quality: an organising principle for higher education

Higher Educarirm Quarterb Volume 46 no. 1, Winter 1992 0951-5224 $2.00

Quality: An Organising for Higher Education? Principle

Robin Middlehurst, Education

Centre for Higher Education Studies, Institute of

Abstract

This paper discusses the barriers and oppmnitites facing higher education when assessing the usefilness of ‘quality as an organising principle’ for institutions. Four general definitions of quality are dentif id alongside a number of operational dimensions of quality. Both internal and external pressures towards quality of performance and service are outlined. Private sector and higher education quality systems are examined, and conclusions are drawn which emphasize the challenges ahead for leaders of higher education inStitutionS.

Introduction

In 1982, a leading article in the Times Higher Educational Supplement predicted that ‘quality’ would become an organising principle for higher education in the 1980s. In 1991, Bendell, writing for the Department of Trade and Industry and chiefly with a business audience in mind, predicted that the 1990s were set to be the ‘Decade of Quality’, especially in Europe. Quality is clearly of interest across private and public sectors, as similar clarion calls from health-care, schools or further education well demonstrate. It is also an area in which interest has been sustained for at least ten years, and for considerably longer, if one substitutes the word ‘standards’ for ‘quality’.

Although different issues will be emphasised in debates about quality at different periods of time, the recurrent themes are concerned with satisfactory - or better - performance, management and delivery of services or products. The present debate about quality has two particular features which make it an interesting and potentially important area of study: its range of application across and within sectors and the variety of perspectives that are being drawn into the debate, whether from philosophy, politics, sociology or economics.

Quality: An Organising Principle? 21

In evaluating the debate, there are opportunities to acquire new frames of reference, to question existing practices and to transfer useful ideas across sectors. However, barriers will also exist when considering the match between public and private sector concepts and applications of quality, since the purposes, economic foundations and cultures of the two areas of enterprise are different. This paper a i m s to examine notions of quality in current use within the two contexts of business and higher education, so as to clarify the opportunities and difficulties which exist in making quality an organising principle for higher education in the 1990s and beyond.

How is the concept of quality understood?

There are at least four different ways in which the term quality is commonly used within the present debate (Moodie, 1991; FEU, 1991). Problems are caused because these different conceptions are used simultaneously as well as separately.

Firstly, quality refers to a defining characteristic or attribute of something, as for example, a quality of a vine is that it bears grapes, a quality of a person is that he or she is a sentient being, or a quality of a soprano is that she possesses a singing voice with a specific pitch or timbre.

In the second instance, the term quality is used to refer to a grade of achievement. Here, some comparison is involved, since quality is defined as relative to other representatives of a type or category. Vintage champagne, for example, is identified as being of better quality than non- vintage champagne; a porcelain cup is seen as a better quality drinking vessel than a pottery cup. However, there are complications here since there may be still finer distinctions of quality within any one category, as for example, when one vintage champagne is regarded as of superior quality to another.

The last example leads us to a third association of the term quality, and one which is widely used in higher education (see for example, Elton and Partington, 1991; Marsh, 1991). This association is with a particularly high level of performance or achievement which, by virtue of general consensus and reasonable stability over time, comes to be seen as a standard against which to judge others. The source of the consensus may initially be narrow, resting with those with the expertise to pass judgement, but in due course is likely to widen and become more generally accepted. When such a point is reached, quality in this sense may be perceived as clear-cut, objective, almost absolute rather than

22 Higher Education Quarterly

relative, carrying the image of a ‘gold standard’. Examples of this form of quality, often labelled ‘excellence’, might be Shakespeare as a poet, Einstein as a scientist or Michelangelo as an artist. A standard is set which becomes a model or point of aspiration for others; it will remain as an embodiment of ‘quality’ until such time as the consensus is disturbed. Disturbance of this kind can be seen, for example, in the post-modernist movement which is currently influencing many areas of intellectual thought.

A more mundane example of the link between quality and standards might include criterion-referenced examinations such as music or driving tests, where achievement is recognised when a pre-set standard is reached. The emphasis here is not on some ideal and distant standard of excellence but on specified and measurable standards. The judgement as to the choice of pre-determined standards is set by a panel of experts who are invested with the authority to define the level of performance to be attained. The National Council for Vocational Qualifications (and its equivalent Scottish body) have taken on such a role in the establishment of competence levels and standards across a range of vocational areas.

A fourth definition which is widely used in manufacturing industry and which is now gaining prominence in other sectors, refers to quality as ‘fitness for purpose achieved through conformance to specifications’ where the specifications are set by the customer or by the customer and supplier in joint negotiation. This interpretation allows for great variety in product or service ‘quality’, reflecting the variety of present and potential suppliers and purchasers in any sector and their different specifications for a product or service. The defining of quality is open rather than fixed, judged by the value attached to the product or service by the customer and arrived at through the supplier reaching, in a rigorous and systematic fashion, the required specifications.

At first glance, it seems that this fourth interpretation has removed the value element linked to most ideas of quality, or at least, to have shifted its compass from the observer to the object itself (that is, from quality being in the eyes of the beholder, to quality being a defining characteristic of the product or service) as in the first sense of quality, identified above. However, in practice, the authority for assigning value still lies in the observer’s domain, distributed between a number of ‘observers’ or stakeholders. The customer must decide whether or not the product or service is of a quality suited to his or her own purposes and requirements; the supplier must establish a system and an organisation which is capable of producing products or services to the specifications identified; and an external agency or panel is also often involved. These external groups will


either prescribe the standard to be reached or will offer independent recognition of achievements in the area of quality when measured against certain criteria or when measured against the relative achievements of others in the same field. The British Standards Institution is one example of such an agency and the Malcolm Baldridge National Quality Award in the USA, is another example, not unlike the Oscar awards in the field of drama. If John Major’s plans for ‘Charter Marks’ - to be awarded for the achievement of excellence in public services - come to fruition, there may soon be more examples of this kind in the UK.

If all these different constituencies agree that quality has been achieved (ie. internal and external groups, participants, funders and beneficiaries) then it can probably be said that quality is a defining characteristic of the product or service in question, so bringing different definitions of quality into closer alignment.

In summary, then, it is clear that most, if not all, popular ideas about quality are value related and judgemental. What seems to be at issue is where the authority for the assignment of value sliould rest. It is in this area that the practice of business and higher education has traditionally been different. Within higher education, authority to define quality has rested largely with the professionals within institutions, as providers of educational services, as well as to external professionals as judges of the quality of those services, or as purchasers of the services, for example in the field of research.

In the commercial sector, more emphasis has usually been placed on the front-line customer, although shareholders have also been important. The current debate on quality has resulted in a still greater emphasis by the private sector on customer satisfaction as the key focus for the quality efforts of a business. As a result of this refocusing, the identity of ‘the customer’ has also been subject to careful analysis and redefinition in many cases. There are strong echoes of this emphasis now to be heard in the educational debate on quality (Horwitz, 1990; Pollitt, 1990b).

At this point it will be helpful briefly to explore the motivations for addressing the issue of quality in public and private sectors, as these are likely to shape both the nature and outcomes of the present debate.

Why should quality be of increasing significance in the 1990s)

For the private sector, the arguments which support a concentration on quality are predominantly socio-economic, In an increasingly competitive global economy (competitive because of escalating production costs as well as the numbers of competitors in the market) survival is believed to


depend on producing and supplying quality products, viz, those fit for purpose in accordance with customer requirements. Attention to quality is promoted as a means to achieve an increased market-share.

It is also argued that lack of attention to quality is a major source of direct costs, as for example in manufacturing: the costs of rejects and repairs, warranty costs, inspection and prevention costs. Indirect costs are also involved: the loss of customer confidence and support or the cost of product liability legislation (Bendell, 199 1). As customers’ expectations shift with changes in social, educational or economic conditions, so their demand for quality products and services is likely to increase, requiring a continuing emphasis on the maintenance and improvement of product quality (Oakland, 1989). For these reasons, if not also for others, quality must become a key business focus or ‘organising principle’ in the private sector.

Strong economic pressures can also be seen in the public sector, although they are often filtered through a political lens. At a time of scarce financial resources and increased pressure on public expenditure, analysis of quality provides a means to decide priorities (either at system or institutional level) or a justifcation for the differential allocation of funds. Analysis of costs, as in the private sector, also provides a means of reducing public expenditure through value-for-money and efficiency gains (Taylor, 1989). With the achievement of such gains, greater opportunities can be provided, for example for students, as a result of the wider range and number of learning opportunities on offer. Unfortunately, the opposite situation can also prevail: learning opportunities may be reduced if value-for-money considerations lead to a ‘rationalisation’ of programmes.

Political concerns emerge more strongly in relation to accountability. In the 1 9 8 0 ~ ~ government emphasis was placed broadly on institutional accountability for the use of public funds; today that emphasis is moving in the direction of specified outcomes, where accountability must be explicit and measurable, as the recent White Papers indicate (1991). Such an emphasis continues a long-running government theme of improving the quality of public sector management through closer attention to planning, measurement and control (Pollitt, 1990a).

More subtle socio-political pressures are also at work behind the discussions about quality within the public sector. Raising questions about the nature of quality (whether in health care, local government or higher education) provides an opportunity to break into the traditional territory of professional groups and to expose their consensus about quality to public scrutiny. In so doing, still more fundamental matters are raised concerning the function and purpose of public sector organisations. As


Moodie points out in relation to higher education: ‘It is the kind of higher education provided that is becoming the real matter of dispute’, between the constitutencies of government, business and the professionals (Berdahl, Moodie 81 Spitzberg (ed) 1991, p. 9). The need to re-examine institutional purposes, and to press for alternative notions of quality to those traditionally promoted by the suppliers of public services, is justified on the grounds of widening participation or choice for clients of the system, whether in the interests of democracy, economic necessity or social justice.

Pressures towards quality from within institutions Until now, attention has been focused chiefly on external pressures relating to quality. Within institutions, interest in quality emerges from at least two other directions, sometimes perceived to be in opposition to each other.

Quality is of interest to management since it can provide a management tool, a focus for planning, organisation, and control. As Taylor (1989) notes,

‘the use of performance indicators,. personal appraisal and institutional evaluation, facilitates social and instituuonal discipline. Transgressions and poor performance are more visible earlier and non-litigious remediation can more readily be initiated.’ (p. 10)

On a more positive note, the process of establishing the criteria upon which quality will be judged will also necessitate an analysis of group or institutional purposes and objectives. Out of involvement in this process and through the establishment of a more explicit and sharply focused framework for effort, Taylor argues, the commitment and motivation of organisational members may be increased.

For as long as quality has been of interest to management (if not for longer), it has been of concern to professionals, as implied above. Indeed, quality is intimately linked to the concept of professionalism, being related both to the conduct of a professional’s working life and to hidher commitment to high levels of achievement in the pursuit of objective, intellectual and altruistic outcomes (see, for example, Flexner, 1930, p. 30). Rothblatt (1968) describes the nineteenth-century ‘professional man’ as one who ‘thought more of duty than of profit. The gratitude of his client rather than the market defined his reward . . . He earned his reputation by discretion, tact and expert knowledge’ and he was involved with his clients at a personal, intimate level rather than operating ‘like a businessman’, within an impersonal market situation (p. 91-2). Echoes of such an ethic still remain in higher education.


The effort to achieve high levels of performance, personally and in a particular discipline or field, is perceived to be a defining characteristic of professionals, part of a specific code of behaviour to which they are committed. It is not my purpose, here, to investigate the degree to which this professional commitment to quality is honoured in practice, but rather to point out that the subject of quality is of intrinsic interest to professionals within the public sector, as well as being of importance to management. The perspectives on the subject provided by each group will not necessarily by the same, particularly as the authority for d e f w quality rests in separate domains.

To complete this brief overview of the context of the current debate about quality, one further factor must be highlighted. Many parts of the public sector are at present subject to a range of new initiatives. In the Health Service, trust hospitals and GP fund-holders will serve as examples; while in education, the development of a National Curriculum and national assessment stages, the introduction of National Vocational Qualifications (NVQs), the establishment of Training and Enterprise Councils (TECs), the expansion of student numbers and kinds of students and the unification of the two sectors of higher education, all provide evidence of a number of changes in progress. Discussions about quality have been fed and coloured by institutional responses to these initiatives.

Operational analyses and dimensions of quality Until now, the term ‘quality’ has been used ubiquitously with reference to institutions and organisations. More usefully, the topic can be divided for purposes of analysis and action into various dimensions.

Firstly, quality is often discussed in terms of inputs, processes and outputs, with particular attention being paid to quality in relation to an organisation’s performance and delivery of quality outcomes. Discussed in these ways, the meaning of quality comes close to that of effectiveness; indeed, valuable insights can be gained in relation to the debate on quality by considering the literature which deals with institutional effectiveness (Yorke, 1984).

Within higher education, inputs, processes and outputs can be translated at a macro-level into material, fmancial and human resources as inputs; management and academic activity (research, teaching, consultancy) as processes; and student learning, graduate achievement , completed contracts, publications and inventions, as outputs. At a micro-level, one can include factors which relate to each of these dimensions; for example, as inputs: the qualifications of students, professional experience of staff or equipment levels of laboratories; as processes: the range of teaching and


learning activities or research methodologies and areas; and as outputs, employers’ views of graduates or reports from professional bodies (Frazer, 1991).

In the area of performance, quality is affected by the institution’s ability to generate sufficient resources of an appropriate calibre, and its ability to utilise and capitalise upon the potential of these resources to achieve maximum advantage (for the institution, its members and its clients). In order to succeed in the delivery of quality outcomes, a range of different constituencies must be satisfied, from students and various groupings of professionals, to employers, funding agencies, community representatives, parents and society at large. As several authors have pointed out (for example, Pollitt, 1990b; Johnston, 1989), a major difficulty which service industries face in relation to quality is the number and variety of ‘customers’ to be satisfied, some of whose interests or requirements are in direct conflict with each other.

Beyond categorizing those elements which contribute to the identification and creation of quality, it is also necessary to specify the means by which quality can be achieved. Here, further classifications are commonly used, namely, quality control, quality assurance and quality assessment. They refer both to the different levels at which responsibility for ensuring quality rests and to the different systems and processes used to facilitate its achievement.

In higher education, quality control lies largely in the hands of academic staff; it is their (professional) responsibility to use methods and to design activities which will lead to the delivery of quality outcomes. In manufacturing, quality control is usually undertaken by front-line employees, the term being used to refer to the techniques and procedures employed (often checks and inspections) to ensure that products conform to specifications.

A useful aid to analysing and operationalising the constituents of quality at this first level of quality control, is the notion of ‘quality characteristics’, or in the terminology of business, the ‘quality specifications’ for products or services. Stewart and Walsh (1989) identify a number of characteristics which will apply in local government, for example: ‘speed of delivery, where timeliness determines the value of the service; ease of access, since service can be denied in barriers to access; freedom from mistakes, where failure cannot be rectified after the event’ (p. 10). An example of still more detailed characteristics, from within the field of higher education, can be found in Colling’s list of over one hundred ‘Effective Teacher Behaviours’ (1990). These include: ‘teacher shows enthusiasm for subject, selects medium appropriate to the purpose, monitors students’ progress, shows


evidence of lesson planning, reiterates and summarizes key points, acknowledges students’ achievement, among a host of others. Attempting to clarify in detail those characteristics which are necessary to the achievement of quality, and then collecting data which provide informa- tion about their attainment, are important aspects of the quality control stage.

While responsibility for quality control is expected to lie at the point of delivery of the service or at the production stage, and to be in the hands of those ‘at the coal face’, quality assurance is usually defined as a management responsibility. The term refers to the mechanisms and procedures which are carried out to ensure that the control stage is working effectively or that standardised procedures are being followed. The totality of these mechanisms and procedures, the assigned responsibilities and the areas or functions to be covered, makes up a ‘quality assurance system’ (FEU, 1991). In higher education, quality assurance operates at various levels: departmental, faculty, institutional, as well as externally, through bodies such as the Council for National Academic Awards (CNAA), the Universities’ Academic Audit Unit (AAU), or through a system of external referees in the area of research awards and publications.

A particularly interesting example of a ‘quality system’ designed to contribute towards the improvement of quality in the Further Education sector has been developed by Miller and Inniss (1990) in association with the Department of Employment Training Agency. Based on two key components: i) the phases of the learner’s involvement with the college and its learning programmes, and ii) the defining of quality characteristics, quality standards and quality measures, the consultants have developed a detailed framework for quality improvement at three levels of responsibility: senior management, middle management and course tedindividual teacher. The framework demonstrates the ways in which issues raised by students (before entry, at entry to the college, during the course and at its end) can be tackled at each level of quality control, quality assurance and ‘strategic quality management’. In the process the links between levels, the contributions that each level can make to the achievement of quality in terms of the student’s educational experience, and the legitimate expectations that each level may have of each other (in terms of both efficiency and effectiveness), are highlighted. The framework provides a case-study of how quality could become an ‘organising principle’ for colleges.

Finally, operational dimensions of quality would not be complete without mention of quality assessment. This involves the judgement of


performance and outcomes against certain criteria or objectives, in order to establish whether the required standard has been achieved, and if failures or shortfalls occur, to ensure that they are corrected. Within higher education, it is proposed (within the 1992 Higher and Further Education Bill) to locate the function of system-level quality assessment within the remit of the Funding Councils, and to link judgements of quality to funding penalties or rewards. Institutions will also have their own systems for quality assessment (such as aspects of staff appraisal or probation arrangements), usually tied into their quality assurance processes as in the case of departmental or programme reviews. Once again, the issue of where the legitimate authority for defining quality should be, will lie at the heart of discussion about the means to achieving quality.

Analysing the various dimensions of quality helps to make an elusive concept more tangible and assists in developing a framework within which action can be taken to achieve, maintain or improve quality. To put more flesh on these bones, it will be useful to consider some examples of quality systems drawn from the private sector and from higher education.

Quality systems in action: the private sector

Within the private sector, two particular methodologies for quality management systems have risen to prominence and are being discussed and piloted in many parts of the public sector: the British Standards methodology, and approaches linked under the banner of Total Quality Management. In higher education, at least five institutions in the UK are seriously working to implement one of these systems and there are many more examples of individual departments or units ‘going for BS5750 or TQM (CHES research project, work in progress). In the United States, at least twenty-five institutions are publicly associated with TQM (Sherr and Teeter, 1991).

The first of these two methodologies, commonly known as ‘BS5750’, is a series of national standards ‘to which a quality management system must conform, and against which it must be assessed if a system registration mark is sought’ (FEU, 1991). Developed originally to meet the needs of the defence industry in the 1970s, the British Standards Institution is now responsible for preparing British Standards which are used in all industries and technologies, and for ensuring that these standards are equivalent to the international and European series of standards for quality systems (IS0 9000 and EN 29000, respectively).

The principles of BS5750 are applicable to any size of organisation in any sector (according to the DTI), although interpretation of some of the


twenty quality system elements (such as ‘control of non-conforming product’ or ‘material control and traceability’) may differ across functional areas or different kinds of business. These principles identify the basic disciplines (i.e. behaviour and controls) and specify the procedures and criteria to ensure that products or services are fit for purpose, safe in use and meet the customers’ requirements (BSI, 1992 for the DTI). A BS5750 registration mark indicates that the systems which are described and documented are adhered to; companies can acquire certification when their quality system has been assessed in documentary form and in actual use by a team of independent assessors approved by the BSI. Setting up a system to comply with the British Standard requires that a company analyse, describe, document and track each element of the production (or service) process and set down the procedures to be followed. Working practices must then conform to the procedures so that products will cqnform to specifications.

Operating a BS5750-approved system represents a statement to the world at large that the company has the capability of producing goods or services to specification, that is, the company has the means to produce consistent quality in its goods and services. It is not a guarantee of quality in the sense of ‘excellence’ nor in the comparative sense of proving that one company’s product is better than another, since norm-referencing of this kind is not part of the process (FEU, 1991). However, acquiring certification from BSI has several benefits (according to the agency itself): it can cut costs, since procedures are more soundly based and efficient; it will reduce waste; it enables management to check that systems are working properly, to trace and rectify faults swiftly; it can ensure customer satisfaction; and is useful for marketing purposes since the award has currency both nationally and intenationally (BSI, 1992). As yet, there is little case material to support or refute these claims,

Total Quality dystems constitute the second of the management methodologies receiving widespread publicity at present. The ideas and methods of ‘Total Quality’ have their origins in the United States in the 1950~~ but have come to prominence through their successful application in Japanese industry. ‘Total Quality’ systems vary across companies and the ‘gurus’ who have contributed to the development of these quality ideas and methods stress different features, although there are consistent themes between them. These include: a focus on continuous quality improvement; the centrality of the customer - in terms of borh internal and external customer relationships; an emphasis on company-wide commitment and participation in quality improvement led by top management; reliance on management by data or fact to facilitate the

8


process of change; a goal of prevention rather than detection of poor quality through the development of a self-disciplined working climate.

The Further Education Unit provides a clear description of Total Quality Management, the umbrella term used to cover this group of management philosophies and approaches:

TQM is a metaphor for the process and management of change, designed to realign the mission, culture and working practices of a business to the pursuit of continued quality improvement. It is a rigorous, highly disciplined and skilled process designed to challenge current practice and performance, and rests on an all-pervasive training or coaching programme, ultimately throughout an organisation (FEU, 1991).

According to Oakland (1990), TQM has three major components beyond full management commitment to the process: a documented system; statistical process control; and teamwork. Implementation can be achieved through a series of thirteen steps which take a company from an understanding of quality, through planning, design, system-development and control stages to full attainment of TQM, although the process can never remain static if continuous quality improvement is to be maintained. It is the journey and its direction that are important.

TQM places reliance on practices (performance) and outcomes which should be aiming at ever higher levels of quality in goods and services - towards the goal of ‘excellence’. No registration mark is associated with TQM, but awards may be available for those businesses which excel in quality achievement and quality management (for example, the US Baldridge Award, already mentioned).

The external benefits of TQM are identified as increased market share, company reputation, higher profits and more satisfied customers. Within companies, the benefits for staffare claimed to include: greater involvement in management decisions, specific and properly understood targets, fewer mistakes, opportunities to enrich the job and engage in creative thinking, more co-operation between groups and less conflict (Training Agency, 1990). Although most of those who have accepted the need to adopt a Total Quality approach would no doubt emphasise these benefits and argue their importance for company survival, full implementation of TQM is not without problems. As case studies demonstrate (DTI 1991; Sherr and Teeter, 1991) the process is liable to be slow, costly (although balanced against improvements in current cost areas), difficult - in that whole cultures must be changed - and hard, since effort must be maintained through a never-ending commitment and quest for quality improvement at every level in every part of the organisation. As Goodstadt (1990) points out there are similarities with the search for the Holy Grail.


Quality systems in higher education

The CHES research project (funded by the Leverhulme Foundation) and mentioned above, is providing a unique opportunity to explore some of the activities that are being undertaken by institutions under the banner of ‘quality in teaching’. Although the project is still in its early stages and data analysis is by no means complete, a preliminary survey of the material sent in voluntarily by institutions reveals a wide range of ‘quality’ initiatives in progress. Broadly, the activities can be grouped into three overlapping categories: those that relate to quality identification, to quality assurance and to quality improvement.

Under the heading of quality identification, several institutions are mounting senior staff seminars to raise awareness about Total Quality Management, usually presented by external consultants. These seminars may be linked to or spark off institutional surveys of quality-related initiatives taking place across the institution. They may also generate institutional debate about quality matters, for example in relation to external reports or initiatives such as the universities’ Academic Audit Unit or the PCFC Report on Teaching Quality (1991). In some cases, the topic of TQM is only one of an ongoing programme of seminars designed to enhance managerial effectiveness and so to impact upon the teaching and learning environment,

Also associated with awareness raising, as well as with the monitoring of performance, is the widespread use of performance indicators of various kinds, from admissions standards and graduate completion rates to teaching skills of staff. In some institutions, teaching skills are being formally assessed by means of presentations at appointment or promotion interviews; the use of psychometric tests at these career points was also mentioned.

To assist in the production of performance indicators, a range of constituencies are being invited to provide evidence related to their perceptions of ‘quality’ -in the form of student satisfaction questionnaires, institutional or faculty academic standards questionnaires, and reports from professional bodies, employers and graduates. Although also serving a quality assurance function, such data can highlight new aspects of institutional quality. In order to co-ordinate and to maximise the interplay between different quality related activities of th is kind across institutions, new senior appointments have been made (e.g. Director of Academic Innovation and Development, Director of TQM) or responsibility for quality matters has been added to existing portfolios.

Quality assurance activities have a long history in academic institutions,


but are being developed and updated in response to the external and internal pressures identified earlier in this article. At the heart of quality assurance lie the mechanisms for course approval, validation, monitoring and review, developed in the polytechnics and colleges originally under the auspices of the CNAA, and in the universities, largely by themselves. These procedures are under scrutiny in most institutions, often resulting in more systematic approaches across institutions, faculties or departments (including detailed specifications of issues to be covered by reviews, the location of responsibilities and cycle of activities). Staff appraisal has been implemented across the system, sometimes including peer observation of teaching, and student feedback is being sought widely - in relation to individual teaching units, programmes, staff performance, and satisfaction with their whole educational experience.

As part of internal academic audit processes, institutions have developed or updated their ‘Academic Standards Handbooks’ and are undertaking reviews in many areas beyond the more conventional course or programme reviews, for example in relation to: teaching loads, learning resources, relationships between research and teaching, assessment procedures, structure of teaching and learning delivery, structure of the academic year. New committees such as the ‘Curriculum Monitoring and Review Committee’ may provide a focus for these activities, or they may be spread across several committees, groups or individuals.

Finally (although th is brief outline only reflects activities from a self- selected sample of institutions across the system), the area of quality improvement reveals a range of interesting initiatives in progress. Staff development services in many institutions offer programmes for new and existing staff relevant to teaching and learning, to research or to wider aspects of quality such as ‘customer care.’ Educational development units offer similar services also to students, such as study skills courses or ‘help- lines’ which may also be run for staff.

Initiatives such as ‘Enterprise in Higher Education’ or ‘Education for Capability’ aim to spread a range of new personal and enterprise skills across higher education curricula; these may be promulgated through particular units or through initiatives such as faculty teaching and learning quality circles. Such local developments may be extended at institutional level by the establishment of a Teaching and Learning Strategies Group, the mounting of ‘Alternative Teaching Weeks’ to spread new ideas, the establishment of new units, for example to develop multi-media teaching packages, or the publication of good practice codes and guidelines for research supervision, undergraduate and post-graduate teaching. In a few institutions, a central budget has been allocated to release staff to work on


educational development projects which will then feed back into institutional practice; some polytechnics are developing an internal teaching and learning certificate for their staff; teaching prizes are awarded in other institutions, while discretionary payments may also be offered to staff on the basis of high quality teaching performance.

From these examples, it can be seen that the issue of quality in relation to some aspects of higher education performance and outcomes is being addressed vigorously across many institutions. What is not clear is the degree to which ‘quality’ is being used as an organising principle or ‘key business focus’ in relation to all aspects of the institutions’ activities, from research, teaching, consultancy, continuing and outreach education to all its varied support services. In many cases, it is the domain of teaching which is apparently receiving most attention (although some institutions also provided examples of a quality focus within service units and sections). However the way in which academic areas are related to quality elsewhere in the institution, or how different quality assurance or improvement mechanisms and procedures mesh together is not obvious. For example, how do new systems of resource allocation which give depamnents flexibility in deciding priorities for expenditure between IT, staff training or new appointments interlock with staff appraisal and with institutional mission and objectives? How can the quality characteristics and criteria established for particular teaching programmes be aligned, ultimately, with the Funding Council‘s quality assessment criteria?

What is clear is that higher education ‘quality systems’ do not have the same meaning or compass as the systems identified above in the private sector. Higher education systems are not ‘total’ and do not as yet bring all institutional operations into common alignment around the concept of quality. As has been implied throughout this paper, there are both barriers and opportunities to the idea of quality as an organising principle for higher education; these will now be explicitly highlighted in the next section.

Opportunities and barriers to quality as an ‘organising principle’ in higher education

The concept of quality as an ‘organising principle’ in higher education carries with it certain important connotations. Firstly, the idea suggests the quality should become the fundamental concept around which institutional activity is focused and measured and the means by which institutional (and individual) priorities are established. The achievement and improvement of quality should thus provide a guide to action across


the institution and a personal code of right conduct. Secondly, the notion suggests that ‘quality’ can serve to bring together all parts and operations of the institution into an organic whole, establishing co-operation between different elements in order to achieve the central focus on quality. Thirdly, the idea of an organising principle implies the provision of an orderly structure, a framework which relates elements to each other and establishes a working order for the achievement of quality. As described here, these connotations have much in common with private sector quality concepts and methodologies, particularly TQM, but they may also resonate with higher education traditions of collegiality or professionalism.

Some of the main barriers to quality as an organising principle for higher education have already been alluded to in this paper. They include: the different conception of quality (for example, excellence or conformance to requirement) the difficulty of achieving consensus about quality - what it is and how to achieve it - because of the range of different interests involved; the problem of authority, that is, where the judgement of quality should legitimately rest, what kind of judgement should be involved (for example, norm-referenced or criterion-referenced judgement) and whose perspective should take priority at the specification and design stages; the nature of the education process itself and the degree to which it can or should be shaped towards the achievement of pre-specified outcomes; the cost of implementation in terms of time, consultancy, assessment, research and development, staff training and new technology.

One of the most important barriers arises from the internal perception of the source and reasons behind pressures for quality. The push for ‘quality’ is often identified with government emphasis on reduced unit costs in higher education but larger numbers of students, with greater managerial control, measurement and assessment of institutional members and their activities, and with new initiatives which may fundamentally change the nature of higher education (Middlehurst, 1991). Although there is likely to be internal support for some or all of these initiatives, in institutions with traditions of autonomy, self-governance and a professional ethic, such external incursions into their territory can suggest mistrust or dissatisfaction with the standard of public service provided by institutions, and may engender fear amongst staff about the consequences of change in terms of loss of power, status or financial security. Fear and the perception of lack of trust (from a major ‘customer’ of higher education) provide hostile ground for the establishment of a co-operative climate for teamwork, collective action and a full commitment to quality. Institutional leaders have an uphill task to create positive internal attitudes to the changes that a total quality focus will require and to interpret the


inexorable external signals in ways that are not wholly dissonant with internal culture and modes of operation.

Further evidence of the difficulties associated. with quality as an organising principle comes from higher education experience in the United States. Winter (1991) identifies two kinds of barriers to the implementation of TQM: those that are endemic to higher education organisations and those which reflect the processes used to implement TQM programmes.

Amongst the former group, Winter highlights the conflicts between decentralised and centralised decision-making structures and the difficulties of making these systems truly participatory, particularly at a time when external constraints militate against consensus-building, He argues that such pressures separate rather than merge administrative and academic worlds. External requirements also draw institutional leaders away from their campuses at a time when internal attention is needed to build a vision and commitment to quality. Such corporate commitment is in any case difficult to achieve because of the innate individualism (and scepticism) of academic staff in particular, and their greater loyalty to subject or department rather than to the institution as a whole (p. 59). The situation is not helped by a historic lack of investment in human resources which bothundermines the expertise and effectiveness of staff, so Winter says, as well as being an indicator of lack of institutional commitment towards its employees.

Winter again raises the problem of multiple customers and conflicting staff and institutional priorities, and in his second category, notes the costs of training for TQM and of time spent in developing systems, manuals and processes. He warns of the long lead time required to build TQM and the scope for underrating the process if its impact does not translate to the ‘bottom line,’ as in the private sector.

The barriers to the achievement of quality as an organising principle are clearly numerous and complex. Nonetheless, the imperatives and opportunities that are also associated with the concept will provide some countervailing forces.

The alignment of economic, social and political pressures is an obvious positive force as is the professional drive towards continuous improvement and development of educational programmes and services. The focus on customers (both internal and external) offers a new perspective through which to analyse the quality of educational provision and the contribution that each member of the institution makes to the whole - the value added by each level or area of activity. Management, academic and academic- related activities may be reconceptualised as direct or indirect services to


customers and through this reconceptualisation, specific responsibilities, dependencies and obligations can also be clarified (such as compacts between students and teachers or between government, funding bodies and institutions.)

The emphasis in private sector quality systems on teamwork, co- operation, leadership and a combination of collective commitment with encouragement for individual initiative, offers the possibility of improved working practices and a more rewarding working environment. The associated requirement to clarify roles, expectations, systems and procedures should improve efficiency by reducing waste and duplication of effort; and efficiency gains will also be made through linking apparently unrelated initiatives, such as the changes in curricula content, delivery and assessment arising out of NVQs, the National Curriculum in schools, or the Enterprise in Higher Education initiative.

Most importantly, perhaps, quality as an organising principle in higher education provides a stimulating and challenging focus for the physical and intellecual efforts of the whole institution, whether the individual perspective is on providing the best student sports’ facilities, the most polite reception service, a clear framework for resource allocation, improved access to library facilities for disabled students, or a finely crafted history lecture. Since clarity of purpose, feedback on performance and constant effort to develop and improve are central to each of these perspectives (as well as to learning itself) a common commitment is conceivable within higher education institutions, despite the difficulties outlined earlier. It remains to be seen whether institutional leaders in particular, are willing to accept the challenges posed and are able to build the necessary commitment and consensus about quality amongst the various constituencies and levels of the higher education system.

References

Bendell, T. (1991), The Qualiry Gurus (London, DTI). BSIIDTI, (1991), BS S75OIISO 9ooo/EN29000: 1987 A Positive contribution to better business. Colling, C. (1990), ‘Teaching Quality Matters: Appendix 11, Effective Teacher Behaviours’ in Bulletin of Teaching and Learning, Newcastle Polytechnic, Issue 4, July 1990, pp. 14-17.

DES (1991), Higher Education: A New Framework, Cmd 1541 (London, HMSO). DTI (1991), The Case For Qualify. Elton, L. and Partington, P. (1991), Teachingstandards and Excellence in Higher Education:

Developing a Culture for Qualify Occasional Green Paper No. 1, (Sheffield, CVCPI USDTU).

FEU (1991), ‘Quality Matters’, August 1991 (London, FEU). Flexner, J. A. (1930), Universities: Americcm, English, Genan (Oxford University Press). Frazer, M. (1991), ‘Assuring Quality’ Paper presented at Manchester Business School:

Conference on ‘The Management of Higher Education’, January, 1991.


Goodstadt, P. (1990), ‘Quality Service - the corporate Holy Grail’ in Total Quality

Horwitz, C. (1990), ‘Total Quality Management: an Approach for Education?’ in

Johnston, R. (1989), ‘Operations Management Issues’ in Jones, P. (ed) Management in

Marsh, P. (1991), ‘Bounce in the Showroom’ THES 1.11.91. Middlehurst, (1991), The Changing Roles of Univmsiw Leaders and Managers (Shefield,

CVCPAJSDTU). Miller, J. and Inniss, S. (1990), Managing Quality Improvement in Funher Education: A Guide for Middle Managers (Ware, Consultants at Work).

Miller, J. and Innis, S. (1990), ‘The Strategic Management of a Quality Further Education Service’ A Working Paper for LEA Officers and College Principals (Ware, Consultants at Work).

Miller, J. and Dower, A. (1989), Improving Quality in Further Education: A Guide for Teachers in Course Teams (Ware, C4Uk9dtant.9 at Work).

Moodie, G. C. (1991), ‘Setting the Scene’ in Berdahl, R. O., Moodie, G. C. and Spitzberg, I. (1991), Qualify and Access in Higher Education (Buckingham, SRHE OUP).

Oakland, J. (1989), Total QuaZ@ Management (London, Heinemam). Oakland, J. (1990), Total Qualiw Management: A Pracrical Approach (London, DTI). PCFC, (1991), Report of the Committee of Enquiry into Teaching Quality. Pollitt, C. (199Oa), Manageriuhn and the Public Sector (Oxford, Blackwell). Pollitt, C. (199Ob), ‘Measuring University Performance: Never Mind the Quality, Never

Rothblatt, S. (1%8), The Revolution of the Dons: Cambridge andSociety in Vic&n England

Sherr, L. A. and Teeter, D. J. (ed) (1991), Total Quality Management in Higher Education

Spitzberg, I . J. Quality and Access in Higher Education. Stewart, J. and Walsh, K. (1989), The Search for Quality (Luton, Local Government

Training Board). Taylor, W. (1989), Public Expectations Towards Higher Education Quality, Paper presented at

the 11th EAIR Forum, University of Trier, August 27-30. Training Agency (1989), Total Quality Management and BSS7.50: The links explained. Winter, R. S. (1991), ‘Overcoming Barriers to Total Quality Management in Colleges and

Universities’ in Sherr, L. A. and Teeter, D. J. (1991) Total Qualify Management in Higher Educana New Directions for Institutional Research, no. 71, Fall 1991.

Management, 1 , 1 1990.

Educational Management and Administration, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 55-58.

Service Industries (London, Piman).

Mind the Width?’ Higher Education Quarter&, vol. 44, no. 1.

(London, F a k r and Faber).

New Directions for Institutional Research, no. 71, Fall 1991.

Yorke, M. (1984), Effscriweness in Higher Educatwn: a review (London, CNAA).

quality: an organising principle for higher education

Documents