variables affecting the functional competency of quality...

7th International Conference on Humanities and Social Sciences

“ASEAN 2015: Challenges and Opportunities” (Proceedings)

Faculty of Liberal Arts, Prince of Songkla University, June 5-6, 2015 434

Variables Affecting the Functional Competency of

Quality Assurance Officers

in Thai Public Higher Education Institutions

1. Kanyaprin Tongsamsi, Ph.D. student, Program in Management, Faculty of Management

Sciences, Prince of Songkla University, Songkhla, 90110, Thailand, Corresponding

author: [email protected]

2. Kanon Trichandhara, Lecturer, Department of Public Management, Faculty of

Management Sciences, Prince of Songkla University, Songkhla, 90110, Thailand

3. Chutarat Sathirapanya, Assistant Professor, Department of Community Medicine,

Faculty of Medicine, Prince of Songkla University, Songkhla, 90110, Thailand

Abstract

This research examines the relationships of several antecedents of functional

competency for quality assurance officers (QAO) in Thai public higher education

institutions (HEI). QAO competency is one of the key success factors of quality

management in many organizations. This study used quantitative methodology by the

causal comparative design. Using multi-stage random sampling data collection method,

324 questionnaires were distributed to target respondents of quality assurance officers.

The responses collected are 261 completed questionnaires representing 80.56 percent

response rate. The QA officer competencies and five antecedents in 79 public HEIs were

analyzed. Each variable was measured using 5-point interval scale, except the training

variable was measured with ratio scale. The questionnaire reliability was assessed by

Cronbach’s alpha, which showed appropriate value above 0.80.

The empirical results indicate three positively direct causal effects: (1) self -

management and functional competency of QA officers; (2) training and knowledge

management; (3) knowledge management and functional competency of QA officers;

and one negatively direct effect: selfmanagement and work-life balance. Interestingly,

the research model explains a substantial amount of variance (63%) in functional

competency of QA officers within HEIs. The findings suggest that QAO should be

developed by knowledge management and selfmanagement process.

Keywords: Functional competency, quality assurance officer, higher education

institution

mailto:[email protected]




Background

The educational quality assurance in Thailand is stipulated in Chapter 6 of the

National Education Act 1999, and Amendments in 2002. This spurred a significant

reform of education systems. The mandatory requirement is the establishment of the

internal and external quality assurance (QA) in education system at all levels. The

agency-in-charge at national level is constituted by two organizations, i.e. (1) Office of

the Higher Education Commission (OHEC), under Ministry of Education that is

responsible for internal QA and (2) Office for National Education Standards and Quality

Assessment (Public Organization) (ONESQA) which looks after the external QA. Both

organizations deploy the policy that relates to overall performance of tertiary

institutions as producing graduates, conducting research, providing academic services

to the community, preserving arts and culture, and managing system (OHEC, 2011;

ONESQA, 2011).

Based on a thorough review and synthesis of the quality assurance literature, a

number of publications identifies that quality assurance staff are a homogeneous group

with identical goals, objectives and methods, as well as they are as one of the critical

success factors to achieve effective quality management (Waddell, 1998; Badri, Davis, &

Davis, 1995; Saraph, Benson, & Schroeder, 1989; Antony, Leung, Knowles, & Gosh, 2002;

Joseph, Rajendran, & Kamalanabhay, 1999). In the studies of the key role and

responsibilities of quality assurance staff show the ability of organizations to succeed in

their functions will depend on the competencies of the assurance staff in term of

knowledge, skills, problem solving and teamwork (Goetsch & Davis, 2006; Gutner &

Adams, 2009). As Addey (2004) argued that the abilities now required of the quality

assurance staff go far beyond those of chief inspectors, reflecting the need to provide

advice to managers who are themselves responsible for much broader roles than in

previous times. Further, Waddell and Stewart (1999) asserted that the inadequacy of

their professional learning is possibly a contributory factor for the failure of quality

management in many organizations.

The competency concept has been widely implemented in several areas of

human resource management (HRM) for a long lime, for example, the recruitment,

training and development, performance management, appraisal, incentive and reward,




and talent management (Ratsameetammachot, 2008, 2011; Office of Civil Service

Commission (OCSC), 2005; Horton, 2000). The original competency framework for

government officers in Thailand was developed by OCSC, which is a government body

responsible for HRM in public sectors. Generally, competency frameworks consist of a

combination of core and functional/specialist competencies. Thai civil servants are

expected to commit to the five core competencies: Achievement Motivation, Service

Mind, Expertise, Integrity, and Teamwork (OCSC, 2009). However, everyone in the civil

service requires some functional competencies which must be set out in the different

ways of jobs and careers.

There has been limited research into the competence of QA staff personnel

responsible for QA process. Therefore, the authors are interested in the competency

survey of QA staff and variables affecting their functional competencies in Thai public

higher education institutions. Results of the study which related to competency are

utilized for staff development.

Objective

To study factors are affecting the functional competency of quality assurance

officers in Thai public higher education institutions.

Research Methodology

Juran Trilogy is used to explain the functional competencies of QA staff. The

Trilogy theory consists of 3 dimensions; (1) quality planning involves developing the

products or services for customers need, (2) quality control addresses evaluating

quality performance, comparing actual performance to established quality standards or

goals, and acting on the difference, (3) quality improvement involves raising quality

performance by identifying areas where quality improvements are needed, establishing

project teams which is clear responsibility for bringing each project to successful

conclusion, and providing the resources, motivation, and training needed by project

teams (Tompkins, 2005). As recognized above, the quality improvement points out the

vital of established teams or council to responsible for driving quality management.

Therefore, QA officers’ role is responsible for both the implementation of the quality




assurance policy and systems within the organization and also expected to motivate

others to adopt the philosophy, tools and processes of quality.

This research uses quantitative methodology by causal comparative type and

presents as structural model.

1. Research Instrument

The use of constructs has played an important role in designing survey

instrument for management research. The format and content of the questionnaire are

initially developed through the literature review. Next, ten scholars and practitioners

with extensive experience in research and quality assurance examine all items of the

instrument, which are reworded according to their suggestions and calculated the index

of item-objective congruence (IOC). Then the questionnaire is refined based on a pilot

study conduct with 32 quality assurance officers who worked at sub-unit each tertiary

and illustrated the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient. The tests of measurement found

followings;

1.1 Functional Competency of QA Officers There are 25 items to reflect this factor, the IOC found 0.80-1.00, and Cronbach’s alpha coefficient as 0.95. The research draws up a Likert-type 5 point. 1.2 Knowledge Management This study has 15 items. The IOC found 0.70-1.00, and Cronbach’s alpha coefficient as 0.93. Then, a Likert-type 5 point scale is used. 1.3 Self Management Self management is measured by 12 items. The IOC found 0.80-1.00 and Cronbach’s alpha coefficient revealed 0.85. Each item is measure by a Likert-type 5-point scale. 1.4 Work-life Balance The study draws up a Likert-type 5-point scale including 5 theory based items. The IOC as 0.80-1.00 and Cronbach’s alpha coefficient is showed 0.90. 1.5 Training This research done by the 2 empirical studies developed items; Office for National Education Standards and Quality Assessment (Public Organization) (2011), Office of the Higher Education Commission (2011), collecting by ratio data in 3 items. The IOC found 0.80 in each item, and Cronbach’s alpha coefficient indicated 0.68. 1.6 Perceived Organizational Motivation This study has 13 items and drawing up a Likert-type 5-point scale. The IOC found 0.70-1.00, and Cronbach’s alpha coefficient as 089.




2. Sampling and Data Collection

Quality assurance officers, who worked at central of university, established to

responsible for whole agency, 370 QA officers in 79 HEIs constitute the population

through which samples of this study are drawn. Multi-stage random sampling is be

used, the first stage use proportional stratified sampling in each HEI. The second stage

use simple random sampling to point out the respondents. However, the past research

such as Baruch and Holtorn (2008) revealed that surveys by mailing has response rate

only 44.7 percent, then researchers mailed double sample size in each university.

Questionnaires are mailed to the head of QA office each university, 324 survey

responses are submitted. A total of 261 responses, presenting 80.56 percent of the

sample are used for further analyses.

3. Data Screening and Analysis

The 261 dataset are coded and saved into PASW V.18 and analyzed using PLS

V.2. During the process of data screening for outliers, one dataset is deleted due to

Mahalanobis values more than the χ2 value, leaving a final 260 dataset to be analyzed.

We also conducted univariate normality computations using z-scores of skewness

statistics and standard error of skewness as well as kurtosis statistics. The researchers

use Curran, West, & Finch (1996) threshold that normal skewness = < 2 and normal

kurtosis = < 7, those are shown assessment of normality.

In conclusion, the causal relationship between five antecedents that comprise of

self management, work and life balance, perceived organizational motivation, training,

knowledge management, and functional competency of QA officers. According to the

literature, Figure 1 represents the theoretical framework depicting the causal

relationships among the variables of the study. Thus, the following hypotheses are

formulated;

H1 Self management has influence on work-life balance.

H2 Self management has influence on functional competency of QA officers.

H3 Work-life balance has influence on functional competency of QA officers.

H4 Perceived organizational motivation has influence on functional competency

of QA officers.




H5 Training has influence on functional competency of QA officers.

H6 Training has influence on knowledge management.

H7 Knowledge management has influence on functional competency of QA

officers.

Figure 1: research framework

Findings

1. Demographic Profile of the Respondents

The respondents’ ages averaging 36 years old. There are more female (72.8%)

than male respondents (27.2%). The most of respondents are single (62.7%), marriage

(33.0%), and others 1.4%. Most of them have experienced in QA task averaging 6 years.

Their qualification varies from Bachelor’s degree (50.0%), Master’s degree (42.5%),

Ph.D. (4.2%).

2. Reflective Measurement Model Assessment

Knowledge Management

(KM)

Perceived Org. Motivation

(POM)

Self Management

(SM)

Functional Competency of

QA Officers (FCQAO)

Training (TN)

Work-life Balance (WLB)




The research model for this study is tested by partial least squares (PLS). Smart

PLS 2.0 is used to assess both the measurement and structural model. The validity and

reliability of the measurement model for the following analyses: loading, indicator

reliability, convergent validity is assessed by composite reliability (CR), and its average

variance extracted (AVE) value, and discreminant validity (Hair, Hult, Ringle, & Sarstedt,

2014). Table 1 shows that the CR of each construct for this study ranges from 0.800-

.0970, this is above the recommended threshold value of 0.60-0.70. While, indicator

reliability is measured by examining the item loadings that table 1 shows rage from a

lower bound of 0.534 to and upper bound of 0.938 that meet the rule of thumb. All

items are significant at 0.000. Moreover, The results show that all constructs have AVE

ranging from 0.504 to 0.749, which exceeded the recommended threshold value of 0.50.

Table 1: Results Summary for Reflective Measurement Model

Latent Variable

Indicators Loadings Indicator Reliability

t Value p Value CR AVE

Functional Competency of QAO (FCQAO)

FC1 0.784 0.615 25.018 0.000 0.970 0.565 FC2 0.777 0.604 27.519 0.000 FC3 0.743 0.552 22.391 0.000 FC4 0.738 0.545 21.117 0.000 FC5 0.724 0.524 20.251 0.000 FC6 0.767 0.588 22.823 0.000 FC7 0.709 0.503 17.633 0.000 FC8 0.688 0.473 17.945 0.000 FC9 0.720 0.518 22.722 0.000 FC10 0.739 0.546 23.479 0.000 FC11 0.801 0.642 29.592 0.000 FC12 0.753 0.567 23.625 0.000 FC13 0.750 0.563 23.691 0.000 FC14 0.801 0.642 30.593 0.000 FC15 0.829 0.687 35.048 0.000 FC16 0.632 0.399 13.648 0.000 FC17 0.788 0.621 29.328 0.000 FC18 0.813 0.661 37.960 0.000 FC19 0.813 0.661 35.006 0.000 FC20 0.825 0.681 40.885 0.000 FC21 0.666 0.444 15.998 0.000 FC22 0.710 0.504 21.092 0.000 FC23 0.711 0.506 22.008 0.000 FC24 0.754 0.569 24.687 0.000 FC25 0.723 0.523 20.452 0.000

Knowledge Management (KM)

KM1 0.602 0.362 13.014 0.000 0.938 0.504 KM2 0.668 0.446 15.849 0.000 KM3 0.654 0.428 16.107 0.000




Latent Variable

Indicators Loadings Indicator Reliability

t Value p Value CR AVE

KM4 0.732 0.536 23.722 0.000 KM5 0.534 0.285 8.620 0.000 KM6 0.565 0.319 9.990 0.000 KM7 0.777 0.604 28.125 0.000 KM8 0.792 0.627 32.625 0.000 KM9 0.726 0.527 20.451 0.000 KM10 0.787 0.619 30.186 0.000 KM11 0.814 0.663 35.925 0.000 KM12 0.785 0.616 30.513 0.000 KM13 0.730 0.533 19.484 0.000 KM14 0.702 0.493 17.332 0.000 KM15 0.707 0.500 17.476 0.000

Perceived Organizational Motivation (POM)

POM1 0.752 0.566 18.984 0.000 0.932 0.513

POM2 0.754 0.569 24.130 0.000 POM3 0.641 0.411 15.950 0.000 POM4 0.680 0.462 18.527 0.000 POM5 0.714 0.510 15.385 0.000 POM6 0.676 0.457 14.370 0.000 POM7 0.692 0.479 11.327 0.000 POM8 0.694 0.482 11.769 0.000 POM9 0.758 0.575 16.115 0.000 POM10 0.752 0.566 17.851 0.000 POM11 0.733 0.537 14.412 0.000 POM12 0.739 0.546 17.348 0.000 POM13 0.720 0.518 17.945 0.000

Self Management (SM)

SM1 0.753 0.567 21.406 0.000 0.948 0.602 SM2 0.797 0.635 30.039 0.000 SM3 0.722 0.521 18.968 0.000 SM4 0.746 0.557 24.135 0.000 SM5 0.734 0.539 21.729 0.000 SM6 0.726 0.527 24.169 0.000 SM7 0.828 0.686 42.326 0.000 SM8 0.829 0.687 37.311 0.000 SM9 0.744 0.554 23.314 0.000 SM10 0.796 0.634 28.007 0.000 SM11 0.847 0.717 42.983 0.000 SM12 0.773 0.598 21.121 0.000

Training (TN)

TN1 0.851 0.724 28.436 0.000 0.800 0.574 TN 2 0.681 0.464 7.794 0.000 TN 3 0.730 0.533 13.567 0.000


WLB1 0.823 0.677 25.433 0.000 0.937 0.749 WLB2 0.850 0.723 23.723 0.000 WLB3 0.930 0.865 58.342 0.000 WLB4 0.938 0.880 84.550 0.000 WLB5 0.777 0.604 15.756 0.000




In this study, the measurement model’s discriminant validity is assessed by using

Fornell and Larcker’s (1981) criterion, a measurement model has discriminant validity

when the square root of the AVE exceeds the correlations between the measure and all

other measures. The bolded elements in Table 2 confirmed that the Fornell and Larker’s

criterion is met.

Table 2: Inter-correlation Matrix

FCQAO KM POM SM TN WLB

FCQAO 0.752 KM 0.751 0.710

POM 0.621 0.620 0.717 SM 0.587 0.509 0.683 0.776

TN 0.329 0.358 0.254 0.212 0.757 WLB -0.026 0.041 -0.092 -0.205 -0.067 0.866

* Square root of the AVE on the diagonal (bold)

3. Structural Model Assessment

Referring to Figure 2, the five constructs are able to explain 63.0% of the

variance in functional competency of QA officers (FCQAO). Meanwhile, self management

(SM) explains 4.2% of the variance in work-life balance (WLB). On the other hand,

12.8% of the variance in knowledge management (KM) is explained by training (TN).

Based on path coefficient, it shows that FCQAO is influenced directly by SM (β=0.216,

t=4.441, p=0.000) and KM (β=0.543, t=10.512, p=0.000). As a result, hypothesis H2 and

H7 are supported. Further, KM is influenced directly by TN (β=0.358, t=7.054, p=0.000).

Hence, hypothesis H6 is supported. Meanwhile, WLB is influenced by SM (β=-0.205,

t=3.445, p=0.001). As a result, hypothesis H1 is supported.

On the other hand, FCQAO is not influenced directly by WLB, perceived

organizational motivation (POM), and TN. As a result, hypothesis H3, H4, and H5 are not

supported.




Figure 2: Result of Structural Model

Discussions

The empirical results reveal that influence of knowledge management has the

greatest positive significant relationship with functional competency of QA officers that

similar to Jafari, Akhavan, and Nikookar (2013) found that personal knowledge

management (PKM) positively significant relationship between PKM and organization’s

competency. Also the finding confirms by the past studied namely, Dennise, Irene, and

Sérgio (2007) and Haney (2003).

Considering the influence of self management has the positively significant

relationship with functional competency of QA officers which similar to Udom (2013),

Chansirisira (2012), Blanton, Schambach, and Trimmer (1998), and Dishman et al. (2005)

that found self management is influence on professional competencies. Also self

management is directly significant impact on work-life balance. This finding has found

similar support from Akakulanan (2011). Lastly, this study found significantly positive

R2=0.630

R2=0.128

Knowledge Management

(KM)

Perceived Org. Motivation

(POM)

Self Management

(SM)

Functional Competency of

QA Officers (FCQAO)

Training (TN)


R2=0.042

0.216*** 0.011(NS)

-0.205***

0.543***

0.059(NS)

0.358***

0.123(NS)

* = p<0.05 ** =p<0.01 *** =p<0.001 NS = Not Significant




influence between training and knowledge management that similar to research done

by Úbeda-García (2012) in Spanish firms indicated that the training policy is positively

significant effect on knowledge management. In another study, Meireles, Cardoso, and

Albuquerque (n.d.) confirmed that the existence of significant relationships between the

professional training and KM in Portugal. Those resulted studies similar to Khaksar,

Yaghoobi, Jahanshahi, and Nawaser (2011) that they have studied in Iran found the

training of human resources is effective on achieving the objectives of knowledge

management.

Recommendations

Thai tertiary education should emphasize on knowledge management that can

apply the knowledge management process to develop QA officers, i.e. acquisition

process, conversion process, dissemination process, and application process. And also

focus on self management that comprises of three kinds, such as integrity and ethical

conduct, personal drive and resilience, and self awareness and development because

knowledge management and self management have directly influenced to functional

competency.

References

Addey, J. (2004). The Modern Quality Manager. Total Quality Management, 15(5-6), 879-889.

Akakulanan, S. (2011). The Causal Relationship Model of Work-Life Balance Affecting The

Employees’ Effective Work Behavior of the Automotive Part Manufacturers. The Eastern

Thailand. Journal of Behavioral Science, 17(1), 85-102.

Antony, J., Leung, K., Knowles, G., & Gosh, S. (2002). Critical Success Factors of TQM

Implementation in Hong Kong Industries. International Journal of Quality & Reliability

Management, 19(5), 551-566.

Badri, M.A., Davis, D., & Davis, D. (1995). A Study of Measuring the Critical Factors of Quality

Management. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 12(2), 36-53.

Baruch, Y. & Holtorn, B.C. (2008). Survey Response Rate Levels and Trends in Organizational

Research. Human Relation, 61(8), 1139-1160.




Blanton,J.E., Schambach,T., & Trimmer, K.J. (1998). Factors Affecting Professional Competence of

Information Technology Professionals. Newsletter ACM SIGCPR Computer Personnel,

19(3), 4-19. DOI>10.1145/311106.311107

Chansirisira, P. (2012). Study of Core Competency Elements and Factors Affecting Performance

Efficiency of Government Teachers in Northeastern Thailand. International Education

Studies, 5(6), 161-166. doi: 10.5539/ies.v5n6p161

Curran, P., West, S.G., & Finch, J.F. (1996). The Robustness of Test Statistics to Nonnormality and

Specification Error in Confirmatory Factor Analysis. Psychological Methods, 1(1), 16-29.

Dennise, L., Irene, M., & Sérgio, T. (2007). Knowledge Management Model: Practical Application

for Competency Development. The Learning Organization, 14(2), 186-202.

Dishman, R.K. et al. (2005). Self-Management Strategies Mediate Self-Efficacy and Physical

Activity. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 29(1), 10–18.

Fornell, C., & Larcker, D.F. (1981). Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable

and Measuremenr Error. Journal of Marketing Research, 34(2), 161-188.

Goetsch, D.L. & Davis, S.B. (2006). Quality Management: Introduction to Total Quality

Management for Production, Processing and Services (5th ed). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Pearson-Prentice-Hall.

Gutner, T. & Adams, M. (2009). A Leadership Prescription for the Future of Quality (Research

Report). New York, NY.: The Conference Board, Inc.

Hair, J.F. (Jr.), Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C.M., & Sarstedt, M. (2014). A Primer on Partial Least Squares

Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). California, CA: Sage Publications.

Haney, D.S. (2003). Knowledge Management in a Professional Service Firm. Doctoral Dissertation,

Indiana University.

Horton, S. (2000). Competency Management in the British Civil Service. The International

Journal of Public Sector Management, 13(4), 354-368.

Jafari, M., Akhavan, P., & Nikookar, M. (2013). Personal Knowledge management and

Organization’s Competency: A Service organization case study. Education, Business and

Society, 6(3), 181-194.




Joseph, I.N., Rajendran, C., & Kamalanabhay, T.J. (1999). An Instrument for Measuring Total

Quality Management Implementation in Manufacturing-Based Business Units in India.

International Journals of Production Research, 37(10), 2201-15.

Khaksar, S. M. S., Yaghoobi, N.M., Jahanshahi, A.A., & Nawaser, K. (2011). The Study of Training

Impact on Knowledge Management and Organizational Performance. Journal of Applied

Sciences Research, 7(7), 1069-1080.

Meireles,A., Cardoso, L., & Albuquerque, A. (n.d.). The Second Generation of Knowledge

Management: an Analysis of the Relationship between Professional Training and

Knowledge Management. Proceedings of the European Conference on Intellectual Capital.

Retrieved from http://www2.fcsh.unl.pt/docentes/luisrodrigues/

textos/knowledge.pdf

Office for National Education Standards and Quality Assessment (Public Organization).

(2011). Manual for the External Quality Assurance for Higher Education Institutions

2011 (3rd round: 2011-2015). Bangkok: Author.

Office of Civil Service Commission. (2005). Competency Manual for Thai Civil Service. Bangkok :

P.A.Living LTD.

Office of Civil Service Commission. (2009). Core Competency Manual for Thai Civil Service.

Bangkok : P.A.Living LTD.

Office of the Higher Education Commission. (2011). Manual for the Internal Quality Assurance

for Higher Education Institutions 2010 (2nd ed.). Bangkok : Parbpim LTD.

Ratsameetammachot, S. (2008). Competency Based Human Resource Management (2nd ed.).

Bangkok: Thailand Productivity Institution.

Ratsameetammachot, S. (2011). Talent Management by Competency-based Career Development

and Succession Planning. Bangkok: Thailand Productivity Institution.

Saraph, J.V., Benson, P.G., & Schroeder, R.G. (1989). An Instrument for Measuring the Critical

Factors of Quality Management. Decision Sciences, 20(4), 810-829.

Tompkins, J.R. (2005). Organization Theory and Public Management. California, CA: Thomson

Wadsworth.




Úbeda-García, Mercedes. (2012). There is an Interrelationship between Human Resource

Management, Training & Knowledge Management? Empirical Evidence. Human

Systems Management, 31, 231–240. DOI 10.3233/HSM-2012-0771

Udom, P. (2013). An Analysis of Causal Factors and Impacts on the Competency

Development of Teachers in Southern Region with respect to Professional Standards

Criteria involving the Process of Learning Management Development. Songkhla:

Thaksin University. Retrieved from http://re-ed.onecapps.org/ReEDFile/sym1524.pdf

Waddell, D. & Stewart, D. (1999). The Personal and Professional Development of Quality

Manager. Working Paper 02/99. Department of Management, Monash University,

Melbourne.

Waddell, D. (1998). The Role and Responsibilities of Quality Managers. Working Paper

20/98. Department of Management, Monash University, Melbourne.

http://re-ed.onecapps.org/ReEDFile/sym1524.pdf




Appendix 1 Construct, Abbreviation of indicators and Indicators

Construct Abbrevia-tion

Indicators

Functional Competency of QA Officers

FC1 1. You can explain every indicator that used to assess within the institution. FC2 2. You can explain the criteria in every indicator.

FC3 3. You can provide the evidences that used to support every indicator. FC4 4. You can develop the institution’s quality assurance (QA) plan.

FC5 5. You can control and monitor the performance of QA plan.

FC6 6. You can evaluate the progressive of QA plan. FC7 7. You can provide the suggestion in case the performance has chance of

failure. FC8 8. You use the previous plan’s assessment to improve the present plan. FC9 9. You can explain the utility of QA in higher education institution (HEI).

FC10 10. You can explain the important QA target in HEI. FC11 11. You can motivate or suggest QA staff in each unit for the implementation

standard in every indicator. FC12 12. You can motivate or suggest institution’s staff for the implementation

standard in every indicator. FC13 13. You can collect the performance’s data of HEI with accurate and

coverage every indicator.

FC14 14. You can examine according data of performance in each unit and HEI. FC15 15. You can suggest to others for editing the accurate data in every

indicator. FC16 16. You can examine the accurate data on CHE-QA Online.

FC17 17. You can explain the HEI’s tasks.

FC18 18. You can explain the input-process-output/outcome of HEI’s tasks. FC19 19. You can explain the linkage between HEI’s tasks and QA indicators.

FC20 20. You can assess the HEI’s performance.

FC21 21. You can coordinate to other staff who responsible for collecting the data in each indicator on time.

FC22 22. You can coordinate to QA staff in each unit for preparing the self assessment report on time.

FC23 23. You can coordinate to QA staff in each unit for managing the internal QA assessment on time.

FC24 24. You can coordinate to assessor to involve the assessment committees. FC25 25. You can coordinate to others to involve in occasionally internal QA

assessment. Knowledge Manage-ment

KM1 1. You know the reliable sources of QA knowledge.

KM2 2. You usually search the QA knowledge from reliable sources. KM3 3. You usually seek the QA experts’ advice when there are problems.

KM4 4. You usually investigate the QA knowledge sources such as training courses.

KM5 5. You usually collect the information from QA experts to prepare the article, newsletter, or blog.

KM6 6. You usually provide your own QA experience to prepare the article, newsletter, or blog.

KM7 7. Generally, you usually suggest the implementation standards to co-workers.

KM8 8. You usually share the practical experience with inside QA staff.





Indicators

KM9 9. You usually share the practical experience with outside QA staff. KM10 10. You usually provide the knowledge gain from the training

sessions to co-workers. KM11 11. You usually distribute the QA knowledge that you create or collect

within the institution. KM12 12. You usually accept the knowledge that you have shared together others

to improve the implementation. KM13 13. You usually use the solutions related to QA work to prevent the same

problem. KM14 14. You usually use the best practices to prepare the professional standards. KM15 15. You usually provide the best practices in QA to others.

Perceived Organiza-tional Motivation

POM1 1. Colleagues accept your ability to do things. POM2 2. Subordinates or colleagues feel confident to enquire your advice.

POM3 3. QA work challenges your ability.

POM4 4. You use fully knowledge and skills to do work.

POM5 5. You have freedom to do work. POM6 6. You can make decisions about the assignments by yourself.

POM7 7. Supervisors in your office have ability to manage the work system.

POM8 8. Supervisors in your office have the justices. POM9 9. Supervisors in your office provide the appropriate assignment of your

ability. POM10 10. Your office is trusted by others. POM11 11. You usually receive contributions from supervisors. POM12 12. You have an intimacy with supervisors. POM13 13. You usually receive cooperative in the performance from colleagues.

Self Manage-ment

SM1 1. You usually strict on regulations.

SM2 2. You prompt to responsible for your performance. SM3 3. Generally, you do work based on regulations.

SM4 4. You provide advice to colleagues in compliance with the relevant regulations.

SM5 5. You usually find solutions to work. SM6 6. You can finish the assignment on time regularly. SM7 7. You make a maximum effort to reach the office’s goals. SM8 8. You do work hard to reach the better performance of institution. SM9 9. You usually attend QA trainings or conferences. SM10 10. The past mistakes push you to learn many things related work. SM11 11. You be active to improve the performance’s efficiency. SM12 12. You attempt to elevate the performance standard for the good role model

to others. Training TN1 1. Indicators and Criteria for internal and external assessment ……course(s)

TN 2 2. Self Assessment Report ………course(s) TN 3 3. Assessor or secretarial for internal and external assessment ……course(s)

Work-life Balance

WLB1 1. The demands of your personal life interfere with work-related duties. WLB2 2. You have to put off doing things at work because of demands on your time

outside work. WLB3 3. Things you want to do at work do not get done because of the demands of

your interests outside work. WLB4 4. Your home life interferes with your responsibility at work.





Indicators

WLB5 5. Personal life strains interfere with your ability to perform work-related duties.

variables affecting the functional competency of quality...

Documents