total quality management (tqm) in self‐financed technical institutions

Total quality management (TQM)in self-financed technical

institutionsA quality function deployment (QFD) and force

field analysis approach

Jitesh ThakkarA.D. Patel Institute of Technology, Gujarat, India

S.G. DeshmukhDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi,

New Delhi, India, and

Anil ShastreeA.D. Patel Institute of Technology, Gujarat, India

Abstract

Purpose – To explore the potential for adoption of TQM in self-financed technical institutions in thelight of new demands and challenges posed by customers/students and society.

Design/methodology/approach – The paper presents use of quality function deployment (QFD)which prioritizes technical requirements and correlates them with various customers’/students’requirements for the present Indian context. As an extension to the basic model of QFD – house ofquality (HOQ), the scope for futuristic improvements is explored through a four-phased QFD process.Challenges involved in the implementation of TQM are investigated using an approach of force fieldanalysis.

Findings – Identifies technical and students’ requirements for the modern educational set-up.Provides information about the severity of various technical requirements of competitive education.Recognizes the need for continuous improvement, cultural change and effective use of financialresources to improve the value addition at each level. Develops an understanding of the issues to beaddressed at each phase of TQM implementation.

Practical implications – It is expected that insights gained will help sensitize the emergingself-financed institutions towards the demands of new age students. Conclusions derived will alsoprovide some opportunities for reflection by students, faculty members and leaders/top managementof institutions for continuous development at an individual as well as institutional level.

Originality/value – A novelty of work lies in the use of a mix of qualitative and quantitativeapproaches, which not only evaluates the present system but develops an understanding of futurechallenges to continuous improvement.

Keywords Technical training, Finance companies, Total quality management,Quality function deployment

Paper type Case study

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0968-4883.htm

The authors are grateful to reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions to improvethe quality of this paper.

QAE14,1

54

Quality Assurance in EducationVol. 14 No. 1, 2006pp. 54-74q Emerald Group Publishing Limited0968-4883DOI 10.1108/09684880610643610

1. IntroductionIn keeping with the newer demands that have been placed on the self financededucational system by the various stakeholders, the technical educational system inparticular, has been pressured to shift its focus from one in quantitative expansion to onewith emphasis on quality. Growth and survival of these institutes is fully depend on theircompetitive working style, opinions of their customers/students about their performance,and contribution to economic growth. It is being increasingly recognized that highquality of products and services are associated with customer satisfaction and they arethe key points for survival for any organization whether educational or otherwise. Notoblivious to the need for adaptation to serve the interests of its stakeholders, in terms ofgreater responsiveness, the educational system has begun to realize the significance oftotal quality management (TQM) in education. There is a growing interest in applyingTQM in education for a wide variety of reasons, including:

. pressures from industry for continuous upgrading of academic standards withchanging technology;

. government schemes with allocation of funds, which encourage research andteaching in the field of quality;

. increasing competition between various private and government academicinstitutions; and

. a reduction in the pool of funds for research and teaching, implying that onlyreputable institutions will have a likely chance of gaining access to variousfunds.

However, defining students as customer of the academic system has received variouscomments in literature. Downey et al. (1994), note that the primary customer in aneducation system is the student; who is both an internal and an external customer.While in the system, the student is an internal customer, participating in the learningprocess; he or she becomes an external customer when they leave the system. Theythen become the ultimate external customer, functioning effectively in the society.

The word TQM itself suggests many associations in the mind of user. Variousviews on the acceptance of the approach as philosophy or process have generatednumerous definitions. For example:

. Witcher (1990) defines the term by breaking the phrase into three terms, whereby“total”, implies every person is involved (including customers and suppliers),“quality”, implies customer requirements are met exactly; and “management”,implies senior executives are committed.

. Taylor and Hill (1992) define TQM as a customer-focused process which seekscontinuous improvement and meeting customers’ perceptions.

. Williams (1993, p. 374) concludes that there are two dimensions of TQM. On theone hand “it is a management tool to increase productivity, keep the customershappy, and cut down waste”. On the other hand “it is a means of making usbetter people, of developing our professional good manners, and of providing uswith a moral education”.

A comprehensive view of definitions suggests that the whole philosophy of TQMmainly revolves around involvement of people at all level, understanding customer

Total qualitymanagement

55

requirements and working towards their satisfaction, commitment of topmanagement and development of a culture where organization-wide impact canbe realized.

Before we see the relevance and usefulness of TQM in education, let us try toexamine the meaning of quality in an educational context. Literature reports variousviews on the interpretation and definition of the word “quality”. An output focusedapproach defines “quality” as, “the totality of features and characteristics of a productor service that bears on its ability to satisfy given needs” (Mohanty and Behera, 1996,p. 14). “Quality” in general is defined as “the ability of a product to satisfy stated orimplied requirements”. Less contradiction is found in the use of the word inmanufacturing, yet not a single definition is accepted with confidence for the servicesector. This is because of the intangibility of services which leads to varied perceptionsof customers about the expected or derived benefits. In the present case of technicaleducation, different stakeholders hold different beliefs and hence their views on qualityin education are found to be in conflict. An overview of some reported views ondefinitions and understanding of quality in education is presented in Table I.

It seems from the various views that understanding of “quality in education” variesbecause of lack of clarity on stakeholders, customers and elements of process wherechanges are required. Thus, “quality” in education is a complex concept with varyingconceptualizations and this poses problems in formulating a single, comprehensivedefinition.

According to Harris (1994, p. 34)there are three generic approaches to TQM – first, acustomer focussed approach, where the idea of service to students is fostered throughstaff training and development; second, a staff focussed approach, that is concernedwith value and enhancement of the contribution of all the members of staff to theeffectiveness of the school; and the third, a service agreement focus that seeks to ensureconformity to specifications at certain key measurable points of the educationalprocess. In reviewing the objectives of technical institutions it should be realized that afew of the special characteristics of TQM need to be incorporated. Literature reportsvarious views on application and interpretation of TQM philosophy in education. Asummary of some interesting views is provided in Table II.

From the understanding developed on the various elements of TQM and theirrelevance to technical education we develop a framework depicting objectives, requiredcharacteristics of TQM, and their outcomes as shown in Figure 1.

Matthews (1993) cites the following four critical barriers to the utilization of TQM inacademia:

(1) the highly generic, and inappropriate nature of an average institution mission;

(2) a lack of agreement within the academic environment as to the meaning orimplications of “quality and excellence”;

(3) the independence of key individuals within the academic environment; and

(4) the reluctance of college or university leaders to play an aggressive and creativerole in TQM implementation.

The paper aims to develop an understanding of TQM philosophy in education througha development of QFD matrix. It tries to identify some critical barriers to TQMimplementation in the Indian context. More precisely, the objectives of the research are:

QAE14,1

56

. to indicate the usefulness of TQM in education;

. to identify the customer/student requirements and needed technicalcharacteristics of a technical education system;

. to develop insights into the new perceptions needed under new conditions ofcompetition for self-financed technical institutions;

. to develop an understanding on the relative importance of various technicalrequirements and their relationships with customer/student needs; and

. to explore the barriers to TQM implementation in technical education.

Author Views

Lagerweij and Voogt (1990) Emphasize the dynamism and conclude that, while the concept ofquality in education cannot be easily defined in a clear and exactmanner, any definition of quality should be expected to change overtime, because “it necessarily reflects a society’s interpretation ofeducational needs and the intensity of its moral and financialcommitment to fulfilling them”

Mortimore and Stone (1990) Draw attention to the “normative and comparative” element inherentin quality, emphasizing quality in education as “an attribute ordefining essence; a degree of relative worth; a description of somethinggood or excellent; and a non-quantified trait”

Govinda and Varghese (1992) Defined in a contextual manner, taking into account the externalenvironment in which schools are operating; the internal environmentin which the teaching-learning process takes place and the homeenvironment of the learners

Ovretveit (1992) Views quality from a health service perspective, but this may beredefined for education and may take the following forms: clientquality, i.e. what the customers and clients want from the service;professional quality, i.e. whether the service meets the needs of theprofessional providers and the clients; and management quality, i.e.the efficient and productive use of resources within limits set byhigher authorities

West-Burnham (1992) Refers to the issue of “quality in education”, as a perennial one, that hefeels is incapable of a solution as far as a definition is concerned

Cheng (1996) . . . the character of the set of elements in the input, process, and outputof the education system that provides services that completely satisfyboth internal and external strategic constituencies by meeting theirexplicit and implicit expectations

Sahney et al. (2004a) . . . viewed as “exceptional”, with three notions in terms of “beingdistinctive, as exceeding very high standards and as passing a set ofrequired standards”, with each of these being subject to debate. . . as “fitness for purpose” quality is judged in terms of the extent towhich a product/service meets the stated purpose, with the definitionproviding a model for determining what the specification should be. . . as “effectiveness in achieving institutional goals”, impliesefficiency in the use of resources or effective management and hassignificant implications for higher education. . . as “meeting customers’ stated or implied needs”

Table I.Views reported on quality

in education


57

Author Nature of work

Holmes and McElwee (1995) Present the view that total quality management in highereducation institutions, and the development of a so-calledmanagerialist ideology, have led to the inevitable adoption of anapproach to human resource management (HRM) policy andpractice which is functionalist. They discuss theinappropriateness of TQM in higher education based on theargument that it limits the productivity of individual. Theypropose an alternative model based on HRM ideology

Elmuti et al. (1996) Evaluates the scope of TQM in higher education. A survey-basedapproach is adopted to investigate the status, usefulness andlimitations of total quality management programmes from theperspective of institutions of higher education largely in themidwestern USA

Idrus (1996) Presents a literature review on practices in applying qualityconcepts to education around the world. Claims that exposure tothese will assist in choosing the most appropriate approach toimplementing quality concepts in New Zealand educationalinstitutions

Kwan (1996) Attempts to explain the usefulness of TQM in education andhighlights the differences that exist in its application comparedwith industry

Swift (1996) This is a real life survey-based research which identifies problemareas for the selected engineering institutions and reports thebenefits of group projects. It suggests the measures forimprovement in quality of education with application of qualitycontrol and management

Mohanty and Behera (1996) Discusses applicability of TQM in service sector and evaluatesassociated problems along with benefits which could be achievedthrough successful implementation

Motwani and Kumar (1997) Looks at the applicability of total quality management (TQM) ineducation and some of the concerns addressed in the literature.Suggests a five-step programming model : deciding, preparing,starting, integrating, and evaluating, as different phases that anyuniversity can use for implementing TQM

Owlia and Aspinwall (1997) Initially a system dynamics approach is applied to strengthen theunderstanding on TQM in higher education. A survey and caseanalysis is carried out to identify the factors related to TQM inhigher education and then a checklist for implementing TQMphilosophy in US higher education system is developed

Lam and Zhao (1998) Paper addresses the issue of improving quality of teaching withthe use of QFD and AHP

Crawford and Shutler (1999) Highlights how TQM operates in the industrial context andcompares its application with service segment like education.Paper also compares the application of Crosby’s and Deming’squality models in the context of education

(continued )

Table II.Some recent work onQFD and TQM ineducation

QAE14,1

58

The paper initially described the importance of use of quality and TQM in education.The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. Sections 2 and 3 develop a QFDmodel which explores various customer requirements and correlates them withtechnical requirements of the system. In section 4, we propose a four-phase modelstarting from basic phase – house of quality – to incorporate timely changes in theQFD model with the changing maturity of institution. In section 5, we provide a genericframework of force-field analysis for evaluating various barriers and facilitators toTQM implementation in education. The remaining sections discuss the results ofpresent work and develop insights into their importance. We sum-up by exploring theopportunities for future research in this direction.

Author Nature of work

Bouchereau and Rowlands (2000) Article explores the integrated use of techniques like fuzzy logic,artificial neural networks, and the Taguchi method with QFD toresolve some of its drawbacks, and proposes a synergy betweenQFD and these three techniques

Chan and Ming-Lu (2002) It is a review paper highlighting the historical development ofQFD, methodological development of technique, applicationsunder the classification of different industries, working of someQFD organizations, and key readings – publications on QFD

Sahney et al. (2003) Paper reports a study on educational institutions-industryinteraction in Indian perspective using QFD model

Sahney et al. (2004b) An integrated approach of SERVQUAL and QFD model isapplied to identify the gaps existing in quality education andcustomer requirements in today’s modern education system

Sahney et al. (2004a) Discusses issues of quality in academia and explores merits anddemerits of TQM in education Table II.

Figure 1.Objectives, TQM

characteristics andoutcomes for technical

institutions


59

2. Quality function deployment: a tool for achieving qualityQFD which is a customer-driven planning process, answers “What” and “How”questions by capturing the voice of the customer: industry and society. Quality isbroken down into tangible, manageable, technical and operational actions so as toensure that the customers’ needs and expectations are met in a timely fashion.

Quality function deployment can be defined as a system for designing a product orservice based on customer demands and involving all members of the organization(Maddux et al., 1991, p. 34). QFD is a system for designing a product or a service based oncustomer wants, involving all members of the supplying organization. It helps todetermine opportunities that can be developed effectively to achieve total customersatisfaction. In the continuous learning and evolving environment of a technical institution,it is extremely difficult to keep pace with changing curriculum requirements and students’expectations, and hence of knowing the opportunities that are down the track, that wouldhelp the institution in upgrading their standards in timely and effective manner.

QFD is an ideal opportunity to move away from “we know best what the customerwants” to a new culture of “let’s hear the voice of the customer” (Zairi and Youssef,1995). In a sense, it enables the organization to become very much proactive to qualityproblems rather than being reactive to them by waiting for customer complaints. QFDdoes provide competitive benchmarks to the organizations to compare their productquality standards to those of their competitors thus helping them establish acompetitive edge. QFD has three major objectives: to identify who the customer is,what the customer wants and how to fulfill the customer’s wants. Besides its power asa benchmarking tool, QFD offers a wide variety of benefits including the following:

. It makes the customer as centre and starting point.

. It promotes team work, and encourages cross functional inputs from variousdepartments like marketing, production, development, design etc.

. It is a tool for continuous long-term improvement. It offers the ability to prioritizecustomers’ own preferences, and following a ranking procedure for technicalcharacteristics, where suppliers (in the present context of technical institutions)may not necessarily have to focus on customers’ top priorities if they can justifytheir own strengths in terms of customer benefits.

In this paper, the idea of QFD implementation is developed for self-financed technicalinstitutions. In the current era of globalization, customers/ students of these institutionsare looking for educational standards and environment, which can put them on par withthe emerging market trends, market needs, technological developments and competition.

QFD is an essential pillar for achieving TQM. The TQM literature indicates thatbuilding quality into a product starts with asking “What does the customer need?”.QFD is a useful tool in answering this question. In addition, the “how’s” of the QFD orthe “voice of the company” are important for explaining how the company meets orexceeds the customer needs. In addition, by recognizing the interrelationships betweenthe engineering properties of the product and the customer requirements, appropriateactions can be taken at every stage of the product’s development, so that customerneeds are anticipated, prioritized and effectively incorporated into the product(Logothetis, 2004, p. 210). In the context of a technical institution, where student’srequirements are continuously changing with the rapid technological advancements,timely changes in curriculum, student-teacher relationship, faculty improvement

QAE14,1

60

aspects, industry-institute togetherness, R&D scope etc. can be incorporated. Someuseful work on the application of QFD and adoption of TQM in education issummarized in Table III.

3. An application of QFD to a technical institutionHere, students are perceived as customers of the modern educational system. In thisstep, the students’ voice is expressed in distinct actionable requirements from the hardissues of infrastructure/soft issues of work culture, discipline and teaching standard. Itrequires the attention to both tangible and intangible parameters. The domain oftangible parameters covers the issues like number of sets of equipments in thelaboratory, number of books available in library, number of students recruited etc.,while intangible issues address areas of overall working culture of the institute,student-teacher relationships, and teachers’ interpersonal relationships etc. Now, all ofthese requirements are not of same level of importance from students’ point of view,and hence customer importance rating of these detailed requirements is given on thescale of 1 (least important) to 10 (most important).

Author Views

Harris (1994) Specifies three generic approaches to TQM – first, a customerfocus approach, where the idea of service to students is fosteredthrough staff training and development; second, a staff focusapproach, that is concerned with value, and enhancement of thecontribution of all the members of staff to the effectiveness of theschool; and third, that takes a service agreement focus and seeksto ensure conformity with specification at certain key measurablepoints of the educational process

Burkhalter (1994, p. 170) TQM is a strategically integrated approach that involves all threestakeholders including employees, customers, and fundingbodies

Dahlgaard et al. (1995) . . . an educational culture characterized by increased customersatisfaction through continuous improvement in which allemployees and students actively participate

Mukherjee (1995, p. 573) Total quality encompasses all three aspects of quality, i.e.value-to-price, value-to-cost, and error-free-performance whichare of concern to the customers, producer, and societyrespectively

Anjard (1995, p. 15) Total quality management is an integrated system that consists of:– a competitive strategy;– a technology to produce goods and services;– a way of managing the organization

Mohanty and Behera (1996, p. 13) To implement TQM effectively in service organizations requiresan understanding of the:– unique characteristics of service operations;– roles of service providers and service clients;– application of appropriate quality control concepts, tools and

techniques

Table III.Views reported on TQM

and its application ineducation


61

Karapetrovic and Willborn (1997, p. 289) support use of QFD in education fromstudents’ perspective. The authors believe that quality function deployment (QFD) is atechnique that can be applied for translating customer needs and requirements into aset of course/programme specifications, as well as proper internal requirements forstudent knowledge, including appropriate examination techniques. In this section, wepresent an application of QFD to contemporary technical institutions. Here, we onlypresent the main results, as analysis of house of quality (HOQ) is straightforward andcan be found in many other sources. We will focus, however, on the use of QFD and theconstruction of HOQ to analyse and improve the quality of technical institutions.

The whatsIn QFD analysis, the process starts with the construction of the house of quality, whichrequires the identification of the customers’ requirements. These describe the productcharacteristics or represent the areas of concern. It is, however, easy to usequestionnaires to obtain the voice of the customers, and rank the different aspects ofcustomer needs, especially in this case, and in cases when information is not personalor confidential. We must, of course, make sure that all customer needs are taken intoconsideration and the information collected is reliable. In the present study, for the sakeof convenience, focused questionnaire survey and interviews of a sample of threeself-financed technical institutions were conducted to identify the customer/ students’– requirements. It is observed that these requirements are pertinent to different areaslike infrastructure, culture, library and research standards etc. The detailedclassification of all of these requirements and their ratings are given in Table IV. Inthe present case subjective judgments of senior faculty members and students areutilized for rating the various criteria. But as these ratings have an overall impact onthe whole analysis of QFD, it is recommended that institution should be very careful ininvolving, besides students and faculty members, the funding bodies, controlling bodylike All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), other institutions in the samefield etc. to identify the long-term considerations like quality deployment and financialrequirements, policies of government, interests and intentions of self financedinstitutions, students’ interest and institutions’ progress, overall competitiveness ofeducational industry vis-a-vis progress and development of an individual institution.

The howsAfter establishing the whats (Table IV), the corresponding “hows” are derived next.The “hows” are called technical requirements. These technical requirements representhow an institution will respond to customer wants and needs. The first step is totranslate the customer voices into technical requirements. The voices must betranslated into the type of language that can be used to describe the expectedcharacteristics of technical institutions. At the same time, the technical requirementsmust not represent solutions. The objective is to translate each voice into one or moretechnical requirement. After some brainstorming sessions together with managementand senior faculty members, the list of technical requirements is finalized as indicatedin Table V.

QAE14,1

62

Broad classification Codes Detailed requirementsImportance

rating

Infrastructuralrequirements (A)

A1 College building and premises 7A2 Availability of sufficient space for various

laboratories and classrooms 8A3 Seminar halls 4A4 Auditorium 4A5 Hostel and messing facility 6A6 Quality and standard of the equipment available

in laboratories 8A7 Sports complex 4A8 Transportation facility 4A9 Research facility 8

Teaching standard (B) B1 Qualifications of teaching staff 10B2 Teaching experience of staff 9B3 Industry experience of staff 7B4 Research work and publications by the faculty

members6

B5 Method and quality of teaching 7

Overall working cultureof institute (C)

C1 Respect for each one another 6C2 Attitude of teachers to students 5C3 Attitude of students to teachers 7C4 Number of activities arranged by faculty

members for the overall development of students 8C5 Number of initiatives taken by the students in

extra curricular activities along with studies 6C6 Support of administrative staff to students and

faculty members 5C7 Directions and promptness from the head of the

institution 9

Opportunities providedby institute (D)

D1 Student participation in intercollegiate and stateor national level competitions 6

D2 Number of students recruited by the campusinterview 10

Industry-instituteinteraction (E)

E1 Number of industry visits arranged by theinstitution 7

E2 Number of industry projects undertaken byinstitute 6

Students’ involvementin institute activity (F)

F1 Selection of student representatives and theirimportance and involvement in some jointventures 4

Institute-instituteinteraction (G)

G1 Number of combined projects handled withother institutions 5

G2 Involvement of experts of other colleges inexamination-evaluation process 6

Exposure to globalstandards (H)

H1 Interactions with well established institutions 7H2 Visits to some advanced multinational

organizations 7H3 Access to internet facility 9

(continued )

Table IV.Customer/student

requirementsidentification


63

The relationshipsAfter establishing the “whats” and the “hows”, construction of the HOQ continues withthe establishment of the relationships between the customer voices and the technicalrequirements as well as the co-relationships among the technical requirements.

The relational matrixBuilding the relational matrix, requires the analysis of relationships existing betweenevery “what” and every “how”. For example, a relationship exists between the collegebuilding and budget priorities (Figure 2). All relationships are categorized as eitherstrong, medium, or weak. Different numbers (1, 3 and 9 for weak, medium and strong,respectively) are used to signify different relationship strengths and the relationalmatrix is constructed. The allocation and categorization of the relationships are carriedout through careful consideration. Referring to Figure 2, an example of a strongrelationship would be between college building and budget priorities. An example of aweak relationship would be between respect for each other and budget priorities. And,an example of a moderate relationship would be between teaching experience of staffand clear and specific policies and procedures.

The correlation “roof” matrixThe correlation or “roof” matrix is constructed next. This matrix helps technicalinstitutions specify the various technical features that have to be improved collaterally.In many ways, the roof contains the most critical information for them because it isused to balance the trade-offs when addressing customer benefits. The correlationmatrix is constructed with the relationship keys: “O” for positive correlation and “X”for negative correlation. An example of a positive correlation would be between clearand specific policies and procedures and clear organization structure. There is nonegative correlation identified.

The how muchEarlier, the customer voices, or the “whats”, were ranked using simple averages basedon the responses of participants and customer requirements are ranked on a 1 to 10

Broad classification Codes Detailed requirementsImportance

rating

Policy of fairness (I) I1 Transparency in evaluation 9I2 Timely assessment and declaration of results 8I3 Fees charged to students and variations in the

same 7

Faculty development (J) J1 Number of training programmes conducted forthe faculty development 6

J2 Number of faculty members sent for higherstudies 6

Library standards (K) K1 Number of books available 7K2 Standard of available books 9K3 Number of national and international journals

subscribed 7Table IV.

QAE14,1

64

scale. This ranking is used also as a row weighting such that 10 represent the mostimportant customer need and the greatest weight is assigned to it. A “1” represents theleast important customer need and has the lowest row weighting assigned to it. Aweighting factor is also attached to each relationship (a “9” for a strong relationship, a“3” for a moderate relationship, and a “1” for a weak relationship) and the columnweights are calculated. For example, for the first column, clear and specific policies andprocedures, there is a moderate relationship with college building. The row importanceweight is multiplied by the relationship weight and then summed up. Thus, the columnweight for the first column is (7 *3) þ (8 *3) þ (4 *3) þ (4 *1) þ . . . þ (7 *3) ¼ 1188.After calculating the column weights, all the technical requirements are analysed in thelight of their relative importance. After assembling all the four parts of the HOQ,

S. No. Technical characteristics Implications for the technical institutions

1 Clear and specific policies andprocedures

Improves overall working culture and relationships amongdifferent echelons of academic system

2 Clear organization structure Develops clarity on roles and responsibilities of teachers aswell as students

3 Delegation of authority Makes the individuals responsible and motivated towardstheir duties. It generates sense of pride and satisfactionwhile performing routine work with due autonomy andflexibility

4 Discipline Improves overall working culture and help in building abrand image in the competitive environment of self-financeacademic institutions

5 Budget priorities Optimize the resource constraints and derive maximumsatisfaction of students

6 Emphasis on continuousimprovement

Update the standards of technical institution with rapidlychanging technological environment and improve overallcompetitiveness among the academic institutions

7 Cross-functional collaboration Help develop competitive benchmarks and develop thesynergies for learning

8 Suitability and relevance ofcurriculum

Develop the maximum benefit to students, and ultimatecustomer – industry, in satisfying their changingrequirements

9 Participation and involvement Improve teacher-student interaction, establish faith, trustand understanding and highlight the facts to themanagement for further improvements

10 Trustworthiness among all Develop respectability and synergy of effort andknowledge

11 Employment opportunities forstudents

Satisfy the ultimate customers and improve the brandimage of institution in education industry

12 Students’ evaluation as anemployee by the industry

Develop timely necessary modifications to the tangible andintangible areas of curriculum, discipline, attitude building,student motivation, improvement in communication skills,etc.

Table V.Technical requirements

and their implications fortechnical institutions


65

Figure 2.QFD matrix for customerrequirements (Table IV)and technicalcharacteristics (Table V)of technical institution

QAE14,1

66

namely the “hows”, the “whats”, the relationships, and the “how much”, the task ofconstructing HOQ is relatively complete (Figure 2).

4. Implementation stages – a continuous process for QFDThe concept of QFD implementation is continuous and evolving in nature. Each phase ofQFD provides the opportunity for further improvements through new comparisonstowards the achievement of the ultimate goal of the system. In the present case of thetechnical institution the goal is to achieve certain long lasting academic standards like acoherent environment of learning and teaching, imparting value to students, fairness inexamination and management policies, participation at all levels, and so on. To startwith, the initial thrust of a QFD model, here, only a first phase of development – “houseof quality” is demonstrated, but as the institution finds itself nearer to the achievement ofestablished standards of the first phase, it can develop the comparisons and benchmarksfor the second phase. For example, in the first phase of QFD, we have developed therelationships between student requirements and technical characteristics, in the sameway the second phase may comprise the comparison of technical characteristics andcharacteristic of academic activity and hence at this stage, rating of characteristics ofacademic activities could be determined, and decisions related to it could be prioritized.Likewise, the process continues, and further, at each stage new benchmarks could beestablished, and opportunities for further improvement could be explored. The completeprocess of QFD development requires a great deal of brainstorming, participation of alllevels and continuous modifications. For the present case of a technical institution, thewhole process is conceptualized as shown in Figure 3.

5. Knowing the barriers – a force field analysisImplementation of TQM requires significant changes in hard as well soft issues of anorganization. Primarily, the success of TQM depends on the three fundamentalcharacteristics – commitment (to never-ending quality improvement and innovation),scientific knowledge (of the proper tools and techniques for the “technical” change) andinvolvement (all in one team, for the social change) (Logothetis, 2004, p. 4). In additionto these, monitoring of performance and customer satisfaction levels, identification ofimprovements necessary in the customer interface, tailoring output to customer’sdemands etc. are complex to manage. Typically, in the present case of an academicsystem, intangible issues like motivation, equal level of participation, willingness tochange, student’s involvement etc. are the barriers to the success of TQM. In addition,

Figure 3.Continuous process for

QFD in technicalinstitution


67

academics, of course, see themselves as being special people. Sometimes the veryreason which gained them employment as an academic is indeed the characteristicwhich poses problems in the implementation of TQM (Idrus, 1996, p. 38). Further, inmost cases, leaders of academic institutions are professors who gained seniority levelsthrough personal achievements and who demonstrated good administrative skills.They have a good approach to cost management, human resource management andplanning and organization. Many of those individuals are no longer in touch with thereal world and rapidly occurring changes in the professional skills and therefore areunable to assess the challenges facing the organizations they lead. When it comes toTQM, for instance, this is the biggest obstacle to leaders who do not see anythingwrong with the “old” and who would rather ask: “what is wrong with industry?” (Zairiand Youssef, 1995, p. 32).

QFD development provides a systematic procedure to develop and implementdifferent phases with changing maturity of organization, but knowing the influence ofbarriers helps in managing the disturbing elements without their omission. Looking tothe earlier analysis of student requirements, technical characteristics and prioritizationthrough QFD, a comprehensive force field model is developed to understand theseverity of barriers at the early stage of implementation.

The technique of force field analysis is used for identifying the forces that help orobstruct a change or an important effort. In this way difficulty in implementing achange can be assessed, and plans for overcoming barriers to change can be developed.Through this type of analysis, an overall picture can be developed which can help inthe identification of all assets as well as inhibitors (Logothetis, 2004, p. 202). In Figure 4,positive and negative forces to change in implementing TQM philosophy in a technicalinstitution are determined. The evaluation of these forces can be carried out in terms ofease of change and impact. Ease of change indicates how far it is possible to influenceor change the force, whereas impact indicates how significant the consequences wouldbe if the force were changed. A score could be assigned to each force on the rating scaleby defining ease of change and impact (for example no impact, small impact, majorimpact). The quantification of net force effect is context specific and hence here anattempt has been made to provide a generalized framework of force analysis. For anytechnical institution, the only task left is to assign the rating to each of the positive andnegative forces depending on their limitations and constraints.

6. Discussion and implicationsImportance ranking in the final row of Figure 2 shows that the criterion of “emphasison continuous improvement” has received the highest weighting of “1726” and thebudget priority with its relative weighting of “1206” is second in importance rating.This indicates that the problems exist with TQM in the present competitive technicaleducation environment; however, these should not overshadow the necessity forchange in this area. Financial problems and market pressures, which are challengingmany self-financed institutions, appear to give the main impetus for the change. Theyleave institutions with no alternative but to offer “higher quality at a lower cost” – aprimary aim of TQM. For this purpose, inculcation of good work culture,benchmarking and adoption of good practices and committed involvement ofmanagement in day-to-day work practices can surely help technical institutions inachieving competitive standards. Nowadays, every organization is working under

QAE14,1

68

stringent financial constraints and hence each institution has to optimize its availableresources by deciding the budget priorities. Allocation of budget for infrastructure,student-faculty development, research facilities, library etc. varies with the maturityand future plans of the organization and hence this aspect should be handled with duecare by the top management. This requires a strategic thinking of educational leaderscompared to their traditional mind-sets of an administrative kind where improvementin overall competitiveness of an institution receives higher priority than the traditionalimportance of transferring knowledge. Likewise, depending on the importance rankingof various technical characteristics for quality improvement, steps can be initiatedtowards development of a review and audit system. This kind of provision can assessand ensure the continuous step-by-step improvement and long-term survival of aself-financed technical institution.

In a more focussed way, the implications of the proposed approach for agencies likeeducational institutions, faculty, students, alumni, financing bodies, accrediting body(which periodically monitor and reviews the progress of various government and privatetechnical institutions and enjoys the authority of giving sanctions for increasing quota,

Figure 4.Force field analysis for

TQM implementation intechnical institution


69

opening new disciplines, starting post graduate programmes etc.) like the All IndiaCouncil for Technical Education (AICTE) etc. are discussed in Table VI.

The present approach can provide more benefits to the upcoming self-financedtechnical institutions, if time-bound and logical benchmarking standards andprocedures could be established. We expect that the proposed framework will providethe following benefits to the technical institutions:

Agencies Implications

Educational sector It improves the overall competitive standards of educational sector bydefining, standardizing, assessing and continuously improving therequirements

Faculty Initially it may induce some threat in the conventional mind set ofacademics, but in the long run it will create and provide learningenvironment and opportunities for continuous improvements in teachingstandards as well as at an attitudinal levelIt helps the faculty member to develop a rapport with the students andindustry by understanding their expectations and comparing the existingstandards with set benchmarksLearning environment helps faculty members to improve the quality oftheir research by cross-functional efforts, maybe through better interactionwith different department of same or other institution, industry, accreditingbodies, students etc.

Students It develops faith, satisfaction and confidence in the ultimate customers thatthey are trained under the well-defined competitive standards and thecompletion of the course will help them to grow in a demanding marketDevelops better interaction among students and helps in creatinginteractive group learning environment

Alumni Develops faith and more funds and support can be expected from formerstudentsSatisfied students will do a better marketing for the institution and hencethe biggest problem of getting good students for self-financed institutionscould be managed

Financing bodies It helps develop trust and faith of financing bodies in technical institutions.Funds could be made easily available and expansion and upgrading ofinfrastructure could be done easilyA well-defined way of working improves image of institution andreputation among the competing self-financed institutions. This willdevelop the credential for their students in obtaining financial support forhigher education in domestic as well as foreign institutions

All India Council forTechnical Education(AICTE)

It will provide concrete platform for assessing and comparing theupcoming and established institutions by a controlling body like AICTE(India)Financial help and support can be provided on valid assessments based ona degree of making continuous improvements in various aspects likeinfrastructure, teaching standards, faculty development, motivation forresearch etc.The various levels of maturity stages for a technical institution could bedefined for ranking and setting the guidelines for continuous improvement,within which each institution gets the flexibility to set, define andmanoeuvre the procedures for achieving prescribed standards andbenchmarks by AICTE

Table VI.Implication of proposedapproach on variousagencies

QAE14,1

70

. It will sensitize the institutions to student requirements, expected services andquality of education in the present, ever-changing technological environment.

. It will help the institutions in understanding the technical characteristics ofengineering education and their relationships with the students’ requirements.

. It will provide important insights into the existing procedures and practices toassist the effective strategic moves for the future.

. A successful implementation of framework will develop a cohesive environmentin which all the entities like students, faculty members, and management canwork with one vision, shared objectives and on common goals.

7. Concluding remarksThis paper is an attempt at demonstrating usefulness of TQM for technical education. Aquantitative framework of QFD is developed to support the idea in a logical manner. Thiscomprehensive framework identifies some of the fundamental requirements andcharacteristics of the technical institutions. Relationships are established and technicalcharacteristics are ranked as per their importance. These findings will help the upcomingtechnical institutions in establishing proper educational and administrative policies for thepresent as well as the future. It is expected that the resulting relationships and prioritizedcharacteristics will develop useful insights into the overall development and streamliningof the limited financial flows. In addition, the proposed approach of QFD captures thepermanent and complete record of all of the relevant information in a way that any futurework could be carried out on the basis of a strong and logical platform of identified gapsand opportunities. QFD integrates the essential and crucial elements of a given system todevelop positive synergy through better utilization of skills and resources.

The greatest advantage of implementing the QFD approach in a technicalinstitution is that it encourages disciplined and detailed thinking on tangible andintangible aspects of academic activities, provokes purposeful discussion among theteachers, management and students, and at large among the various institutions, byestablishing critical benchmarking standards towards continuous improvements ininstitutions.

In the present case, all of the features of the QFD matrix are not exploited. Here anattempt has been made to develop some insights into the customer requirements,expected characteristics of a technical institutions and relationships existing amongthem, with a clear perception of resisting forces in implementing the model. But to getthe full advantage of this framework, an individual institution can select some two tothree high-performing institutes as their competitors and benchmark its own practiceson a 1 to 5 scale, and see that how far they are able to meet the customer requirementsand technical characteristics of institution, where they are standing, what quantitativegaps exist, and what steps are necessary to improve its own performance andcustomer/student satisfaction rating.

In the end, we find it necessary to highlight that education differs from themanufacturing sector in a way that objectives, processes, inputs and outputs are alldifferent in nature. Managing people and resources are no doubt the common area ofconcern but factors affecting performance are different. Generally, profit is the indicatorof measuring effectiveness for manufacturing firms but performance of an educationalinstitute is evaluated on the basis of knowledge creation, character building,trustworthiness of students in society etc. All of these factors are intangible in nature


71

and hence precise objectives are difficult to set. Teaching and learning processes are notthe same as assembly lines. They are interactive processes between human beings whoare mainly teachers and students, and therefore the procedures in the processes cannotbe preset in a step-by-step format as for those for an assembly line. This understandingdistinguishes the application of TQM in education where personal behavior, individualtraits involved, emotions in human interactions, motives of both the parties (student andteacher) etc. are quite varying in nature. This calls for a different treatment anddevelopment of mind set while implementing TQM in education.

The other dilemma in implementing TQM in education is the identification of the“customer”. TQM aims to enhance overall satisfaction of the customer throughcustomer-centric design of processes and systems. Here, the final recipient of academicoutput is the student, and lot controversies exist in adopting student as customerbecause of their immature age and less experienced mind-set. Frequently, the motivesof students do not match with the holistic objectives of the academic system which arelong-term in nature and benefits of them could only be realized after having enteredinto a professional career. So, it is necessary to practice caution in implementing TQMphilosophy in education so that the sole purpose of education can be preserved andbenefits of TQM could be experienced through continuous improvement.

No doubt, the benefits of TQM in service industries like education are no less thanthose in manufacturing, if applied and adopted properly. As stated earlier, a dilemmaexists over defining quality in the service sector and hence perceptions involved inidentification of technical characteristics of the system/process, requirements ofstudents and stake-holders, necessary leadership traits etc. varies. Here, we sum-up byhighlighting a few problems that are associated with conceptualization of quality inservice sector like education. They mainly include:

. Services are perishable in nature and cannot be stored for later use, and becauseof participation by the customer in the process, there is a much higher level ofexternal uncertainty than in manufacturing processes.

. Good service is an expectation of individual customers, and this expectation isgenerally unstated and unknown.

. The intangibility of services makes it difficult to set performance and monitoringstandards, to conform to them and to measure them.

. The customer/student participates in the process, to a greater or lesser extent,and therefore has an impact on the quality of service because of their varyingmotives and interests.

These problems further open the scope for future research. Till now, much has beendiscussed on benefits of TQM or conceptualizing quality in education in the last fewyears. Literature has provided adequate justification for accepting the philosophy ofTQM in service sectors like education. But it is revealed that not much emphasis is puton identification of various service related characteristics, identification-of-customerrequirements, performance matrices for these intangible parameters and theirprioritization. We understand that work related to these issues will create moreknowledge about the development and implementation of the TQM system ineducation.

QAE14,1

72

Glossary

QFD ¼ quality function deployment

HOQ ¼ house of quality

TQM ¼ total quality management

AICTE ¼ All India Council for Technical Education

References

Anjard, R.P. (1995), “Keys to successful TQM training and implementation”, Training forQuality, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 14-22.

Bouchereau, V. and Rowlands, H. (2000), “Methods and techniques to help quality functiondeployment (QFD)”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 8-19.

Burkhalter, B.B. (1994), “The evolution of a continuous quality improvement process in auniversity setting: a working model for consideration”, Total Quality Management, Vol. 5No. 4, pp. 169-84.

Chan, L. and Ming-Lu, W. (2002), “Quality function deployment: a literature review”, EuropeanJournal of Operational Research, No. 143, pp. 463-97.

Cheng, Y.C. (1996), “The pursuit of school effectiveness: theory, policy and research”, The HongKong Institute of Educational Research, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.

Crawford, L.D. and Shutler, P. (1999), “Total quality management in education: problems andissues for the classroom teacher”, The International Journal of Educational Management,Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 67-72.

Downey, C.J., Frase, L.E. and Peters, J.J. (1994), The Quality Education Challenge, Corwin Press,Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Elmuti, D., Kathawala, Y. and Manippallil, M. (1996), “Are total quality managementprogrammes in higher education worth the effort?”, International Journal of Quality& Reliability Management, Vol. 13 No. 6, pp. 29-44.

Govinda, R. and Varghese, N.V. (1992), “Quality of primary education: an empirical study”,Journal of Educational Planning and Administration, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 17-35.

Harris, R.W. (1994), “Alien or ally? TQM, academic quality and the new public management”,Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 33-9.

Holmes, G. and McElwee, G. (1995), “Total quality management in higher education: how toapproach human resource management”, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 7 No. 6, pp. 5-10.

Idrus, N. (1996), “Towards total quality management in academia”, Quality Assurance inEducation, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 34-40.

Karapetrovic, S. and Willborn, W. (1997), “Creating zero-defect students”, The TQM Magazine,Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 287-91.

Kwan, P.K. (1996), “Application of total quality management in education: retrospect andprospect”, International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 10 No. 5, pp. 25-35.

Lagerweij, N.A.J. and Voogt, J.C. (1990), “Policy at school level”, School Effectiveness and SchoolImprovement, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 98-120.

Lam, K. and Zhao, X. (1998), “An application of quality function deployment to improve thequality of teaching”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 15No. 4, pp. 389-413.


73

Logothetis, N. (2004), Managing for Total Quality – From Deming to Taguchi and SPC, 5th ed.,Prentice-Hall of India Private Limited, New Delhi.

Maddux, G.A., Amos, R.W. and Wyskid, A.R. (1991), “Organizations can apply quality functiondeployment as strategic planning tool”, Industrial Engineering, September, pp. 33-7.

Matthews, W.E. (1993), “Total quality management in academia – the missing element in highereducation”, Journal of Quality and Participation, January/February, pp. 102-8.

Mohanty, R.P. and Behera, A.K. (1996), “TQM in the service sector”, Work Study, Vol. 45 No. 3,pp. 13-17.

Mortimore, P. and Stone, C. (1990), “Measuring educational quality”, British Journal ofEducational Studies, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 69-82.

Motwani, J. and Kumar, A. (1997), “The need for implementing total quality management ineducation”, International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 131-5.

Mukherjee, S.P. (1995), “Quality assurance in an education system”, Total Quality Management,Vol. 6 Nos 5 & 6, pp. 571-8.

Ovretveit, J. (1992), Health Service Quality, Blackwell Scientific Press, Oxford.

Owlia, M.S. and Aspinwall, E.M. (1997), “TQM in higher education – a review”, InternationalJournal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 14 No. 5, pp. 527-43.

Sahney, S., Banwet, D. and Karunes, S. (2003), “Enhancing quality in education: application ofquality function deployment – an industry perspective”, Work Study, Vol. 52 No. 6,pp. 297-309.

Sahney, S., Banwet, D.K. and Karunes, S. (2004a), “Conceptualizing total quality management inhigher education”, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 145-59.

Sahney, S., Banwet, D.K. and Karunes, S. (2004b), “A SERVQUAL and QFD approach to totalquality education: a student perspective”, International Journal of Productivity andPerformance Management, Vol. 53 No. 2, pp. 143-66.

Swift, J.A. (1996), “Using TQM to identify education improvement opportunities in the College ofEngineering at the University of Miami”, Computers in Engng, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 13-16.

Taylor, W.A. and Hill, F.M. (1992), “Implementing TQM in higher education”, InternationalJournal of Educational Management, Vol. 5 No. 5, pp. 4-9.

West-Burnham, J. (1992), Managing Quality in Schools – A TQM Approach, Longman, Harlow.

Williams, P. (1993), “Total quality management: some thoughts”, Higher Education, Vol. 25 No. 3,pp. 373-5.

Witcher, B.J. (1990), “Total marketing: total quality and the marketing concept”, The QuarterlyReview of Marketing, Winter.

Zairi, M. and Youssef, M. (1995), “Quality function deployment: a main pillar for successful totalquality management and product development”, International Journal of Quality& Reliability Management, Vol. 12 No. 6, pp. 9-23.

Further reading

Dahlgaard, J.J., Kristensen, K. and Kanji, G.K. (1995), “TQM and education”, Total QualityManagement, Vol. 6 Nos 5 & 6.

QAE14,1

74

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

total quality management (tqm) in self‐financed technical institutions

Documents