practical. Theoretical knowledge

gives us the ability to generalise from unique situations.

- Knowing how to, which enables us to do, to put our knowledge to work. Just as

knowledge can be organised into different classes of intellectual behaviour which

can be taught as subjects, knowing how to makes us demand the organisation of

knowledge from the different areas of learning, and it is impossible to put barriers

against these areas of learning.

- Wisdom, which is the ability to distinguish what is important from what is not so.

Wisdom enables us to establish priorities when we analyse our time, energy and

emotional resources.

- Character, which could be understood as a combination of knowledge, knowing

how to and wisdom along with motivation. Character development is usually


MARTA ALVAREZ 6

recognised by certain characteristics such as honesty, initiative, integrity, capacity

for teamwork and co-operation among others.

Traditionally, higher education has centred on knowledge and knowing how to, when it is

becoming increasingly obvious that what the business community, society in general and the

very development of the individual are all calling out for lies in serious consideration of the

two latter aspects.2

Services and Relations in Higher Education (After Tribus, 1995: 19)

Customer

Students Teachers

Supplier Services

Administrators

Governing bodies

Sys tem ManagementCurriculum desi gnAdviceLeadershipMaterials and equipment

Sys tems development and analys isMaterials and equipment

Policy

Teachers

Parents

Industry

Administrators Materials and equipment

Higher Education System

Knowledge, wisdom, know-how, andcharacter of the graduates and post-graduates .

Higher Education system Knowledge, wisdom,

know-how, andcharacter of the graduates and post-graduates .

Teachers TeachersKnowledge, know-how, and character of the previous course s tudents

Teachers Students Feedback on learning process

Exhibit 3

2 Again, most worthy of mention are the considerable efforts being made by the University of Deusto, as a University of the Roman Catholic Church, in tackling this problem,, with a view to considering as one of its key objectives the development of a series of values both in its students and in its teaching staff, with the impact of this on society. See Echeverría (1998).


MARTA ALVAREZ 7

2. CLIENT ORIENTATION.

The two basic questions which any higher education institution, whether it be public or

private, must ask itself are: what is our mission? and, who are our clients? To define who the

client is in higher education is one of the most difficult tasks, especially if we bear in mind the

resistance, coming above all from teachers who refuse to consider students as such. In the

traditional view of the teacher, he is the one who pours out his knowledge and wisdom on the

student, the one who, whenever the case of a student’s low performance arises, rationalises in

a relatively easy fashion with claims such as, “they come badly prepared from school, they are

accustomed to memorising, they don’t pay enough attention, they aren’t prepared enough etc.”

Lewis and Smith (1994: 91) point out that : “teachers see themselves relegated to the role of

mere clerks when the student is considered a client.” They observe that in the traditional

model the teacher has been considered as the only generator of knowledge and in

consequence, classes were designed in terms of the teacher rather than those of the student.

However, it is becoming increasingly necessary to reflect upon the true role of the student in

higher education.

As the first stage in changing attitudes, going from considering students as an object to

transform or as input to considering them as clients who “are listened to” (Wolverton, 1995:

238) could be taken into account. The second would be for them to be participants or co-

producers, and the final one would perhaps see them as the contracting party.

The criteria of the Baldrige Award (NIST, 1995) make use of the generic term “client” to

identify users of products and services. Although market success depends above all on user

preferences, establishing requisites of the organisation must also take into account other social

factors. In this sense, it must be borne in mind that the success of an organisation may also

depend on satisfying legal, environmental or any other type of requisite. The criteria adopted

in the “Education Pilot Criteria” (NIST,1995), consist of distinguishing between students and

social contributors among whom are included parents, employers, other centres of education,

society etc. Within students, a distinction is made between present and t students with a view

to clearly defining the needs of both. The needs of present students are more concrete, specific

and immediate; determining those of future students is part of the centre’s planning and has to

take into consideration the changes in student population and the needs which will have to be

covered. One of the main challenges facing centres is to bridge present student needs with

those of the future, which requires effective strategies of change towards learning.

Therefore, higher education has other groups of clients, whether they be defined as users or

social contributors (NIST, 1995) or as beneficiaries (EFQM, 1995) and they can be resumed

as follows:

- The business world of potential employers which must be supplied with high

performance staff prepared for the challenges and demands of a post in a constantly

changing environment.

- Families, who generally provide financial resources and who demand guarantees

and information about student progress and employment rates, for example.


MARTA ALVAREZ 8

- Potential students who need to know how the programmes and services of each

centre can cover their own needs and expectations in order to be able to choose the

corresponding centre.

- Former students, who have to be considered and looked after so that they may

assess their experience and wish to contribute to the centre which gave them their

formation. Furthermore, they may need continuous education.

- Society in general, which needs the strength of competent work, leaders and

followers, service volunteers, active citizens and above all, the recuperation of

values such as solidarity and fraternity or honesty, all of which are indispensable for

social regeneration.

It should be noted that there are few writers who include teachers as clients, although it is

felt they ought to be seen as fundamental internal clients, for as a last resort, the key factor in

education quality is the professional and human category of the teacher (García Garrido,1997).

Moreover, each teacher will be a client of the teacher who gives classes to the same students

in previous years. Finally, I would like to point out that teacher satisfaction should be a

priority objective in higher education due to the motivating nature of the teachers’ task and the

contagious influence they can have on students.

Lewis and Smith (1994: 92-93) set out one of the most ample classifications in which a

distinction is made between internal and external clients. They classify the internal ones as

academic (students, teachers, and include programmes and departments), and administrative

(among whom students are again to be found, employees and units, divisions or departments).

For them all external clients can be direct (employers and other centres and universities) and

indirect (the state, the community, former students and donors).

Exhibit 4, which follows, shows client range in higher education.

Higher Education Clients


MARTA ALVAREZ 9

Internal

Students

External

Society

Other Higher Education Centers

GovermentFamilies

Potencial Students

Former Students

Employers

Teachers

Sponsors

Non-academic Staff

Exhibit 4

Although a certain consensus of opinion about the recognition of these groups of clients

may well exist, there are serious discrepancies with regards to three delicate aspects: the

conception of the student as a client, identification of the main client and, consequently, the

modification of the student/teacher relation.

2.1. IS THE STUDENT A CLIENT?

It is generally considered that the first step to be taken if total quality management is to be

applied is for the student to be seen as the client who is to be served. However, this is one of

the most conflictive issues, and there are certainly opinions in all senses.

On the one hand, it is possible to proceed from a totally commercial standpoint, like that

presented by Ritzer (1996: 187) which was developed in the United States as the consumer

society par excellence, where student behaviour is exactly the same as that of any buyer

demanding good service, quality courses and a low price. In this scheme, higher education

would have to be thought of in terms of a consumer product, and Ritzer expressively explains

it in his concept of McUniversity, considering that the student has the same expectations in

front of university as he has in front of McDonalds.

The opposite extreme denies any feature of the student as client. According to this line of

argument, the student does not know what he wants and so nobody should play at satisfying

his wants by seeking to satisfy him. One of the greatest exponents of this is Barret (1996: 203

& 205), who harshly criticises Seymour (1992) and considers the objective of satisfying

students to be degrading. He even goes as far as to condemn false degrees which only seek


MARTA ALVAREZ 10

student recruitment through satisfaction of their desires, forgetting the basic commitment of

higher education to develop knowledge and reason.

The general current seems to flow between the two extremes: Barret is criticised for his

confusion between student desires and needs (Harvey, 1996: 183) and also for his

presumption that students do not know what is good for them and if they are allowed to

choose, they will always opt for what is easiest, for the law of minimum effort (Moon and

Geall, 1996: 271). It is necessary to emphasise that adopting a client-focused approach does

not mean making presents of pass grades to the students. At present no easy learning process

exists. Neither does it mean attending all their demands. Teacher responsibility is still crucial,

but it must not be forgotten that academic freedom is no excuse for fostering incompetence

and inertia (Beattie, 1995: 294).

The student, on the other hand, cannot be considered as a mere buyer or as a passive

receiver of a product: his participation in the teaching / learning process must be taken into

account (Hansen and Jackson, 1996: 212). There is an ever-increasing consensus of respect

towards the student as both client and participant. In Mendiluce’s (1996) words: “ It is indeed

an exceptional client who takes active part in his own process of formation.” And the

expression “client “ is becoming more and more frequent, and especially that of “co-

producer,” but not that of “king” (Dill,1995), which demands a re-thinking of the

student/teacher relationship, which will be commented on below.

Meade (1996a) recognises that considerable advances have been made with the

introduction of quality into the academic area through the interpretation of the terms of

processes of education / learning and he distinguishes a student profile as a client and co-

producer (a client of the library, the computer centre, the cafeteria, book shop and so on) and

the co-producer of the academic programme (responsible for his own learning). In Meade’s

opinion, the adoption of the concept of process allows the role of the student in the classroom

to be identified as the active co-producer of an educational service, and that of the teacher as a

promoter of the quality which adds to the process, thus creating a new paradigm in education.

Student Profile (Meade: 1996b)

CO-PRODUCER

CLIENT

“ Empowerment” (responsible for

own learning)

Team work

Pride in work carried out

Satisfaction with service rendered

Needs covered

Advance in expectations

Exhibit 5

At a more advanced stage, Engelkemeyer (1995) observes that the teacher, in general, does

not consider the student as a “client” in the sense that in any client-supplier relation

expectations must be communicated, negotiated and agreed upon. In a mutual learning


MARTA ALVAREZ 11

environment what can and cannot be offered has to be very clear. The student must be given

the contents and the structure of the curriculum and a list of back up services and his feedback

must be obtained. As for students, they are very capable of informing teachers about how

effective they are in carrying out established objectives.

In effect, what seems most logical is to remember rights and obligations. The practice of

several centres which have developed total quality management models has involved the

setting out of a clear, transparent scheme of the obligations and rights of both student and

teacher and of the services of the institution which are laid out in writing in documents such as

the “Student’s Manual”3; that is, contractual obligations are acquired between the institution

and the student, not only between the student and the institution. Rowley (1997: 7) goes

beyond this and defends the establishing of a service contract with the student from the

beginning, as a means of managing the expectations and perceptions in order to obtain more

positive quality judgements. Parasuraman et al . (1988) developed a procedure for quantifying

the client’s perception of the quality of the service known as SERVQUAL, since which other

methods (Black, 1995; Joseph and Joseph, 1997; Nadeau, 1995a ,b and c) have been

prospering.

2.2. WHO IS THE MAIN CLIENT?

In spite of the fact of being unanimous when identifying the clients as a group, each writer

gives more importance to some clients than to others. In specific terms, the argument usually

turns around whether to consider either students or employers as main clients.

The general trend is to see students as principal clients: thus, Oregon State University, for

example, states among its basic principles that “ alumni are its most important clients”

(Coate,1990: 23) ; again, Bonstingi defends the fact that “ the student must be recognised as

the University’s biggest client” (quoted in Lewis and Smith, 1994: 107). Nevertheless, writers

such as Johnson (1992: 183) feel that it is the potential employer who should be considered

the most important client. This idea is well argued by Wambsganss and Kennett (1995: 39)

who see the identification of the client and the determination of his needs as the first step to

applying total quality management. They argue that although from the traditional standpoint

the pupil has been seen as the client because he pays the bill, receives education as a service

and, what is more, without him programmes and universities would not exist, total quality is

not a traditional concept. Deming had already warned of the existence of curious exceptions

where the person who foots the bill is not the client who has to be served. Organisation should

be oriented towards the final user. In the words of the Dean at Northwest Missouri State

University: “We conclude that in the classroom, the student, together with the teacher are two

providers generating a product (knowledge) which a future client (employer) will evaluate." If

the student is considered to be the client, a series of problems may emerge because student

needs do not usually coincide with those of the employer (final user). It is obvious that when

students do not have the qualifications sought by employers, the educational centre is

generating a bad service not only for the employer, but also for the student who cannot find

work. (This is even negative for society in that graduates are not incorporated into working

life, and when they are incorporated, they are handicapped). In the opinion of these writers, it

3 See, for example, the case of the Bradford Management Centre (Bartels, 1996).


MARTA ALVAREZ 12

is the students themselves who have to consider future employers as their clients, and thus see

their education as a process of preparation to satisfy those needs.

This does not mean that higher education centres should have companies dictate their

curricula to them, but rather that they should make an effort to find out their needs and try and

integrate them into their curricula. Continuous improvement can be translated as a permanent

effort to satisfy employer needs. Chen and Rodgers ( 1995: 46) summarise it thus: “We are not

suggesting that business people redo the curricula. What we are suggesting is that non-

financial support, by means of ideas and communication, is important for the higher education

system which prepares workers for the future.”

The apparent conflict about who the main client is, is solved by Engelkemeyer (1995: 137)

by considering students as the main internal clients and potential employers as the main

external ones. However, there is no doubt whatsoever that both are key clients for higher

education: students with regards to the teaching / learning process and employers due to the

combination of knowledge, capacity, skills and abilities accumulated by students.

Nonetheless, it is felt that here it must be pointed out that the University has a fundamental

service mission with society and the assumption of its scientific, cultural and social

responsibilities, which go beyond covering the needs of students and employers. (García

Garrido, 1997; Deusto University, 1993; Michavila and Taabatoni, 1997).

2.3. RELATION TEACHER/STUDENT

One of the greatest difficulties when considering Total Quality Management in education is

the complexity of its interrelations. It is not just a question of tools and processes, not even

one of results or evaluation. Nor is it even for Langford and Cleary (1995) , continuous

improvement. To try and manage with quality by imitating any of these features is to be

doomed to failure. For these writers, quality is a new way of seeing and thinking about he

relationship between teacher and student. This relationship is framed within a fundamental

context which includes comprehension, the practice and the belief that make learning possible

and at the same time increase it. Langford and Cleary call this context “quality learning”

because it is deeply rooted in the basic principles of the philosophy of total quality

management defined by Deming.

This new focus in the teacher/student relation, supposes taking the student’s development

potential as a reference. To do this, it would be necessary to adopt the client focus represented

in learning results (competence), commit the student to his learning process through the

creation of working groups and set up continuous improvement by way of student evaluation

of the course and of the teaching. (Hansen and Jackson, 1996: 211). Other writers even start

from the idea that quality in education could be what makes learning a pleasure and a game.

From this point of view it is important for the teacher to get the student to involve himself in

discussions about what he has learnt, to have a real interest in what he is learning and in

continuing to learn, to ask himself about his own learning and wish to share it with everybody.

It is not to be forgotten that people learn best when they feel the need to know something. In


MARTA ALVAREZ 13

total quality, it would be necessary to improve both teaching and learning. Teaching supposes

that the teacher shows how to solve problems, but learning is only achieved when the student

is capable of solving his problems. In this sense, the teacher has to try and waken student

interest in learning, in their need to learn, but not through fear (by announcing an examination

in the immediate future) but by creating an adequate environment. Within this framework, the

only objective of examinations would be to improve the learning process and they would be

seen as the necessary feedback, both for students and teachers, on the effectiveness of the

student’s learning process and on how to improve it.

Olian (1995: 62) goes into the scheme in greater depth and sees Total Quality as having the

purpose of improving the learning process, not only among students, but among teachers as

well, since each one is the client of the other. By treating students with respect, asking their

opinion about most class themes through questions designed to elicit ways to improve

teaching or to find out the points of each class to gauge learning and identify comprehension

problems, their preferences in subject order, choice of guest teachers, materials and study aids

etc., the teacher becomes a promoter of learning. This can be expressed in terms of intelligent

organisation or they learn (Senge, 1990; Senge et al., 1995; Badoux, 1995; Langford and

Cleary, 1995) exactly in the way presented in Exhibits 6 and 7. (Adapted from Langford and

Cleary, 1995: 151).

Evolution of teacher/student relation

Teachers

Students

Do to Do with Enable

All-Knowingprovider

Passiverecipient

Expert/coach

Learningparticipant

Facilitadorintellectualprovacateurmentor

Activeself-learninglearner

Do f or

Master

Slave

Exhibit 6


MARTA ALVAREZ 14

Process in Time

Exhibit 7

In summary, it can be concluded that the consideration of the student as a client is not

universal and many times meets the opposition or resentment of teaching staff. (Bateman and

Roberts, 1995a). Of course the student is not a client in the sense that the buyer of a Honda or

a Chrysler is, where the client’s being right is presupposed. Students are not the only clients,

nor is their only role that of clients. However, it must be recognised that the idea of the student

as a client is healthy in order to eradicate the paternalistic conception that teacher knows what

is best for his students, which can lead to complacency, to stagnation, to the lack of checking

what is being learnt and the presumption that student needs coincide with teacher interests. Or

what is even worse, it may lead to the acceptance of low student performance. However, the

idea of students as clients serves as an incentive for teachers to assume the responsibility for

the success of the teaching/learning process and therefore, to show interest in methods which

will improve this process. If to this is added the consideration of the student towards the

teacher, it is felt that a good starting point to improve higher education has been established.


MARTA ALVAREZ 15

BIBLIOGRAPHY

AACSB (AMERICAN ASSEMBLY OF COLLEGIATE SCHOOLS OF BUSINESS)

(1995a): “New Models of Management education conference”. Newsline, vol. 25, nº 2,

págs. 20-21.

AACSB (AMERICAN ASSEMBLY OF COLLEGIATE SCHOOLS OF BUSINESS)

(1995b): “Corporate Interest Keeping Business Schools on Quality Track”. Newsline,

vol. 25, nº 2, págs. 1-5.

ASQC (1995): “TQM EN LA UNIVERSIDAD”. Reproducido con atuorización de la ASQC

(American Society for Quality Control). Aula Abierta, págs. 23-30.

BADOUX, B. (1995): “Practising the Learning Organisation”. Seminario organizado por Peat

Marwick y el Management Center Europe, Universidad Comercial de Deusto, Bilbao,

18 y 19 de Diciembre.

BARNETT, R. (1992): Improving Higher Education. Total Quality Care. The Society for

Research into Higher Education & Open University Press, Buckingham.

BARRETT, R. (1996): “Quality and the Abolition of Standars: arguments against some

American prescriptions for hte improvement of higher education”. Quality in Higher

Education, vol. 2, Nº 3, págs. 201-210.

BARTELS, F. (1996): “TQM en Bradford Management Center”. Charla mantenida en

Universidad Comercial de Deusto, Bilbao, 13 de marzo.

BATEMAN, G.R. y ROBERTS, H.V. (1995): “Total Quality for Professors and Students”. En

Roberts, H. (ed.): Academic Initiatives in Total Quality for Higher Education. ASQC

Qualit Press, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

BEATTIE, J.F. (1995): “Assessment in Higher Education”. Higher Education Management,

vol. 7, nº 3, págs. 281-296.

BLACK, S. (1995): “Measuring the Critical Factors of Total Quality Management”. En

EFQM: 12 Fresh Views on TQM: A selection of Research projects entered for the

1994 European Quality Award for Theses on Total Quality management. Bruselas.

CHEN, A.Y.S. y RODGERS, L. (1995): “Teaching the teachers TQM: Total quality

management as practiced at Milliken & Co. has lessons for teachers-and their

students”. Management Accounting, Mayo, págs. 42-46.

COATE, L.E. (1990): Implementing Total Quality Management in a University Setting.

Oregon State University, Corvallis.

COLE, B. R. (1995): “Applying total quality management principles to faculty selection”.

Higher Education, 29, págs. 59-75.

DEMING, W.Q. (1986): Out of the crisis. MIT, Center for Advanced Engineering Study,

Cambridge, Mass.

DILL, D.D. (1995): “Through Deming’s eyes: a cross-national analysis of quality assurance in

higher education”. Quality in Higher Education, vol. 1, págs. 95-110.

DRUCKER, P. F. (1973): Management: Tasks, Responsabilities and Practicess. Heinemann,

Londres.


MARTA ALVAREZ 16

ENGELKEMEYER, S.W. (1995): “Total Quality: A Mechanism for Institutional Change and

Curriculum Reform”. En Roberts, H. (ed.): Academic Initiatives in Total Quality for

Higher Education. ASQC Qualit Press, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

EUROPEAN FOUNDATION FOR QUALITY MANAGEMENT (EFQM) (1995): Self-

Assessment. Guidelines for Public Sector: Education. EFQM, Bruselas.

FREEMAN, R. y VOEHL, F. (1994): “ISO 9000 in TRAINING and EDUCATION: A VIEW

to the FUTURE”. En Lewis, R. G. y Smith, D. H. (1994): Total Quality in HIGHER

EDUCATION. St. Lucie Press, Delray Beach, FL.

GARCIA GARRIDO, J.L. (1997): “Tendencias de los sistemas educativos de cara al siglo

XXI”. Ponencia dentro del ciclo “Educación. Una incógnita en el cambio actual” del

Forum Deusto, UNIVERSIDAD DE DEUSTO, Bilbao, 17 de abril.

HANSEN, W. L. y JACKSON, M. (1996): “Total Quality Improvement in the Classroom”.

Quality in Higher Education , vol. 2, nº 3, págs. 211-218.

HARVEY, L. (1996): “Editorial”. Quality in Higher Education, vol. 2, nº 3, págs. 177-184.

JOHNSON, H.T.(1992): Relevance Regained. The Free Press, Nueva York.

JOSEPH, M. y JOSEPH, B. (1997): “Service Quality in Education: a student perspective”.

Quality Assurance in Education, vol. 5, nª 1, págs. 15-21.

LABEIN (eds.) (1994): Análisis de la situación internacional de la gestión de la calidad en

centros de enseñanza. FVFC, Bilbao.

LANGFORD, D.P. y CLEARY, B.A. (1995): Orchestrating Learning with Quality, ASQC

Quality Press, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

LEWIS, R.G. y SMITH, D.H. (1994): Total Quality in Higher Education. St. Lucie Press,

Delray Beach, FL.

MEADE, D. (1995): “Managing Quality by Devolution”. Higher Education Management, vol.

7, nº 1, págs.63-80.

MEADE, D. (1996a): “El profesor de calidad”. Ponencia en el Congreso de Orientación

Universitaria y Evaluación de la Calidad: Sección II: Evaluación de la Calidad en la

Enseñanza Superior. ICE de la UPV/EHU, Bilbao, 23, 24 y 25 de octubre.

MEADE, D. (1996b): “La brecha Universidad-Empresa”. Ponencia en la Conferencia

Internacional de Experiencias en Calidad: Educación y Empresa, FORO

GUIPUZKOA XXI, San Sebastián, 7 y 8 de noviembre.

MEADE, D. (1997): “Los programas de calidad han de adaptarse a cada campus”. El correo:

suplemento nuevo trabajo, Domingo, 9 de febrero, pág 5.

MENDILUCE, J. (1996): “Sistema de gestión de la Calidad de Mondragon Eskola

Politeknikoa”. Ponencia en la Conferencia Internacional de Experiencias en Calidad:

Educación y Empresa, FORO GIPUZKOA XXI, San Sebastián, 7 y 8 de noviembre.

MICHAVILA, F. y TABATONI, P. (1997): “Alternativas de mejora y evaluación

institucional”. Ponencia presentada en la Jornada Internacional Universidad y

Calidad: Valores, estrategias y gestión de la calidad en la Universidad. Universidad

Ramon Llull, Barcelona, 9 de Mayo.

MILL, J.S. (1962): Utilitarianism. Collins, Glasgow.

MOON, S. y GEALL, V. (1996): “Total Quality Management: disciplines and detractors”.

Quality in Higher Education, vol. 2, nº 3, págs. 271-273.


MARTA ALVAREZ 17

NADEAU, G. G. (1995a): Criteria And Indicators Of Quality And Excellence In Colleges

And Universities In Canada. Summary Of The Three Phases Of The Project./Critères

Et Indicateurs De Qualité Et D’excellence Dans Les Collèges Et Les Universités Du

Canada: Bilan Des Trois Phases Du Projet. Centre for Higher Education Research

and Development, University of Manitoba, Canada.

NADEAU, G. G. (1995b): Institutional and International Validation of Criteria and

Indicators of Quality in Higher Education. University of Moncton, Canada.

NADEAU, G. G. (1995c): Q & E Project: Research Group on Quality and Evaluation in

Higher Education../ Groupe de recherche sur la qualité et l’evaluation en

enseignement supérieur. University of Moncton, Canada.

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY (NIST) (1995):

Education Pilot Criteria 1995. Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award. NIST,

Gaithersburg.

OLIAN, J.D. (1995): “Experimento de implantación de TQM en la Universidad”. Forum

Calidad, nº 61, págs. 58-65.

PARKER, F.D.; BROWN, D.J. y KALDENBERG, D.O. (1995): “Incorporating Total Quality

into a College of Business”. En Roberts, H. (ed.): Academic Initiatives in Total

Quality for Higher Education. ASQC Qualit Press, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

PETERSON, M.W. (1995): “Images of Univesty Structure, Governance and Leadership:

Adaptive Strategies for the New Environment”. En Dill, D.D. y Sorn, B. (eds.):

Emerging Patterns of Social Demand and University Reform: Trhough a Glass

Darkly. International Association of Universities y Pergamon Press, Oxford.

RITZER, G. (1996): “McUniversity in the Postmodern Consumer Society”. Quality in Higher

Education, vol. 2, Nº 3, págs. 185-199.

RODRIGUEZ VIDARTE, S. (1992): “La Universidad como Empresa de Servicios”. BEE,

Vol. XLVII, Agosto, Nº 146, Págs. 275-298.

ROWLEY, J. (1996): “Measuring Quality in Higher Education”. Quality in Higher Education

, July 1996, vol. 2, nº 3, págs. 237-256.

ROWLEY, J. (1997): “Beyond service quality dimensions in higher education and towards a

service contract”. Quality Assurance in Education, vol. 5, nº 1, págs. 7-14.

SENGE, P. (1990): The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization.

Doubleday Currency, Nueva York.

SENGE, P. con ROSS, R.; SMITH, B; ROBERTS, Ch. y KLEINER, A. (1995): La Quinta

Disciplina en la Práctica. Estrategias y herramientas para construir la organización

abierta al aprendizaje. Granica, Barcelona.

SEYMOUR, D.T. (1992): On Q: Causing Quality Management in Higher Education.

Macmillan, Nueva York.

TRIBUS, M. (1995): “Total Quality Management in School of Business Engineering”. En

Roberts, H. (ed.): Academic Initiatives in Total Quality for Higher Education. ASQC

Qualit Press, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

UNIVERSIDAD DE DEUSTO (1993): Proyecto Universitario Deusto. Universidad de

Deusto, Bilbao.


MARTA ALVAREZ 18

VAN VUGHT, F.A. y WESTERHEIJDEN, D.F. (1993): Gestión de la Calidad y Garantía de

la Calidad en la Enseñanza Superior. Métodos y Mecanismos , Nº 1 Studies Series of

the Task Force Human Resources, Education, Training and Youth, Octubre de 1993.

WAMBSGANSS, J. R. y KENNETT, D. (1995): “Defining the customer: When Universities

adopt TQM, future employers-not students- should be seen as customers”.

Management Accounting, Mayo, págs. 39-41.

WOLVERTON, M. (1995): “The Business College at Arizona State University: Taking

Quality to Heart”. En Roberts, H. (ed.): Academic Initiatives in Total Quality for

Higher Education. ASQC Qualit Press, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

la calidad total en la universidad: ¿podemos hablar de clientes?

Documents