Kanji 1999

This article was downloaded by: [RMIT University]
On: 01 October 2013, At: 05:39

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954
Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T
3JH, UK
Total Quality Management

Publication details, including instructions for
authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ctqm19
Total quality management

in UK higher education
institutions
Gopal K. Kanji , Abdul Malek & Bin A. Tambi
Published online: 25 Aug 2010.
To cite this article: Gopal K. Kanji , Abdul Malek & Bin A. Tambi (1999) Total quality
management in UK higher education institutions, Total Quality Management, 10:1,
129-153
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0954412998126
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the
information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.
However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,
or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views
expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the
Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified
with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable
for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses,
damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising
directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the
use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.
Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,
sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is
expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Downloaded by [RMIT University] at 05:39 01 October 2013
TO TA L Q UAL ITY M AN AGE M E N T, VO L . 10, N O. 1, 1999, 129 ± 153
Total quality m anagem ent in U K higher

education institutions
G OPAL K. K ANJI & A BDUL M ALEK BIN A. TAMBI

Sheý eld B usiness School, Sheý eld Hallam University, City Cam pus, Pond Street, Sheý eld
S1 1W B , U K
Abstract Total quality m anagement (TQM ) is a m anagement process that has m ade its way into
higher education institutions (H EIs) in m any developed countries. For exam ple, in the U S, H EIs
have been in¯ uenced due to the success of m any large cor porations. They were in¯ uenced by the
critical state of education in the 1980s in ter ms of student g rades, funding, and com plaints from
employers and parents. M any institutions began to im plem ent it in the early 1990s and have been
successful. In U K higher education, the progress of T QM is rather slow, with exam ples represented
by only a few new universities. H owever, these institutions have bene® ted from a TQM process
sim ilar to their counterparts in the U S, such as improved student perfor mance, better ser vices, reduced
costs and custom er satisfaction. The paper reports on the results of a recent sur vey on T QM in UK
HEIs. The authors exam ine how TQ M principles and core concepts can be measured to provide a
means of assessing the quality of institutions on various aspects of their inter nal processes. It is found
that the measurem ents of T QM pr inciples and core concepts, which are critical success factors, re¯ ect
perform ance of institutions. Any change in the perfor mance of the critical success factors aþ ects the
institution’s business excellence. It also provides infor mation to the institution’ s top m anagement on
its perfor mance over tim e and in comparison with other institutions. The measurem ent m ethod could
be used by the quality assurers in the UK to assess education quality of H EIs.
Total quality m anagem ent in higher education
Total quality m anagem ent (TQ M ) is a process that was applied successfully in industries in
the U S in the 1980s. By using th e process, m any ® rm s, such as Texas Instrum ents, X erox,
IBM and M otorola, were able to improve their business positions by overcom ing threats from
global com petition and other changes in the business environm ent (Lozier & Teeter,
1996). These com panies were recipients of the coveted M alcolm Baldridge Q uality Award,
established by the US Departm ent of C om m erce to g ive recognition to organizations that
exhibit high standards of product and process quality.
The success of the ® rm s and others in using TQ M to bring them out of crisis encouraged
m any U S higher education institutions (H EIs) to adopt it. Lozier and Teeter say that U S
higher education faced its own crisis during the sam e decade. Repor ts by education authorities
such as the N ational Institute of Education and Education C om m ission of th e States indicate
the unfavourable state of U S education and a realization of the need for g reater involvem ent
Correspondence: G. K. Kanji, Sheý eld Business School, Sheý eld Hallam University, City Campus, Pond
Street, Sheý eld, S1 1W B, UK . Tel: 0114 225 3137 ; Fax: 0114 225 3161 ; E-m ail: g.k.kanji@ shu.ac.uk
0954 ± 4127 /99/010129-2 5 $7.00 199 9 Carfax Publishing Ltd

130 G O PAL K. KA N JI & ABD UL M ALEK BIN A. TA M BI
in learning. The authorities also acknow ledged the com plaints received from various sectors
of the econom y, including business, industry and the governm ent, over the decline in quality
of baccalaureate g raduates. O ther writers, such as Burkhalter (1996), report the continuing
public concern for accountability and responsibility of HEIs, spiralling tuition, and decline
in student perform ance in standardized and professional licensing exam s. Lozier and Teeter
add that signals of the higher education dilem m a are received from various facets of the
environm ent within which H EIs operate, e.g. demographic, technological, econom ic, legal,
the public, com peting institutions and accrediting bodies.
N arasim han (1997) says that the ® rst application of TQ M in U S higher education was
at Fox Valley Technical C ollege (FVTC ). As a result of TQ M , FVTC has becom e m ore
eý cient in areas such as placement of graduates, em ployer satisfaction with contracted
training program m es, acceptance of college credits at receiving institutions and improvem ent
in its learning environm ent. Later, m any other institutions began to implem ent TQ M ,
including U niversity of W isconsin-M adison, N orth Dakota University System , Delaware
Com m unity C ollege and O rego n State University (Seym our, 1992). Burkhalter (1996)
reported that within the U S there are 160 universities that are involved in ap plying quality
improvem ent principles, and approximately 50% of the universities have established an
organizational structure for quality. A recent report on the TQ M in U S HEIs can be found
in K anji and M alek (1999).
British standards of education are am ong the highest in th e world. They have a tradition
of excellence stretching back 600 years. The British governm ent has form ed several bodies
responsible for som e aspects of quality, e.g. quality assessm ent, quality assurance and audit.
Th ese include the Com m ittee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals (CVCP), Her M ajesty’ s
Insp ectorate (H M I), Council for N ational A cademic and Accreditation (CNAA ), H igher
Education Funding C ouncil (H EFC ) and the Higher Education Q uality C ouncil (HEQ C )
(Har vey et al., 1992). The British Accreditation Body (BAC ) was established in 1984 for the
purpose of institutional accreditation (British C ouncil, 1991). At present, the responsibility
for quality assurance is carried out by th e Q uality Audit A gency (QA A), wh ich replaced
HEQ C in 1997.
The British Depar tm ent of Education is concerned about quality and accountability of
universities that are all heavily funded by the governm ent (Doherty, 1994). The W hite Paper
1992 triggered a new era in British higher education, signifying the end of th e seg regation
between polytechnics and universities (Shakor, 1994). Th is posed a two-fold emphasis on
quality for the m anagem ent of òld’ and `new’ universities. First, they have to achieve high
quality to be com petitive in attracting m ore students. Second, they have to achieve high
quality to be accountable for their perform ance. The governm ent is not privatizing education
(Harrison, 1994), but the incorporated nature of the universities m eans that their functioning
is subjected to scrutiny from the governm ent. The D epartm ent of Em ploym ent is concerned
whether graduates can satisfy the needs of employers (H arvey et al., 1992). As m entioned
earlier, there are num erous accounts of TQ M applications reported in the US. O ther
applications include projects at Virg inia Com m onwealth U niversity (Cowles & G ilbreath,
1993), O regon State U niversity (Coate, 1993), Pennsylvania State U niversity, U niversity of
Pennsylvania and K ansas State University (Lozier & Teeter, 1996). There is a sm aller num ber
of TQ M eþ orts in the U KÐ only around half a dozen institutions responded to the quality
in higher education study of the U niversity of C entral England in 1992 (H olloway, 1994).
Case studies in the UK are represented by the projects at South Bank U niversity, University
of U lster, Aston U niversity, and Wolverham pton U niversity (Doher ty, 1994). H owever, th ere
are signs of rapid growth of interest in TQ M and quality system s standards in higher
education since 1993.
TOTAL Q UAL IT Y M AN AGE M E NT IN U K H IGH E R ED U C ATIO N IN STIT U TIO N S 131
H arrison (1994) describes how the panopticon of quality in universities in th e UK was

three-tiered. First, there existed an internal quality assurance system . The system was
evaluated by an external audit in the second stage. Third, together they were cap ped by a
judgm ental apparatus linked to the funding agency. The Q uality Audit Agency has recently
proposed to the H EFC E a new fram ework of assessing education quality (TH ES, 1998).
Th is developm ent is aim ed at providing con® dence to those who use and those who pay for
higher education, i.e. in TQ M term s they are the stakeholders. It will be based on an
institution’ s internal validation as well as reviews by academics. Their reviews will be based
on program m es and subjects and are divided into program m e outcom es as well as quality of
learning opportunities. The prog ram m es and subjects will be repor ted in a narrative style
based on a num ber of criteria. Forty-tw o subject benchm ark groups have been identi® ed that
will be used as national subject benchm ark standards. The quality of learning opportunities
would depend on th e attainm ent of program m e objectives based on aspects of teaching and
learning, student support and guidance, learning and resources, and quality m anagem ent
and enhancem ent. It is apparent from these developm ents that U K H EIs are m oving closer
to adopting TQ M by way of their increased custom er focus, the need for quality m anagem ent
and enhancement, and using benchm arks.
The custom ers of higher education
Th e custom ers of H EIs are divided into diþ erent g roups of actors th at aþ ect the education
process, nam ely: existing and potential students; em ployees; em ployers; governm ent; and
industry. O wing to their diþ erent characteristics, they exert certain dem ands that aþ ect the
behaviour of the education system . C ustom ers are either internal or external, depending on
whether they are located within or outside the organization. Juran (1974) derived the concept
of the internal custom er, which relates to an organization with m ore than one person. These
individuals tend to act out three rolesÐ custom er, processor and fur ther supplier. According to
O akland (1989), this interaction of roles is called the internal custom er chain. All th ese internal
custom ers are working towards external custom er satisfaction. From our perspective, th e cus-
tom ers of higher education can be classi® ed into prim ary and secondar y groups on the basis of
their locations, i.e. either internal or external, and the frequency of interactions the institution
has with th em. Figure 1 shows the dual-level custom er g roups of higher education where educa-
tion is th e product and the students are external custom ers as well as internal custom ers.
Som e people disregard students as custom ers of education (Owlia & Aspinwal, 1996);
however, we believe students m ay perform one or all roles of buyer, user and partners of
Figure 1. Customers for higher education .

education. th e Q AA has proposed a new quality assurance fram ework plan that takes into
account the needs of th e various users and payers of higher education, including students,
parents and employers, i.e. the stakeholders (TH ES, 1998). This would m ean that H EIs
would have to perform a crucial role that involves identifying the custom ers, focusing on
their needs, coordinating all th e education activities, and achieving organizational excellence
by creating a long-term custom er relationship based on custom er value and satisfaction.
Harvey et al. (1992) believe stakeholders view quality as a total student experience such that
m any diþ erent aspects of higher education need to be taken into account. These aspects
include what the students experienced before enrolling for a course, the institutional ethos,
institution-based resources and institution-based services apar t from classroom experiences.
According to K anji (1998b), in order to achieve business excellence, m any organizations
have adopted the business scorecard ap proach for process improvem ent, which can also be
adopted by H EIs. K anji says that the stakeholder’ s value is the outcom e of business excellence,
which depends on several key areas, i.e. process excellence, organization learning and
stakeholder’ s delight. Figure 2 shows a business scorecard that has the structure of a pyram id.
Th e critical success factors ser ve as the foundation of the pyram id on which the other key
areas of the organization are stacked at the top like building blocks, to form th e m iddle
section of the pyram id. W hen the organization’ s `structure’ is solid in term s of the critical
success factors and key areas, then it can achieve business excellence and provide higher
stakeholder value.
Figure 2. O rganization’s scorecard.

Q uality in U K higher edu cation
UK higher education has long been subjected to rigorous quality evaluations to ensure that
it oþ ers high standards of teaching and learning as well as research. Previously, th ere were
two governm ent bodies that carried out these assessm ents, em ploying diþ erent criteria and
scales of m easurem ent. They were the H igher Education Funding C ouncils for England,
Scotland and Wales (H EFC E, SHEFC, HEFC W ) and the H EQ C. The H EFC used self-
assessm ent and peer review assessm ent that covered the areas: curriculum design, content
and organization; teaching learning and assessm ent; student progression and achievem ent;
student support and guidance learning resources; and quality assurance and enhancem ent.
A four-point scale was used whereby, provided that each aspect was graded 2 or better, the
quality of the education was approved. The purposes of quality assessm ent were: to ensure
that the public funding provided was supporting education of an acceptable quality, to
provide public inform ation on that education through the publication of reports; and to
provide inform ation and insights to encourage improvem ents in education.
In 1997, the responsibility for assessm ent of education quality was passed to the Q AA .
Th e agency has just com pleted designing a new fram ework of education quality assessm ent
that will m ake use of self-assessm ent, external review and benchm arking. It works very closely
with the funding councils in order to m eet the criteria set by them . In the past, the H EQ C
had m ade use of an auditing process to assess various aspects of an institution’ s education
quality. The audit results were reported using a narrative style instead of quantitative ratings
that had been used by funding councils. The report contained ® ndings, conclusions and
recom m endations ab out the quality of teaching and learning based on the audit exercise.
HEQ C would request the institution to overcom e any shortcom ings of a course provision if
it was found to be unsatisfactory. If the problem persisted the following year, then H EQ C
would recom m end that the course be withdrawn. In the new fram ework, Q A A would adopt
the narrative style of the current audit reports. A new developm ent in the audit process will
be the introduction of academ ic reviewers in place of external exam iners. The academic
reviewers will review both the provision in each institution’ s subject grouping and the
institution’ s overall capacity to assure the quality and standards of its awards. A t present, the
Q AA is working on the requirem ents of H EFC to build on the current grading system s to
establish rating m ethods that are sim ultaneously sim ple, inform ative, valid and fair. This is
because the rating system has legal implications on the funding of higher education. The
funding councils use form ula and non-form ula bases for funding of teaching, research, capital
and other funding.
O ne of the m ain issues that needs deliberations is the Q AA’ s intention to reduce
bureaucracy in quality assessm ent. It believes that it could achieve this by ® nding the right
balance between emphasis on internal assessm ent and peer review. They are looking in the
direction of imparting a lighter touch to assessm ent so as to protect the autonom y of the
institutions. Q A A has proposed a concentration of resources on institutions that they classify
as high-risk institutions. The level of risk is determ ined by several factors, where a high-risk
institution has: large budget; com plicated franchise arrangem ents; m any m odular courses or
a high volum e of provision. All institutions, whether they have a proven track record or a
high-risk one, will be subjected to a de® nitive quality assurance fram ework plan (Fig. 3). The
essence of the fram ework plan will cover the following aspects:
(1) Equality of standards of quali® cations with the sam e nam e.

(2) Spelling out universities’ expectations of what they expect students to achieve on
their courses.
(3) Subject benchm ark inform ation and threshold standards.
134
G O PAL K. KA N JI & ABD UL M ALEK BIN A. TA M BI
Figure 3. Quality A udit Agency’s new quality assurance framework plan 1998 (THES, 1998).
(4) Developm ent of codes of practice to show best practice in overseas provision, student
support, governance, etc.
(5) Introduction of academic reviewers.
Th e new approach for assessing the quality of higher education is based on the quality
assurance m ethod, hence its nam eÐ the quality assurance fram ework plan. In quality m anage-
m ent perspective, the quality assurance m ethod has th e weakness of relying on inspection
and corrective action. This results in ineý ciency because of the tediousness and high costs
of inspection activity. TQ M , however, emphasizes prevention and continuous improvem ent.
Th erefore, costs will be m inim ized and the institutions will improve their eþ ectiveness
over tim e.
TQ M m odels in higher education

TQ M as a m anagem ent philosophy has been proven to have convergent validity by way of
consisting of a com m on set of assum ptions and practices as it is being practised in various
organizations (H ackm an & Wagerm an, 1995). M any TQ M m odels, which are based on these
assum ptions and principles, exist in H EIs in m any parts of the world. The m odels include
those developed at Auburn University (Burkhalter, 1996), A ston U niversity (Clayton, 1995),
the LE AR N m odel, Sam ford University (Baugher, 1991), FVTC (Spanbauer, 1989),
HETQ M EX , Leicester Business School (H o & Wearn, 1996) and the Business Excellence
m odel (Kanji, 1998b). A s in other m anagem ent m odels, TQ M m odels are aim ed at
representing interrelationships between quality dim ensions. The question arises whether a
m odel being used in a certain situation would be transferable to another. H olloway (1994)
says TQ M m odels have a contextual application and at present m any research wo rks are
being carried out on th eir applicability. Although som e TQ M scholars have acknowledged
that the applications of TQ M diþ er from one situation to another, nevertheless, m ost of
them have advocated that TQ M can be applied uniform ly to all organizations ( Juran, 1986,
cited in Sitkin, 1994).
The authors believe that TQ M can be used to achieve continuous improvem ent in
educational institutions regardless of whether or not the institutions encounter sp eci® c
problem s. In addition, TQ M implem entation is in¯ uenced by certain TQ M principles and
core concepts that are critical for th e organizations’ success. These principles and core
concepts can be regarded as critical success factors as described by Daniel (1961). The
purpose of this research is to develop a suitable TQ M m odel for H EIs that incorporates
various critical success factors. H owever, it is diý cult to apply som e m odels because they do
not clearly isolate the principles and assum ptions that m ake up TQ M . Som e m odels are
developed by institutions to serve their particular needs and m ay not be suitable for use by
other institutions. The m odels also m ay not incorporate the critical success factors that aþ ect
TQ M outcom es. Another shortcom ing of som e m odels is that, although they are claim ed to
be successful, they have not been validated by suitable data. We believe the K anji (1998b)
Business Excellence m odel, which satis® es th e above conditions, can be used to derive the
critical success factors for the developm ent of higher education and achieving business
excellence (Fig. 4).
K anji’ s m odel is m ade of four principles: delight the custom er; m anagem ent by fact;
people-based m anagem ent; and continuous improvem ent. Each principle is divided into two
core concepts, nam ely: custom er satisfaction and internal custom ers are real; all wo rk is
process and m easurem ent; team wo rk and people m ake quality; continuous improvem ent
cycle; and prevention (for details, see the Appendix). Leadership serves as a prim e in this
Figure 4. B usiness Excellence model (Kanji, 1998b) .
m odel that m ust be transm itted th rough all the principles and core concepts in order to
achieve business excellence. In this research, th e prime, principles and core concepts are
treated as critical success factors, i.e. factors that m ust go well to ensure success of institutions.
Although K anji has not used the term critical success factors, the author em phasized that
the higher education system has to be guided through the TQ M principles and core concepts
by top m anagem ent leadership in order to achieve business excellence. Kanji and Yui (1997)
provide an accurate explanation of the relationsh ip am ong TQ M principles:
K anji’ s (1996) pyram id m odel is based on the proposition th at to achieve high

custom er satisfaction level (delight the custom er), the organisation had to improve
continuously all aspects of its operation (continuous improvem ent); this can be
achieved through leadership by m aking decisions on objective evidence of what was
actually happening (managem ent by fact) and by involving all employees in quality
improvem ent activities ( people-based m anagem ent), leading ultim ately to business
excellence.
Recently, there has been growing interest from individuals who see positive bene® ts of
applying the ISO 9000 standard in H EIs. H ow ever, very little prog ress on the quality
m anagem ent approach has been reported ( Jam es, 1996). Som e people, such as Jam es
Tan nock (Tim es, July 1991), criticized this developm ent by implicating it as a governm ent
ploy to impose bureaucratic standards derived from industr y on academic departm ents.
Buckingham (Times, Novem ber 1991) refers to ISO 9000 standards as a ``straightjacket’ ’
because th e translation of the standard when applied to educational institutions causes
``confusion and consternation’ ’ . O thers have proceeded to apply the standards in the
institutions and have succeeded, such as, the U niversity of Wolverham pton and Leeds
M etropolitan U niversity. Tannock (Times, August 1991), on the other hand, preferred
institutions to consider carefully the introduction of the philosophy and practices of TQ M .
O akland and R ooney are prom inent accolades for the application of ISO 9000 to
educational institutions. O akland (Times, A ugust 1991) says that he has not seen any case of
failure of ISO 9000 in higher education and that there is no m ag ic about education. R ooney
(Times, August 1991) says that ISO 9000 does not impose a bureaucratic standard but it is
the interpretation that creates the bureaucratization levels. K anji (1998a) says that ISO 9000
could be integrated with TQ M for the developm ent of a TQ M process. H e proposed an
approach to im prove quality by exam ining the organization’ s processes in term s of process
de® nition, process improvem ent and process design. O nce the m eanings of the th ree concepts
are determ ined, then the steps for process innovation (ISO 9001) can begin. Kanji proposes
the application of the European Q uality Award (EQ A) self-assessm ent m odel to th e integrated
self-assessm ent fram ework approach (Kanji, 1998a).
K anji has provided an interesting insight on how to link th e TQ M process to a quality
system . However, to date, there is little progress in this area. The issue of whether ISO 9000
is suitable for applying to educational establishm ents m ust be clari® ed ® rst before any further
progress is m ade. For the tim e being , the authors believe that TQ M as a standalone process,
has the potential of improving quality in educational institutions.
Critical success factors
Boynton and Zm ud (1984) de® ne critical success factors (CSFs) as those few things that
m ust go well to ensure the success for a m anager or /and organization. They represent those
m anagerial areas that m ust be given sp ecial and continual attention to cause high perform ance.
Daniel (1961) (cited in Leidecker and Bruno (1984)) was the ® rst to discuss CSFs in an
ar ticle in the early 1960s. The concept received little attention until a decade later, when
Anthony et al. (1976) (cited in Leidecker and Bruno (1984)) utilized th e concept in the
design of m anagem ent control system . Today, m any studies have been done on determ ining
CSFs in m anufacturing, inform ation m anagem ent (Gow an & M athieu, 1996), planning
( Jenster, 1987), em ployee perfor m ance appraisal (Schneier et al., 1992), product developm ent
(Hughes & C haý n, 1996) and research and developm ent (Pinto & Slevin, 1989). Exam ples
in education include studies at Indiana University, U S (Burello & Zadnik, 1986), U niversity
of Virg inia, US (Nelson, 1991), Aston University, U K (Clayton, 1995) and U niversity of
Pareaus, Greece (D ervisiotis, 1995).
H olloway (1994) quotes the ® ndings of a num ber of researches that tend to point
towards predictable C SFs of institutional quality: training , top m anagem ent com m itm ent,
go od inform ation, and the like. Studies on industries have reported that CSFs m ay vary from
industry to industry (H ofer and Schendel (1978), cited in Leidecker and Bruno (1984);
Daniel (1961), cited in Rockart (1982); Sabherwal and Kirs (1994)). H owever, from his
survey on nine com panies, Rockart says that each industry has a generic set of C SFs. These
® ndings form the prem ise of the present research that goes on to determ ine the H EI C SFs,
develop m eans of m easuring them , and use the m easurem ents to provide pro® le of a H EI’ s
quality m anagem ent and business excellence.
Q uality assessm ent using Kanji’s B usiness E xcellence m odel
TQ M is a process of continuously satisfying custom er requirem ents at the lowest possible

cost by harnessing the capabilities of everyone (Kanji & Asher, 1993). The principles and
core concepts of TQ M can be used for quality improvem ents of organizations, including
higher education. K anji and Yui (1997) have suggested a universal total quality culture (TQ C )
m odel whereby an organization creates strateg ies ab out its m arket, product, technology and
custom ers to be coherent with its environm ent in order to improve continuously its people
and m anagem ent processes.
H ere, quality culture refers to the uni® ed approach through which everybody in the
organization thinks, acts and feels in a quality sense for m ost of th e tim e (Kanji & A sher,
1993). Kanji and Yui’ s (1997) TQ C m odel describes the TQ M process as a never-ending
improvem ent of all people and m anagem ent system s. However, ever y organization has its
ow n stories, m yths, norm s, values, ethics and beliefs that are shared am ong organizational
m embers. The TQ C m odel could be re® ned fur ther to cater for the cultural diþ erences
am ong varied organizations. In th is context, quality culture has been described by the
authors, and can be easily custom ized for individual organizations. Thus, a TQ M organization
has a culture such that TQ M principles and core concepts are embedded in it. Therefore,
the assessm ent of higher education should relate to these principles and their constituent
core concepts, as shown, in Fig. 5 for academ ic excellence. Regarding m ethodology for the
m easurem ent of business excellence in the m anufacturing and ser vice industries, K anji
(1998b) provides som e brief descriptions. In this m odel, leadership is the prim e that
establishes an institution’ s set of principles that are divided into tw o core concepts, each as
shown in the diag ram . If the organization sees the TQ M process through its principles and
core concepts, th en it will achieve business excellence. O bviously, an organization’ s bottom
line is in¯ uenced by changes in its external environm ent in which the only constant is change.
However, by resorting to TQ M , it is possible for an institution to adjust to changes in the

environm ent without sacri® cing its quality. This m odel can be used to obtain the subject
excellence index, program m e excellence index, academic excellence index and collaborative
excellence index. The custom ers of higher education, e.g. perspective students, employees,
professional bodies, funding bodies and institutions, can m ake use of the indices to enhance
quality.
Various m easuring instrum ents have been developed in order to determ ine the quality
of products or service. Exam ples are given in th e wo rks of Parasuram an et al. (1985) and
Saraph et al. (1989). The m odel by Parasuram an et al. is lim ited to the m easure of custom ers’
expectations and th e perception of service quality, and therefore is oriented to the end-user
of the ser vice. The m easurem ent instrum ent introduced by Saraph et al. contains som e item s
that are not applicable to higher education, but are related to production processes. H ogan
(1992) uses the M alcolm Baldridge criteria to evaluate ser vice quality of adm inistrators of
HEIs. How ever, the item s used do not cover the needs of various stakeholders of H EIs.
O wlia (1996) introduced a m odel for m easuring the quality of eng ineering program m es at
universities in the U K. H e perform ed a factor analysis on resp ondents’ ratings of each
questionnaire item and derived a set of critical factors. Although the instrum ent could be
applied to the whole institution, it does not indicate the degree of importance of each factor.
Kanji’ s Business Excellence m odel (Figs 4 and 5) shows arrows that link up TQ M CSFs
throughout the m odel’ s structure. The direction of arrows shows the direction of causal
connections. Each factor is indirectly m easured by indicator variables based on a m easuring
instrum ent. C om putation of ratings by respondents on each factor would generate indices
for th e factors and, ® nally, business excellence index (BEI). A n important aspect of such a
m easurem ent is that it m akes use of a scienti® c approach for m easuring quality. A typical
m easurem ent of BEI is given in a later section.
The assessm ent of education quality by the then H EFC was based on the institution’ s
scores on perform ance indicators derived from audit data. The audit process is perform ed
by quality assessors who com e from wide backgrounds, nam ely academ ic, governm ent
personnel, com m erce and industry. This was believed to provide a good m ixture of people
who were capable of providing reliable judgem ents about various aspects of institution’ s
quality. H owever, the Q A A believes that the external review process should be lightened
when the reliability of institution’ s self-review process has improved. The Q AA supports an
assessm ent approach that has th e right m ixture of internal and external review processes. We
believe in the reliability of results from self-assessm ent and that external review ser ves as a
veri® cation step to con® rm the validity of m easurem ents that have been m ade.
TOTAL Q UAL IT Y M AN AGE M E NT IN U K H IGH E R ED U C ATIO N IN STIT U TIO N S
139
Figure 5. M easuring academic excellence index.

The present sur vey
A recent survey of the practice of TQ M in U K HEIs is repor ted in the following. It was
an exploratory sur vey that emphasized determ ining th e C SFs that aþ ect organizational
perform ance and business excellence. In addition, the research investigated som e cultural
elem ents in UK higher education. The m ethodology involved selecting a sam ple of interest,
from which data were obtained. Following th is, data were collected via questionnaires that
were sent by m ail. The population was m ade up of universities and higher education colleges
listed in the Q uality Assurance and N etwork Director y for 1997 ± 98. Altogether there are
163 institutions included in the list, which treats colleges of universities as individual
universities. The H EIs are represented by th eir Q uality Directors.
Data collection and analysis

Th e questionnaire was designed in such a way that it would be self-explanator y and

respondents could com plete it them selves. This feature m ade it possible to use a m ail survey.
A follow-up survey was conducted via e-m ail to increase th e resp onse rate. The surveys were
perform ed in August and Septem ber 1998. There were, altogether, 51 UK H EIs that
par ticipated in the study, giving a response rate of 31.3% . The breakdown of colleges, old
universities and new universities was 20, 18 and 13, respectively.
A ltogether, 45 tables were prepared on the study data. D ata analysis was perform ed with
Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS), using techniques that include frequency
distribution, cross-tabulation and correlation analysis. Non-responses were ignored by the
com puter. Som e of our ® ndings from the survey are listed in the following.
General ® ndings
Th e general ® ndings of the research are divided into four parts, nam ely:
(1) Som e general inform ation of institutions and extent of TQ M implem entation.
(2) Reasons for TQ M .
(3) App roach to C SFs.
(4) TQ M and institutional perform ance.
Some general inform ation of institutions and extent of TQM implem entation
· M ost colleges are sm all (fewer than 5000 full-tim e students), i.e. 60.7% . U niversities
range from sm all (43.8%) to large (37.5% ).
· Th e average num ber of years the institutions have been established is 74 years for
colleges, 63 years for old universities and 6 years for new universities.
· Th ere are only four institutions that implem ent TQ M , i.e. one college, tw o old
universities and one new university.
· HEIs that implem ent TQ M range from 5 to 161 years old. Thus, the practice of TQ M
does not depend on age of institutions.
· Th e largest proportion of institutions (72.5% ) de® ned quality as `® tness for purpose’ ,
which is consistent with H EFC ’ s de® nition of quality. The propor tion that de® ned
quality as `m eeting custom ers’ exp ectations’ is 25.5% . This group includes one TQ M
institution. Previous work on TQ M organizations has shown that they tend to be m ore
custom er focused (Sinclair, 1994). Since there are only four institutions in the U K
that are TQ M oriented, this accounted for the low proportion of institutions that
focused on their custom ers in their quality activities.
· Lack of custom er aw areness am ong the staþ is a general drawback for m any institutions.
O nly 5.9% of institutions indicate that they have full custom er aw areness by all their
employees.
· Th ere are 92.2% non-TQ M institutions. Som e of them claim that they have so-called
quality m anagem ent in place. There are som e non-TQ M institutions that have adopted
som e TQ M processes.
· From the four institutions that implem ent TQ M , two of th em are sm all institutions
and the other two are large.
· Th e research indicates that the role of leadership is the m ost important factor to
prom ote TQ M in institutions. However, our research indicates that TQ M is introduced
by leadership in only 53.8% of institutions. The rest are introduced by Q uality
Directors (11.1% ) and individuals or g roups.
· All four TQ M institutions have implem ented TQ M in the academ ic area of the
institutions only.
· Th e sur vey indicates that som e of th e barriers to TQ M (e.g. lack of com m itm ent,
insuý cient knowledge and fear of failure) originate from organizational m embers.
Som etim es these barriers are m ore diý cult to overcom e than other barriers in the
institutions. The m ost com m on barrier, however, is ``staþ were pressed with daily
work’ ’ , i.e. 69.4%.
· Th e concept of quality culture is not understood am ong organizational m em bers in
various institutions which can be developed by engaging quality experts for training
and education. None of the institutions has a high level of expertise to develop quality
improvem ent processes. The survey indicates that only 14.7% of institutions actively
work with quality consultants, while 25.5% consult them only occasionally.
· O nly 31.3% of all institutions perform benchm arking , of which 53.8% are new
universities. New universities need to adopt best practices in order to prom ote their
image as institutions of high standards. O nly four old universities benchm ark their
activities, wh ich re¯ ects their state of self-ful® lment and com placency.
· Th ere is a lack of quality culture and other quality activities for transform ing organiza-
tional culture am ong old universities, which shows their resistance towards current
trends in the quality improvem ent process for organizational developm ent. This
coincides with th e Q AA’ s repor t that som e old universities oppose th e quality assurance
fram ewo rk plans because they believe that it will increase bureaucracy.
· For quality m otivation, institutions use various kinds of rewards such as job prom otion,
aw ard, organizational support, recognition and others. How ever, TQ M institutions
only use psycholog ical rewards, i.e. support and recognition, indicating a typical
cultural diþ erence between TQ M and non-T Q M institutions.
Reasons for TQM
Table 1 shows reasons for im plem enting quality m anagem ent by colleges, old universities
and new universities.
· Th ere are 32 causal factors for quality m anagem ent that can help respondents to
improve quality.
· An exam ination of the 32 causal factors revealed that there is a set of unique causal
factors for the three diþ erent institutions. These are factors that are present in an
institution but are not factors for the other institutions.
Table 1. Reasons for quality management
Number of cases
Reasons for quality Total
m anagement College Old universities New universities cases
1 To be com petitive 3 1 3 1(1)* 3 1 4

2 Custom er /student satisfaction 3 5 3 2 3 1 8
3 G overnment in¯ uence 3 8(1) 3 1 3 5(1) 16
4 Image building 3 1 1
5 Increase eý ciency and
productivity (including
processes and academic
programm es) 3 2(1) 3 1 4
6 Continuous improvement 3 1 3 (1) 3 2(1) 5
7 Increase m arket share 3 (1) 1
8 Encourage team work 3 1 1
9 U pgrade student perform ance 3 1 1
10 Create value-driven employees 3 1 1

11 For a high level of service to
internal and external
customers 3 6 3 2 3 1 9
12 To m eet future plans 3 1 1
13 Improve eþ ectiveness
(including processes) 3 2 2
14 Better utilization of resources 3 (1) 1
15 Keep abreast in ® eld 3 (1) 1
16 Resolve current problem s and
overcome weaknesses 3 1 1
17 Accountability to public 3 1 3 2 3
18 Inculcating positive culture
(e.g. corporatization and
positive work ethics) 3 1 1 3 2 4
19 To m anage change (including
processes) 3 1 3 1(1) 3
20 Prevention 3 2 2
21 Obtain feedback on actions to
guide future decisions 3 1 1
22 To develop and provide
opportunities to entire
institution’ s com munity 3 3 3 1 4
23 To satisfy accreditation
requirement 3 2 3 1 3
24 Team and individual
empowerment 3 1 1
25 Improving the organization
and its processes 3 5 3 3 8
26 Core business of HE Is 3 1 1
27 Academ ic standards 3 2 3 1 3
28 Quality and equality of
students’ experience 3 1 1
29 External pressures 3 1(1) 2
30 Equality and value for money 3 (1) 1
31 Raise teaching pro® le 3 1 3 (1) 2
32 Ability to demonstrate we
provide service 3 1(1) 2
Note: Numbers in parentheses are for TQM institutions.

· Th ere is one unique causal factor for college, i.e. resolve current problem s and
overcom e weaknesses.
· Th e unique causal factors for universities are:
(1) im age building*;

(2) increase m arket share;
(3) encourage team work*;
(4) upgrade student perform ance*;
(5) create value-driven em ployees;
(6) to m eet future plans**;
(7) im prove eþ ectiveness (includes processes)*;
(8) better utilization of resources*;
(9) keep abreast in the ® eld*;
(10) to m anage change;
(11) prevention*;
(12) com pete for funds;

(13) obtain feedback on actions to guide future decisions;
(14) to satisfy accreditation requirem ents;
(15) core business of H EIs*;
(16) quality and equality of students’ experience.
Th e above factors are m arked `**’ if they are unique for old universities only and `*’
if they are unique for new universities.
· Th e following conclusions are m ade about the diþ erences in unique causal factors
am ong the diþ erent kinds of institutions.
(1) C olleges are unique by way of the speci® c niches they serve and are concerned with
problem s and weaknesses associated with them .
(2) The presence of m any unique causal factors that relate to quality improvem ent in
universities indicates the wide scope of functions that they are responsible for.
(3) O ld universities m ake strategic plans.
(4) In addition to its concern for a m ultitude of quality objectives, new universities are
concerned with building their image as well.
· Th ere were six institutions th at did not com plete the questionnaire and gave reasons
for it. The quality activities in ® ve institutions are not consistent with the approach
described in the sur vey. The Q uality Director of one institution said that the institution
does not have a quality m anagem ent process. Another said that there is no single form
of quality m anagem ent th at can accurately describe the institution’ s arrangem ent. Two
institutions conduct quality assurance activities that are not believed to be related to
the them e of the survey.
Approach to CSFs
· It is found that there are nine TQ M C SFs that in¯ uence perfor m ance and business
excellence of UK H EIs (Table 2). The rankings of CSFs are also g iven in the table.
Th e rankings are derived from weightings of C SFs th at re¯ ect their relative degree of
criticality.
· Th e role of leadership in prom oting TQ M to the institution is only 53.8% of cases,
while in other cases, th e introduction of TQ M is initiated by the Q uality Director,
other individuals and certain g roups. From the ranking of C SFs in institutions, it is
Table 2. Rankings of CSFs at planning stage and

during implementation
Critical success factor Rank
Leadership 2
Continuous improvem ent 1
Prevention 9
M easurem ent of resources 8
Process improvement 6
Internal customer satisfaction 7
External custom er satisfaction 3
People m anagem ent 4
Teamwork 5
found that leadership is not considered to be th e m ost critical factor in quality

m anagem ent. This is strategically wrong because the m ost important factor in imple-
m entation of TQ M is the full com m itm ent of the leadership. Thus, the leaders need
training and education in the TQ M process.
· It has been found in our survey that in the U K, continuous improvem ent is the highest
ranked TQ M CSF. Leadership is rated second in degree of criticality. This supports
our general ® ndings on the institutions th at the leaders help prom ote and m ake
decisions on quality m anagem ent activities in the institutions but do not provide the
full com m itm ent for the implem entation of TQ M .
· Continuous improvem ent rem ains the highest ranked C SF that shows th at the institu-
tions focus on the activity in planning and practice. How ever, in order to determ ine
whether improvem ent activities have gained favourable results, data and hence m ea-
surem ents are required. However, the weightings on m easurem ent are low both at the
planning stage and during practice.
· A weak correlation between th e level of criticality of C SFs and em phasis g iven to them
during TQ M implem entation has been found (Spearm an correlation 5 0.4333).
TQM and institutional perfor mance
· Th e institutions use various m easures to assess their overall quality of education.

Th ese are: perform ance indicators; m easures based on goal achievem ent; m easures
based on how well processes are m oving; and others. They do not use ® nancial
m easures. The latter is acceptable because quality perform ance m ay not show a
de® nite relationship with ® nancial perform ance (Sinclair, 1994). Previous research
works have shown that, if there exists a relationship between quality and ® nancial
perform ance, th e relationship can be inverse or reciprocal. M any factors can aþ ect
® nancial perform ance, such as: quality of service; operation overheads; dem and for
products or service; stage in product life cycle; productivity; and custom er satisfaction.
We have suggested a com prehensive m easure of organizational perform ance that
incorporates both quality and ® nancial perform ance, i.e. business excellence index.
· M ost institutions use ® nancial m easures as indicators of organizational perform ance
(60.8% ). A nother widely used m easure is institutional com petitiveness (39.2% ). The
latter m ay explain why institutions embarked on new prog ram m es to attract large
num bers of students, such as m odular program m es, distance learning, collaborations
with other institutions either hom e or overseas, and a wide choice of courses and
program m es.
Table 3. Quality and organizational performance of institutions
Institutions’ quality performance Institutions’ organizational perform ance
Old New Old New

Level of Colleges university university Colleges university university
perform ance (% ) (% ) (% ) (% ) (% ) (% )
Excellent 15 16.7 0 10 16.7 0

Very good 50 44.4 23.1 20 38.9 23.1
Good 30 22.2 61.5 65 22.2 46.2
Fair /poor 5 5.6 15.4 5 11.1 30.8
Non-response 0 11.1 0 0 11.1 0
· Th ere is a larger proportion of colleges that uses ® nancial m easures, com petitive
m easures and m arket share com pared to other types of institutions. For exam ple, the
proportions of colleges that use ® nancial m easures and m arket share are 75 and 70% ,
respectively. The proportions for old universities are 57.9 and 42.1% , respectively.
· M ost colleges and new universities have go od organizational perform ance (65 and
46.2% , respectively) com pared to old universities, wh ich have m ore institutions with
ver y good quality perform ance (38.9%) (see Table 3).
· M ost colleges and old universities have ver y good quality perform ance (50 and
44.4% , respectively) com pared to m ost new universities (23.1% ). Neverth eless, m ost
institutions from the three groups have quality and organizational perform ances
ranging from good to excellent, i.e. 92.2 and 86.3% , respectively.
· Th ere is a positive correlation between quality perform ance and organizational perfor-
m ance of all the institutions (Spearm an correlation 5 0.7609).
· Despite the lack of involvem ent in TQ M in U K H EIs, only one institution sur veyed
has future plans to implem ent TQ M . Two TQ M institutions would expand TQ M to
cover wider areas of the organization. The bulk of institutions plan to use other
m ethods to improve quality of education (college, 25% ; old universities, 52.6% ; and
new universities, 75% ).
BE I for Q AA fram ework
As a m ethodology, the quality assurance fram ework can be ® tted to the Business Excellence
m odel approach. We believe that the m odel can be used to com pare business excellence of
organizations, which relate to their ® nancial perform ance. The BEI can be easily calculated
individually for all four areas of the fram ewo rk (see Fig. 2), which can be hom ogenized to
obtain overall institution’ s index. Figures 6 ± 8, show bar char ts of indices for all HEIs, new
universities and university À’ , respectively, based on hypothetical data. It can be seen in Fig.
6 that the BEI of new universities is higher than overall BEI of H EIs. The perform ance of
university À’ surpasses overall perform ance of HEIs and new universities. Figure 7 shows
the BEI and indices of critical success factors of new universities. Th e indices of C SFs have
weighted property and contribute to BEI according to the structure of the B usiness Excellence
m odel. Figure 8 shows the BEI and indices of C SFs for university À’ . Sim ilarly, the indices
of CSFs of university À’ are weighted and contribute to the BEI according to the structure
of th e Business Excellence m odel.
It is clear from Fig. 8 that the indices and BEI of university À’ am ong new universities
are higher than average in all areas of TQ M . The university also has high index values for
Figure 6. B usiness excellenc e index.
Figure 7. Critical success factors.
C1, C 8, C 10 and C12, i.e. leadership, people-based m anagem ent, people m ake quality and
continuous improvem ent cycle, resp ectively. H owever, the university has real weaknesses in
C6, C 11 and C 13, i.e. all wo rk is process, continuous improvem ent and prevention,
respectively. These results sh ow that although the university’ s leadership has given adequate
attention to th e people aspect of m anagem ent, it has been ineþ ective in dealing with
implem enting all the processes. This has reduced the eþ ectiveness of the university’ s
continuous improvem ent activities. Ideally, top m anagem ent should give strong emph asis on
both people and processes. Thus, the university should invest m ore resources in educating
Figure 8. Critical success factors of university À’ .
people to develop better understanding of the role of continuous improvem ent and business
process within the organization and their contribution towards business excellence. A m ore
detailed exam ination can be perform ed on each C SF based on ratings on individual item s in
the m easurem ent instrum ent.
From the preceding discussions, it can be seen that the Business Excellence m odel can
be used to assess individual TQ M CSFs, assess the institution’ s progress over tim e, and
com pare its perform ance with other institutions. The latter could be used by quality award-
giving organizations for selecting aw ard winners. At present, there exist m any widely know n
quality awards in diþ erent countries such as the M alcolm Baldridge aw ard, EQ A and Deming
aw ard, etc. The key diþ erence between the approaches used in these aw ards and the Business
Excellence m odel is that the form er do not utilize suitable statistical m ethods to determ ine
factor weights, factor scores and total evaluation score. They also do not show structural
relationships am ong factors and how the factor scores contribute to business excellence. An
exam ple is given in the work of Dahlgaard et al. (1998) on factor scores of EQ A participants
in 1992. Their study results show that the average score of each quality criterion of com panies
has no relation with its degree of impor tance. They also say that, traditionally, all the factors
associated with enab lers and results are not analysed sim ultaneously. The factor weights are
given arbitrarily and the value given to leadership is unrealistically low from a TQ M point of
view, i.e. 10%. This is because TQ M views leadership as the m ost important agent of change
and therefore is the prim e factor in term s of criticality. In addition, the elem ent of continuous
improvem ent is m issing in this m odel.
Conclusions
Several conclusions can be m ade ab out the pro® le of quality m anagem ent in U K higher
education. Based on the results, it is found that U K higher education has hardly been
involved in TQ M and lacks interest in adopting it in the future. It is m ore concerned with
traditional approaches to prom ote excellence in education, such as degrees, professional
experience, authorship, and research activities. Although these activities are vital in the
developm ent of any institution, however, the environm ent within which the institution
operates changes and gives impact to its perform ance. The institution’ s external environm ent
is m ade of actors and forces such as students, governm ent, employers, public, other
institutions, and parents. These im pacts are in the form of : students’ need for better facilities
in the institution, reduced governm ent funding , decline in quality of g raduates, decline in
student perform ance, spiralling tuition, and increased com petition for outstanding students
and faculty. TQ M can provide the m eans by which these dem ands could be m et by m aking
use of a structural ap proach that allows m easurem ent of C SFs of education quality, gives
indication of institution’ s business excellence, and provides recom m endations on how institu-
tions can achieve continuous improvem ent.
It is found from the study that there are nine CSFs that aþ ect perform ance of the
institution. These factors are synonym ous with the TQ M principles and core concepts in
Kanji’ s Business Excellence m odel described previously. These factors have diþ erent levels
of criticality, as shown in Table 2. Th e factor that has the highest degree of criticality is
continuous improvem ent followed by, in descending order: leadership, external custom er
satisfaction, process improvem ent, team work, internal custom er satisfaction, people m anage-
m ent, m easurem ent of resources, and prevention. Although, there is high regard for continu-
ous improvem ent for quality enhancement, however, any improvem ent from the institution
should result in a favourable experience by the users of education who are the stakeholders.
It is a surprise that leadership is not regarded as the m ost critical by U K higher education
institutions (only 30.6%), unlike in the U S and in M alaysia, based on previous studies (Kanji
& M alek, 1999; Kanji et al., 1999). Q uality m anagem ent is a central aspect of every
established organization, including HEIs. Society views HEIs as excellent organizations m ade
up of excellent people. Reports on successful quality m anagem ent applications in higher
education have shown that the leader plays in¯ uential role in leading , planning, organizing
and controlling all organizational resources to achieve the desired quality goals (Burkhalter,
1996; Coate, 1993; DeCosm o et al., 1991; Doherty, 1993; Seym our, 1993; Spanbauer,
1989). K anji’ s Business Excellence m odel suggests that leadership is th e prim e factor that
guides other quality m anagem ent activities in order to achieve business excellence.
The Q A A is concerned about stakeholders’ dem ands from the higher education sector.
It has recently introduced a quality assurance fram ework plan to assess education quality.
Th e fram ework will involve a m ixture of internal reviews and external reviews of course
program m es and subject group provisions of institutions. Am ong other things, the plan will
produce subject benchm ark inform ation and threshold standards. The Q AA believes that by
using the fram ework, they could achieve several purposes: ensuring that public funding
provided is supporting education of an acceptable quality; providing public inform ation on
that education through the publication of reports; and providing inform ation and insights to
encourage improvem ents in education. It is noticeable that these developm ents in Q AA
strategy are m oving closer to the realm s of TQ M by way of focusing on: stakeholders’ needs
and requirem ents; prog ram m e /subject group benchm arking; and quality improvem ent. TQ M
go es a step further to quality assurance, i.e. emphasis on prevention of m istakes and errors
to m inim ize costs rather than being dependent on inspection activity and corrective actions.
Th e B usiness Excellence m odel could be incorporated in the Q AA quality assurance
fram ewo rk to review program m e /subject g roup, overall academic m anagem ent, and overseas
and collaborative provision by using m easurem ent instrum ents and statistical m ethods that
will generate perform ance indices and overall BEI. These could then be used in repor ts and
by the various users for purposes including quality enhancement and business excellence.
Previous research wo rks have sh ow n that the quality of an organization aþ ects its
perform ance (Kanji & M alek, 1999; K anji et al., 1999; K anji & Yui, 1997). The sur vey
® ndings have shown that the sam e is true for U K HEIs, whereby there is a m oderate positive
correlation between institutional quality and perform ance. Table 3 shows a sum m ary of
quality perform ance analysis of colleges, old universities and new universities. From the table
it can be seen that colleges and old universities have a sm aller proportion of fair /poor
quality perform ance (5 and 5.6% , respectively) and therefore less fair /poor organizational
perform ance (5 and 11.1% , resp ectively) com pared to other types of institutions. For new
universities, there is a larger propor tion of fair /poor quality perform ance (15.4% ) that
corresponds to a larger proportion of institutions of fair /poor organizational perform ance
(30.8% ).
There are diþ erences in quality culture am ong the three kinds of institutions surveyed.
Th ere are m ore causal factors for quality m anagem ent reported by universities over those of
colleges, re¯ ecting the wider scope of functions that they are responsible for. C olleges are
unique by way of the speci® c niches they serve and therefore are concerned with problem s
and weaknesses associated with them . O ld universities m ake longer range plans com pared to
other kinds of institutions. N ew universities are concerned with building their image, which
is consistent with their new status. There is ver y lim ited benchm arking activity conducted by
all institutions, especially am ong old universities. It is possible that due to self-ful® lment and
com placency, old universities have been doing very little investigation and exam ination on
best practices of others. In addition, old universities have not com m itted to the quality
culture in order to transform their organizational culture. This shows the lack of enthusiasm
of their top m anagem ent and leadership in adopting new ways of quality improvem ent and
quality culture, which is a barrier to Q AA’ s proposed quality fram ework as well as TQ M .
A cadem ics have long been agg ressive to external interference on the institution and the
introduction of new m anagem ent techniques. Experience has shown that their resistance has
been successful where they persisted, sur viving the actions of popes, states, political inter-
ference, perform ance indicators, m anagem ent by objectives, social unrest and political
correctness (Kells, 1995). The Q A A has reported resistance to its new quality fram ework
am ong what it described as ``rebel institutions’ ’ , which in this case are som e of the old
universities. The reasons for their disagreements are the potential increase in bureaucracy
and the developm ent of a national curriculum for HEIs. Similarly, TQ M has also been
criticized for being associated with increasing bureaucracy and reducing autonom y of the
faculty. Th e argum ents against TQ M are unfounded because its novelty is in its use as a
process for assisting m anagem ent by way of certain principles and concepts, to improve the
organization and to achieve business excellence.
K anji’ s Business Excellence m odel oþ ers users several advantages over other quality
m anagem ent m odels, whilst overcom ing the shortcom ings already discussed. These are, the
Business Excellence m odel:
· covers all TQ M factors that in¯ uence business excellence;
· statistically shows structural relationships am ong TQ M factors;
· perform s sim ultaneous com putation of m athem atical equations of factor relationships
to obtain factor indices and BEI;
· gives estim ates of strength of relationships am ong factors, between factors, and their
respective indicator m easurem ents;
· com pensates for elem ents of bias in m easurem ents by incorporating a m easure of
disturbance (error);
· provides go odness of ® t of the m odel for the data;
· generates a robust estim ate of param eters and provides a go od m easure of quality
which has statistical validity;
· outputs can be easily interpreted.
We believe that the Business Excellence m odel is extrem ely useful as a scienti® c tool for
assessing quality of H EIs. Som e m oderate m odi® cations of th e m easurem ent instrum ent
used in the m odel would m ake it applicable to other kinds of organizations as well (see Kanji,
1998b).
References
A NTHONY, N.R., D EARDEN, J. & VANCIL, R.F. (1976) M anagement Control Systems Text and Cases (H omewood,
IL , Irwin).
B AUGHER, K.H. (1991 ) LEARN: the student quality team process for improving teaching and learning. In:
D.L. H UBBARD (E d.) Continuous Q uality Improvement: M aking the Transition to Education (M aryville, MO,
Prescott Publishing).
B OYNTON, A.C. & Z M UD, R.W. (1984 ) An assessm ent of critical success factors, Sloan Management Review,
Summ er, 21(4), pp. 17 ± 27.
B RITISH C OUNCIL (1991) B ritish Education G uide (Kuala Lum pur, British Council).
B URELLO, L.C. & Z ADNIK, D.J. (1986 ) Critical success factors of special education adm inistrators, Journal of
Special Education, 29, pp. 367 ± 377.
B URKHALTER, B.B. (1996 ) H ow can institutions of higher education achieve quality within the new economy?
Total Quality M anagement, 7, pp. 153 ± 160.
C LAYTON, M . (1995 ) Encouraging the kaizen approach to quality in a university, Total Quality M anagement, 6,
pp. 593 ± 601.
C OATE, E. (1993 ) The introduction of total quality managem ent at Oregon State University, Higher Education,
25, pp. 303 ± 320 .
C OWLES, D. & G ILBREATH, G. (1993 ) Total quality managem ent at Virginia Com m onwealth U niversity: an
urban university struggles with the realities of TQM, Higher Education, 25, pp. 281 ± 302 .
D AHLGAARD, J.J., K RISTENSEN, K. & K ANJI , G.K. (1998) Fundamentals of Total Quality Management (London,
Chapm an & Hall).
D ANIEL, D.R. (1961 ) M anagement inform ation crisis, Har vard B usiness Review, 39, pp. 111 ± 121 .
D EC OSMO, R.D., P ARKER, J.S. & H EVERLY, M .A. (1991 ) Total quality m anagem ent goes to Community
College. In: L.A. S HERR & D.J. T EETER (E ds) Total Quality Management in H igher Education , New Directions
for Institutional Research (San Francisco, Josse-Bass).
D ERVISIOTIS, K.N. (1995 ) The objective m atrix as a facilitating fram ework for quality assessm ent and
improvem ent in education, Total Q uality M anagement, 6, pp. 563 ± 570.
D OHERTY, G.D. (1993 ) Towards total quality managem ent in higher education: a case study of the U niversity
of Wolverham pton, Higher Education, 25, pp. 321 ± 339 .
D OHERTY, G.D. (1994 ) T he concern for quality. In: G.D. D OHERTY (Ed.) Developing Q uality Systems in
Education (London, Routledge).
G OWAN, J R, J.A. & M ATHIEU, G.R. (1996 ) Critical factors in inform ation system development for a ¯ exible
m anufacturing system, Computers in Industr y, 28, pp. 173 ± 183 .
H ACKMAN, J.R. & W AGERMAN, R. (1995 ) Total quality m anagement: empirical, conceptual, and practical
issues, Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, pp. 309 ± 342.
H ARRISON, M.J. (1994 ) Quality issues in higher education: a post-m odern phenom enon? In: G.D. D OHERTY
(Ed.) Developing Quality Systems in Education (London, Routledge).
H ARVEY, L., B URROWS, A. & G REEN, D. (1992) Criteria for Quality (Birm ingham , QHE, The University of
Central England).
H O, S.K. & W EARN, K. (1996 ) A TQM model for enabling student learning, Innovations in Training and
Education International, 33, pp. 178 ± 184 .
H OFER, W.C. & S CHENDEL, D.E. (1978) Strategy Formulation Analytical Concepts (St Paul, M N, West Publishing
Company).
H OGAN, T.J. (1992 ) T he application of the M alcolm Baldridge National Quality award criteria to the evaluation
of quality in collegiate administration services, PhD Dissertation, Ohio U niversity, Athens.
H OLLOWAY, J. (1994 ) Is there a place for total quality m anagem ent in higher education? In: G.D. D OHERTY
(Ed.) Developing Quality Systems in Education (London, Routledge).
H UGHES, G.D. & C H AFFIN, D.C. (1996 ) Turning new product development into continuous learning process,
Journal of Product Innovation and Management, 13, pp. 89 ± 104 .
JAMES, P.T.J. (1996) Total Quality Management: An Introductory Text (N ew York, Prentice-Hall).
JENSTER, P.V. (1987 ) U sing critical success factors in planning, Long Range Planning, 20, pp. 102 ± 109.
JURAN, J.M. (1974) Quality Control H andbook (N ew York, M cGraw-H ill).

JURAN, J.M . (1986 ) The quality trilogy: a universal approach to m anaging for quality, Quality Progress, 19,
pp. 19 ± 24.
K ANJI, G.K. (1996 ) Implementation and pitfalls of total quality managem ent, Total Quality Management, 7,
pp. 331 ± 343.
K ANJI, G.K. (1998a ) An innovative approach to m ake ISO 9000 standards m ore eþ ective, Total Quality
Managemen t, 9, pp. 67 ± 78.
K ANJI, G.K. (1998b ) M easurem ent of business excellence, Total Q uality M anagement, 9, pp. 633 ± 643.
K ANJI, G.K. & A SHER, M. (1993) Total Quality Management Process: A Systematic Approach (M adras, Productiv-
ity Press).
K ANJI, G.K. & M ALEK, A. (1999 ) T QM in US higher education. In: B est on Quality, IAQ B ook Series, Vol. 10
(W isconsin, ASQ Quality Press).
K ANJI, G.K., M ALEK, A. & W ALLACE, W. (1999 ) A com parative study of quality practices in higher education
institutions in United States and M alaysia, Total Quality Management (in press).
K ANJI, G.K. & YUI , H. (1997 ) Total quality culture, Total Quality Management, 8, pp. 417 ± 428.
K ELLS, H .R. (1995 ) Creating a culture of evaluation and self-regulation in higher education organisations,
Total Quality M anagement, 6, pp. 457 ± 467.
L EIDECKER, J.K. & B RUNO, A.V. (1984 ) Identifying and using critical success factors, Long Range Planning,
17, pp. 23 ± 32.
L OZIER, G.G. & T EETER, D.J. (1996 ) Quality improvement pursuits in Am erican higher education, Total
Quality Management, 7, pp. 189 ± 201.
N ARASIMHAN, K. (1997 ) Organisational clim ate at the university of Braunton in 1996, Total Q uality M anage-
ment, 8, pp. 233 ± 237.
N ELSON, R.R. (1991 ) Survey of knowledge and skill requirem ents, MIS Quarterly, 15, pp. 503 ± 521 .
O AKLAND, J.S. (1989) Total Quality M anagemen t, 2nd Edn (O xford, Butterworth).
O W LIA, M.S. (1996 ) A customer-oriented approach to the m easurement and improvem ent of quality in
engineering education, PhD Dissertation, Birm ingham U niversity.
O W LIA, M.S. & A SPINWALL, E.M. (1996 ) Quality in higher educationÐ a survey, Total Quality M anagement, 7,
pp. 161 ± 171.
P ARASURAMAN, A., Z EITHMAL, V.A. & B ERRY, L.L. (1985 ) A conceptual m odel for service quality and its
implications for future research, Journal of Marketin g, 49, pp. 41 ± 50.
P INTO, J.K. & S LEVIN, D.P. (1989 ) Critical success factors in R-and-D projects, R esearch-Technology M anage-
ment, 32, pp. 31 ± 35.
R OCKART, J.F. (1982 ) The changing role of the inform ation systems executive: a critical success factors
perspective, Sloan M anagemen t Review, Fall, 24(1) , pp. 3 ± 13.
S ABHERWAL, R. & K IRS, P. (1994 ) The alignm ent between organisational critical success factors and inform ation
technology capability in academ ic institutions, Decision Sciences, 25, pp. 301 ± 331.
S ARAPH, J.V., B ENSON, P.G. & S CHROEDER, R.G. (1989 ) An instrum ent for measuring critical success factors
of quality m anagement, Decision Sciences, 20, pp. 810 ± 829.
S CHNEIER, C.E., S H AW, D.G. & B EATTY, R.W. (1992 ) Performance m easurement and managem ent: a tool for
strategy execution, Human Resource M anagemen t, 30, pp. 279 ± 301.
S EY MOUR, D. (1993 ) Quality on cam pus: three institutions, three beginnings, Change, 25, pp. 14 ± 27.
S EY MOUR, D.T. (1992) O n Q. Causing Quality in Higher Education (N ew York, MacMillan).
S H AKOR, M. (1994 ) Total quality m anagem ent within the context of higher education: an evaluation of the
extent to w hich the concept of TQM is applicable in higher education, M Sc Thesis, Liverpool U niversity.
S INCLAIR, D.A.C. (1994 ) Total quality-based perform ance measurement: an empirical study of best practice,
PhD Dissertation, Bradford U niversity.
S ITKIN, S.B. (1994 ) Distinguishing control from learning in total quality m anagement: a contingency
perspective, Academy of Management Review, 19, pp. 537 ± 564.
S PANBAUER, S.J. (1989) Measuring and costing Quality in Education (Appleton, W I, Fox Valley Technical College
Foundation).
THES (1998 ) Quality Assurance: a new approach, U K, 16 October.
App endix: Glossary
Leadership ( prim e): The developm ent and implem entation of quality strateg ies require funda-
m ental changes in corporate culture and organizational behaviour and therefore can only be
achieved through active leadership provided by top m anagem ent. The role of leadership is to
m otivate people and com plete all the necessar y tasks, and is therefore a necessary m anagem ent
com ponent in organizations.
Principles of TQM
Delight the customer : Delight m eans being best at what m atters m ost to custom ers, and this
changes over tim e. B eing in touch with these changes and delighting th e custom er now and
in the future is an integral part of TQ M .
People-based m anagement : K now ing what to do, how to do it, and getting feedback on
perform ance is one way of encourag ing people to take responsibility for the quality of their
work. Involvem ent and com m itm ent to custom er satisfaction are ways to generate this.
Continuous im provem ent : C ontinuous im provem ent or increm ental change, not m ajor break-
throughs, is the aim of all who wish to m ove towards total quality.
M anagem ent by fact : Knowing the current perfor m ance levels of the products or ser vices in
the custom ers’ hands and of all em ployees is the ® rst stage of being able to improve.
M anagem ent m ust have the facts necessar y to m anage business at all levels. Giving that
inform ation to people so that decisions are based upon facts rather than `gut feelings’ is
essential to continuous improvem ent.
Concepts of T QM
Customer satisfaction : Som e com panies go out to their custom ers to sur vey wh at is important
to them , and to m easure their ow n perform ance against custom er targets. This allows the
com pany to m onitor custom er satisfaction as m easured by the custom er.
Internal customers are real : The de® nition of quality (i.e. satisfying ag reed custom er require-
m ents) relates to internal and external custom ers. M any writers refer to a custom er /supplier
chain and the need to get the internal relationships working in order to satisfy the external
custom er. W hether you are supplying inform ation, products or a ser vice, the people you
supply internally depend on th eir internal suppliers for quality wo rk.
All work is process : A process is a com bination of m ethods, m aterials, m anpower, m achinery,
etc. which, taken together, produce a product or ser vice. All processes contain inherent
variability and one approach to quality improvem ent is progressively to reduce variation:
® rst, by rem oving variation due to special causes; second, by driving down com m on cause
variation, bringing the process under control and then improving its capability.
M easurem ent : H aving a m easure of how the organization is doing is the ® rst stage of being
able to improve. M easures can focus internally, i.e. on internal custom er satisfaction, or
externally, i.e. on m eeting external custom er requirem ents.
Teamwork : W hen people are brought together in term s of a com m on goal, quality improvem ent
becom es easier to com m unicate over departm ental or functional walls. In this way, the slow
breaking down of barriers acts as a platform for change.
People m ake quality : Th e role of m anagers within an organization is to ensure that everything
necessary is in place to allow people to m ake quality products. This in turn begins to create
the environm ent where people are willing to take responsibility for th e quality of their
ow n wo rk.
The continuous improvement cycle : The continuous cycle of establishing custom er requirem ents,
m eeting the requirem ents, m easuring success and continuing to improve can be used
internally to fuel th e engine of external and continuous improvem ent. By continually checking
custom ers’ requirem ents, a com pany can ® nd areas in which improvem ents can be m ade.
Prevention : Prevention m eans causing problem s not to happen. The continual process of
driving possible failure out of the system can breed a culture of continuous improvem ent
over tim e.
B usiness excellence index : The sim ultaneous m easurem ent of custom ers’ , em ployers’ , and
shareholders’ delights within an organization to provide overall business success.

Kanji 1999

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Kanji 1999

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

This article was downloaded by: [RMIT University]

On: 01 October 2013, At: 05:39

Total Quality Management

Total quality management

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0954412998126

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Total quality m anagem ent in U K higher

G OPAL K. K ANJI & A BDUL M ALEK BIN A. TAMBI

Total quality m anagem ent in higher education

0954 ± 4127 /99/010129-2 5 $7.00  199 9 Carfax Publishing Ltd

H arrison (1994) describes how the panopticon of quality in universities in th e UK was

The custom ers of higher education

Figure 1. Customers for higher education .

Figure 2. O rganization’s scorecard.

Q uality in U K higher edu cation

(1) Equality of standards of quali® cations with the sam e nam e.

TQ M m odels in higher education

Figure 4. B usiness Excellence model (Kanji, 1998b) .

K anji’ s (1996) pyram id m odel is based on the proposition th at to achieve high

Critical success factors

Q uality assessm ent using Kanji’s B usiness E xcellence m odel

TQ M is a process of continuously satisfying custom er requirem ents at the lowest possible

However, by resorting to TQ M , it is possible for an institution to adjust to changes in the

Figure 5. M easuring academic excellence index.

The present sur vey

Data collection and analysis

Th e questionnaire was designed in such a way that it would be self-explanator y and

Reasons for TQM

Table 1. Reasons for quality management

1 To be com petitive 3 1 3 1(1)* 3 1 4

10 Create value-driven employees 3 1 1

Note: Numbers in parentheses are for TQM institutions.

(1) im age building*;

(12) com pete for funds;

Table 2. Rankings of CSFs at planning stage and

Critical success factor Rank

found that leadership is not considered to be th e m ost critical factor in quality

TQM and institutional perfor mance

· Th e institutions use various m easures to assess their overall quality of education.

Table 3. Quality and organizational performance of institutions

Institutions’ quality performance Institutions’ organizational perform ance

Old New Old New

Excellent 15 16.7 0 10 16.7 0

BE I for Q AA fram ework

Figure 6. B usiness excellenc e index.

Figure 7. Critical success factors.

Figure 8. Critical success factors of university `A’ .

JURAN, J.M. (1974) Quality Control H andbook (N ew York, M cGraw-H ill).

App endix: Glossary

Potrebbero piacerti anche

0954 ± 4127 /99/010129-2 5 $7.00 199 9 Carfax Publishing Ltd