The Applicability

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available atwww.emeraldinsight.com/1754-2731.htm The applicability of quality management systems and models to higher education A new perspective Yadollah Mehralizadeh and Massoud Safaeemoghaddam Shahid Chamran University, Ahwaz, Iran Quality management systems 175 Received March 2006 Revised March 2007 May 2009 Accepted October 2009 Abstract Purpose – The main purpose of this paper is study to what extent the idea of a total quality management (TQM) system (Deming, ISO, Baldrige, and EFQM) which is borrowed from business is applicable in a higher education institution. Design/methodology/approach – A meta-evaluation methodology is used which emphasises Røvik’s seven theoretical assumptions on how management ideas are spread in a given sector. Findings – The findings of this paper reveal that that in many cases the current evidence of application of TQM is not compatible with the assumed criteria of the Røvik model. The quality systems are not often socially acceptable, they do not follow a clear philosophy and theory, do not show the productivity of institutions, are less progressive, have low harmonies, unrealistically publicized but in terms of individualized aspects there are some supportive successful case applied in non-academic higher education. Originality/value – The value and new message of this paper is its investigation of the fitness of TQM from a new perspective based on meta-analysis. Keywords Total quality management, Higher education, Quality systems Paper type Research paper Introduction Higher education institutions are driven to engage in reforms by a variety of forces, which mostly come from globalization, supply and demand issues, competition, accountability, and technology. The quest for quality is attributed to a number of changing phenomena (Temple, 2005; Mehralizadeh, 2005; Srikanthan, 2003; Avdjieva and Wilson, 2002; Birnbaum, 2000; Dale et al., 2000; Izadi et al., 1996). Accordingly there has been a good deal of research into the subject of quality in higher education, with well-recognized contributions from the UK, Australia, Spain, Germany, France, Norway, Canada and the USA, amongst others. There are a range of theories and models proposed to help higher education policy makers improve the quality system. These include socio-political, organizational, pedagogical and business models proposed by scholars: Political and power models (Ball, 1985, Brennan et al., 1997, Clark, 1983), collegial and managerial rationality, facilitative and bureaucratic rationality, formal, subjectivity, uncertainty, and cultural (Zavelys, 2005, Bush, 1995); pedagogical models by Srikanthan and Dalrymple (2002) categorized as transformative model (Harvey, 2004; Harvey and Knight, 1996), engagement model (Corwin, 1997), responsive university (Tierney, 1998), social practice theory (Lave and Wenger, 1990; Vygotsky, 1978) and organizational learning The TQM Journal Vol. 22 No. 2, 2010 pp. 175-187 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 1754-2731 DOI 10.1108/17542731011024282 continuous improvement and learning being essential tools. Africa. Meta-evaluation is a useful framework for considering a subjects or phenomena from different perspectives. Fitness of current quality management system in higher education is a controversial issue. There has been much discussion in recent years about the “fall” of TQM. Although the literature offers a wide variety of examples of implementation models and satisfying results in relation to implementation of each of these models in higher education. Europe. therefore. and for a while. The question is to what extent the idea of new quality system that is borrowed from business is applicable in a higher education institution. including the USA. Therefore. By the mid-1990s. somewhat prescriptive and sometimes critical. Deming Prize in Japan. as Temple (2005) and Birnbaum (2000) stated. higher education institutions started implementing quality management systems according to the quality awards of ISO in Europe. Australia and USA. particularly in higher education. where TQM is viewed as “dated”. Asia. but also they will be studied at micro (institutional) level as a socio-cultural and political phenomena and specific domain system. the Malcolm Baldrige Criteria for Performance Excellence. for specific studies that demonstrate the reality of their effectiveness and the viability of their implementation. ISO. 1990). and New Zealand. so that knowledge about these theories may give new insights on advantages. partly decouple the new tool from existing practice in the organization. Australia. because it is not firmly founded in traditional sociological or organizational theory.2 176 (Senge. The miscellaneous comments made on this subject have been mostly descriptive. results of this study are important because not only do they consider underlying assumptions and limitations of these systems. have embraced one or some elements of these quality systems. Like Stensaker(2005). and European Quality Award in European countries. Røvik (1998) describes how the integration of a new tool depends on the capacity to adopt. Røvik proposed that there are seven central characteristics related to a . Much has been said and written about the Quality Awards programs since their inception. whether TQM is another management fad theory that might create significant educational and organizational problems. Canada. we use Røvik’s (1998) seven theoretical assumptions on how management ideas are spread in a given sector. possibilities and limitations of TQM in relation to quality improvement. an attempt is made to link TQM to scholarly sociological and organizational theories. Models of business organization or total quality management (TQM) (Deming. In fact. In order to do this. TQM may escape the critical attention of researchers. through this meta-analysis research the author evaluate current approaches used to improve quality within higher education. How has this state of affairs arisen? There is clearly a need. European Excellence Model (EFQM)) in various forms have for decades been assumed as successful methods in improving productivity. many higher education institutions around the world. To better achieve the objective of this study. research and services to society. Malcolm Baldrige Quality Award in the USA. We still need to find out. some prefer to be cautious about the issue especially when higher education and academic aspects are taken into account. or could be considered as an essential source of good ideas that may be of great value to colleges and universities.TQM 22. The key question which relates to the interface between the quality system and higher education institution is whether this kind of quality system can help higher education institutions to improve the quality of their academic. the reluctance of academic divisions to adopt it was alarming and represented a serious disjunction between market forces and the academic enterprise. Chaston has identified some obstacles such as insufficient trust between departments and faculty members creating a low confidence level of ability to manage the process of TQM (Ho and Wearn. 2005). progressive. Consequently. faculties feel free (and perhaps well justified) to reject evaluative processes such as TQM that might result in satisfaction or productivity measures that could be used to influence how they do their teaching and research. Entin (1993) found that while senior management was often extremely enthusiastic about the initiative. harmonized. Other problems can arise from the reluctance of staff members to disregard existing boundaries. Market values perspective of TQM The market values perspective of TQM are against the traditional culture of academic freedom in higher education. productivised. The content of their courses. services. Youssef et al. Writing about the implementation of TQM in ten colleges and universities around Boston. 177 Managerialism idea dominated on TQM There are undoubtedly problems within any initiative in higher educational institutions which can be perceived as management-led. They need to be socially authorized. and their professional values over the years have been subsumed under the umbrella of academic freedom. In fact. wherever that search leads them. Perhaps the most important element in academic culture that frustrates the introduction of conventional TQM procedures is the doctrine of academic freedom as it plays out in individual professorial classrooms and their professional lives. 1996). 1993). Faculty members traditionally have had the right to profess their disciplines as they see fit and to seek truth. employee involvement and participation. there is evidence which indicates that in higher education institutions this idea is not positively supported. and individualized. Sirvanci (2004) argued that organizations that have adopted TQM have transformed their institution’s culture into a total quality culture that involves elements such as teamwork. theorized. Quality management systems Socially authorized According to Røvik (1998) any new management system should be socially accepted and supported by powerful and influential stakeholders within higher education. . (1989) cogently point out that while the general philosophy and language behind TQM are attractive to nearly all academics.successful diffusion of management ideas (see Stensaker. education and higher education is that people are happier when they are doing something for which they are fit. In relation to social acceptance of TQM. Moreover. customer and market focus. and process management. academics may be put off by the evangelical fervor of some TQM proponents and especially when TQM is perceived as bringing in more committee work with no direct professional benefits for individual staff (Brown and Koenig. one thing which is clear in every study about these quality systems whether in industry. the nature of their research. many elements of modern university culture make it difficult for TQM actually to be implemented. dramatized. So many people are trying to “fit” into the new quality system through their own decision and willingness instead of being fit by the top managers and leadership. it has had a remarkably small impact on colleges and universities. Ambiguity of Faculty-students relationship TQM’s requirement that students are involved as customers and part of the “teamwork” are accepted as a threat to the faculty’s autonomy (Motwani and Kumar. Theorized system Theory has a number of distinct meanings in different fields of knowledge. Koch (2002) argued that in spite of the fact that TQM has many supporters and much use outside higher education. bill paying. This is not only because TQM has failed to address the most important issues. The delivery of educational services is unquestionably different from the traditional transactions that take place when buyers are assumed to have sufficient information about the product to make fully informed decisions. curriculum. As a result of the strong departmental organization. As Popper (1959) described that the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability. coherent set of ideas and models. with responsibility for academic quality. physical plant. TQM has had virtually nothing to say about these. higher education institutions are based on a strong departmental model. or refutability. Hawking (1988) asserted that each theory is a good theory if it satisfies requirements such as a set of hypotheses that are logically bound together. implementation of horizontal (or process) management. The theory behind TQM ascertains that by . 2002). or testability. which involves desirable practices such as interdepartmental team teaching and cooperation among departments for curriculum development. as in the “the customer is always right” type of scenario. Two-thirds of institutions that began TQM projects in the 1990s abandoned them because the vast majority had been failures. makes generalizations about observations and consists of an interrelated. Thus. (Lamb. nearly all of these have focused on non-academic activities. While numerous institutions of higher education have sponsored quality as initiatives. 1997). Deming’s “System of Profound Knowledge” suggests four key elements that underpin successful continuous improvement. Drennan’s (1999) results on attitudes towards the application of TQM within the Scottish universities revealed that key personnel. but also because TQM has weakened the nature of academic culture and the difficulty of defining the precise nature of higher education. depending on the context and their methodologies.TQM 22. higher education TQM has concentrated on processes such as registration. tuition and fee levels vis-a`-vis scholarship assistance. becomes difficult. had substantial reservations regarding the usefulness and implementation of TQM within an academic environment. It has ignored the most critical questions facing the academy such as faculty tenure. Non-academic application One good reason of social resistance to these models is that due to the resistance of academic departments in higher education in implementing this quality system these institutions mostly apply TQM in non-academic sections.2 178 Unreceptive of academic groups Organizationally. When we see the TQM theory in the light of the above characteristics these quality management systems claim that principles they have introduced will help the institutions of higher education to consider their problem all round. and purchasing. Faculties balk at the idea of having a student as a customer. . While TQM has become heavily associated with a number of well-known exponents. it is clear. The brutal truth is that TQM has had very little of consequence to say about any of these issues. opportunism. and accident as influential in shaping organization outcomes. Silvestro (1998) in a paper titled “ Why TQM can fail?” concluded that researchers believe that TQM has failed in industry. Define the customer. there are criticisms as follows: . or “organization development”. Planned-approach ideas generally focused on two principles: evaluation of the current problems. 1995). in the tradition of what has been called the “planned approach” to organizational change. rather than a coherent philosophy or approach.looking at organizations as complex systems we have a multiplicity of operational and political dimensions. This is because of the special nature of many academics whose motivation for work is often independent of market issues. This model did not consider the issues of power. Silvestro. Their main reasons are stated as the absence of a cohesive model of TQM. customer orientation is a more problematic principle of TQM when applied to universities (Harvey. actions and situation of organization. whereby knowledge is hard gained and the uncertainty of the rule rather than the exception is brought about. A theory of quality in higher education should clearly work out the relationship among input. Failure to focus on the big questions. chance. Meanwhile. From a theoretical point of view. . some prefer being cautious about the issue especially when higher education and academic aspects are taken into account. Based on the description of Table I we may say that TQM foundation is an approach which mostly addresses the principle of interpretative-phenomenology philosophy in regard to management science and empirical research while in some other aspects have a positivist view of organization. 1998). Having said that this is still an open question to what extent this philosophy in which there is still ambiguity in some parts of it would be able to be applicable in higher education institutions. Koch and Fisher. process. The absence of a cohesive model of TQM. It focuses on how students register rather on than what they learn or the role of faculty tenure (Selvarantam. output and long-term results of higher education. its role in higher education is still controversial. these premises have been criticized because of two reasons: its perceived shortcomings in achieving operational improvements and too much emphasis on a linear relationship in observing and planning of organization improvement. Temple (2005) argued that the EFQM Excellence Model generally and this higher education variant in particular are. All of which is to say that TQM has missed the mark on the most important higher education questions of the day. Koch. and using this information to solve the organization problems. a review of their teachings reveals a miscellany of ideas and management practices. In relation to theory underpinning of TQM. Although the literature offers a wide variety of examples of implementation models and satisfying results of TQM implementations in higher education. 2005. Although this spirit should be regarded as Quality management systems 179 . While TQM as a customer oriented approach is generally accepted in commercial organizations. 1998. 2002. A look at the limited amount of TQM empirical evidence available in the higher education realm reveals that there is not a balance of seeing different parts of higher education in TQM models. Philosophical assumptions of TQM Positivist framework 180 Description TQM 22. Combination of both philosophy $ Axiology: value Prediction Objective Truth Universal and beautiful Methodology Subjective Concern with attempting to decode meaning and different interpretations of phenomena Dependency of observer to the truth Take a holistic view Values dependent on organization Fuzzy logic Order with in chaos Chaos and complex of change Multiple approach $ $ Objective.2 .Participation Qualitative. dispassionate Truth can be revealed by the scientific method Epistemology Multiple realities Socially constructed Ignoring totality Unsafe and dynamic world Influences of rational by emotion and feeling Applicability for TQM The interpretive framework (phenomenology) ! ! $ ! ! A single reality General construction (the world is structured by law) Totality Safe world Rationality of human being Ontology Table I. dialectical Relationships between variables complicated and chaos Chaos Understanding and subjective truth Situated and description $ $ $ $ $ ! Observation Quantitative Cause and effects relationships between variables ! $ ! $ ! $ ! Detached observer of truth Take a Reductionism view Clear predictions to link cause and effect Logical Order Control of change One best way Notes: Tendency toward a philosophy ! . Similarly. A theory should be consistent with pre-existing theory to the extent that the pre-existing theory is experimentally verified. 1998). in higher education. that the idea is sold as a commodity to be purchased in a market. Roffe (1998) suggests that while there are a small number of quality indicators in industry. centralization and “marketisation” of higher education as not very desirable. From a sociological perspective. transformed from an idea into an object in form of routines. 1993. is not very affirmative. 1997). However. Progressive Progressive indicates that the idea is distinguished from other management ideas as something better or improved. Van Vught. Quality in higher education is essentially a socio-culture and political issue (Mehralizadeh. A substantial number of contributions have over the years pointed to the dangers and side effects of quality assurance. etc. it is management-driven. In terms of progressiveness aspects of TQM it is said that this theory has side effects for higher education institutions. The most notable characteristics are the intangibility and heterogeneity of the outputs of services. 1996). one needs to realize that higher education is different from other service industries. 1992). highlighting the risk of increased bureaucratization. Conflicts with the education values. Yorke (1994) advises that accountability relationships are more complicated. handbooks. as Koch (2002) argued that the products of education institution are various. and Roffe (1998) indicates that while the accountability emphasis of TQM in industry is on a team. these are more numerous and complex in higher education and therefore more difficult to assess. Stensaker (2005) mentioned that the picture of new organizational practices related to quality assurance in higher education. i. both on the national and institutional level. Disregarding the market has the danger of ignoring the real needs of consumers (Owlia and Aspinwall. it may also be detrimental. Parker and Slaughter (2003) argue that the dangers of TQM go beyond the problems of implementation: Beneath the ambiguity and the attractive features there is a core logic to TQM theory and practice that goes “against” the educational and professional values and the conception of work that unions advance. Productivised Productivised means making the quality into product. actions. technological and social implications. which are in contrast to those in the manufacturing industry that are more measurable and standardized in their specifications (Sureshchandar et al. 2005) with underlying economical.. It is argued that TQM is not enough productivised because its heterogeneity is under question. It follows of this assumption that the idea must be “objectified”. Much the same considerations hold with respect to determining the products of higher education. having some value in scientific environments.e. Banta. there have been a number of limitations identified in the wholesale adoption of TQM to higher education. (see Czarniawska and Sevo´n. 2002. Silvestro. particularly in relation to measurement of organization performance. 1995.. but likely outcomes of such procedures. Green and Harvey.. Basically. Specifically. student Quality management systems 181 . 2005). it tends to lie with individuals in higher education (see Becket and Brookes. In implementing TQM in higher education. 1999. This is well documented in the body of literature (Mehralizadeh. customers . at least where faculty and students are concerned. we notice that students have multiple roles and their roles cannot be simplified to that of a customer (Sirvanci. and across the enablers (Sheffield Hallam University. In a garden variety corporate TQM situation. Michael et al. for the strategic planning process. . This is particularly true in the case of Baldrige and EFQM. Issue of ICT in higher education and distance learning. These quality systems mostly focused on the traditional structure of organization. administrators. 2005. (1989) observed.TQM 22. Bidirectional nature of the process of evaluation and measurement in higher education. between enablers and results. i. within results. When we observe the results of TQM application in higher education we notice that there is unbalance between elements of TQM. However. this conflict of defining customer and which customer is right creates a conflict-free way of setting organizational priorities and the ensuing allocation of resources. Unbalanced relationship between different criteria of models. students can be considered either as customers (with courses as the higher education products) or as products. the use of multimedia in teaching and the emergence of “distance learning” are changing education processes structurally. Most of these conflicting problems are: . . because it is assumed that there is a logic and rational balance among eight criteria of Baldrige and nine criteria of EFQM separately. 2004). This means that in EFQM there is a linkage at four levels: across the whole model. in some circumstances. . Today we are talking about the virtual organization. Whichever is chosen will have important implications for the correct identification of institutions’ customers.e. In order words. Conflicting between the views of customers. while case studies show that this relationship is in turbulent in each organization. the process of evaluation and measurement in higher education is bidirectional. their families. The needs and desires of these various higher education customers may. employers and society as a whole). Videotaped lectures. and. 182 Harmonized Harmonized refers to the idea that is not causing disapproval from certain stakeholders. thus. As Youssef et al. 2003).2 assessment is considered as an indicator of performance. Therefore. Higher education has a number of complementary and contradictory customers. 1994). some commentators in suggesting the TQM for higher education focused on student assessment and asserted that these quality systems will improve the student’s academic achievement. But when we consider the students’ roles in higher education. students or potential employers. or favoring some people over others. academics and the actual consumers (the learners.(Stensaker. Four parties of potential customers are the government. 1997). as Temple (2005) added. Advances in technology have also been affecting higher education. unique situation of higher education institutions requires that we consider the criteria scores in these models more cautiously. Further.. with the employers being the customers (Conway et al. and are reducing the role of traditional classroom teaching. conflict with each other and this could be problematic for institutions which attempt to produce strategies that satisfy these needs effectively and efficiently.. 2004. Temple (2005) asserted that the Excellence Model fails to address the distinctive character of (at least) universities. concluded that there are three main problems with this award: an unfairness award. that is exactly what occurs in higher education. many of which are now widely seen as. a higher education institution. Some of the higher education institutions have tried to apply these quality systems. at best. it recycles earlier understandings. Quality management systems 183 . 1995). Dramatized Dramatized indicates that an idea is supported by dramatic narratives concerning how successful some organizations have been when implementing the idea. Deming. Schwartzman. won the Baldrige education award. However. a superficial award. Stensaker (2005) argued that attempts to transform external quality concepts into a more beneficial processes for the individual institution. Some of the implementations of TQM principles in higher education have been confined to the administrative branches and nonacademic processes of universities. letters of recommendations. and personnel. instead. for the first time in 2002. Yes. and so forth. 2002. but faculty also evaluate students – who are customers – by means of grades. Silvestro. 1998. Individualized Individualized refers to the idea that is edited in a way which visualizes it as an attractive opportunity for the individual (and for the organization). University of Wisconsin-Stout. Koch and Fisher. and in particular for those who work in higher education are faced with the threat of ignoring the human capital and giving advantages to other groups within higher education. Loomba and Johannessen (1997). The reviewed case studies related to ISO. Moreland and Clark. Two of the advocates of appropriateness issue are Lewis and Smith (1994). 1998. and especially those having the responsibility for human resource management academic leaders and administrators. Loomba and Johannessen. Also the results do not show a success in improving the higher education institutions. then. subsequent admissions decisions. Koch. However. 2002). partial ways of viewing organizational change. suffers from more contamination in higher education than in corporate settings (Koch. Baldrige and EFQM highlighted that most of the time there is a concern regarding the applicability of these quality systems in higher education institutions (Sirvanci. 1998. Will either students or faculty “tell the truth” when they know that there could be retribution later? The evaluation channel. Moreland and Clark (1998) in their case study concluded that application of ISO in higher education can affect sense-making in an institution. services.provide feedback on products. Rare is the corporation that evaluates its customers and provides feedback to them. Temple (2005) noted that the Excellence Model embodies no new insights into organizational structures or processes. In fact. 1997. and publicity-related issues. students evaluate faculty and courses. TQM quality systems argue that any individual organization and higher education institutions are able to apply their quality system based on the needs of institutions. According to them. in a study about the Baldrige award. The bidirectional nature of evaluation in higher educations subtly changes the sociology of the situation. principles and concepts of total quality are compatible with the best tradition and practices of higher education. too early to ascertain the full impact of these awards on improving the competitiveness of western higher education. it must be recognized that the quality systems framework derive from different traditions and have different starting points and languages. low harmonies. Mackey. Vol. 29-36. (2000). S. 1 No. 372-83. Brown. (Ed. (Eds) (1997).uk/ publications/bejlt/volume1issue2/academic/becket_brookes. 6. de Vries. D. do not show that productivity of institutions. Jossey-Bass. “Planning in higher education: who are the customers?”. Brennan. available at: www. less progressive. N. they do not follow a clear philosophy and theory. The point about these quality management systems is that their quality philosophies do not arrive at “value free” within higher education and their management systems. References Avdjieva. The Higher Education System.F. London. T.2 184 Conclusion This paper started with controversial question regarding the applicability and fitness of current business quality management systems in higher education. D. R. and Wilson.TQM 22. CA.W. Managing Service Quality. Essays in Higher Education. Jessica Kingsley. B.ac. and Yorke. 37. “Some observations about the assessment of quality worldwide”. 6. (2005). SRHE and NFER-Nelson.html Birnbaum.J. July 1995. 2 No. Higher Education Policy Series No. July/August. Paul Chapman Publishing. Ball. Vol. London. Fitness for Purpose. which include: acceptance of responsibility for quality by the top management. Conway. Management Fads in Higher Education: Where do They Come From. University of California Press. 2nd ed. (1983). fact-based management. What They Do. They all attempt to propagate quality management practices. (1985). and Williams. The quality systems mostly are not socially acceptable. (1993). Tampere.. customer orientation. pp. and strategic quality planning. without some underline quality philosophy driving them. high level of employee participation. Vol. pp. P. M. San Francisco. “Analysing quality audits in higher education”. . Theories of Education Management. in Urwin. It is. D. Journal of Education for Business. M. vii/viii. “Applying total quality management to business education”. (2002).. Banta. C. J. Brookes Ejournal of Learning and Teaching. (1994). CA. Why They Fail. (1995). Standards and Quality in Higher Education. R. H. Becket. pp. and Koenig. 8 No. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Assessing Quality in Higher Education. Bush.brookes. Finland. Clark. open and effective communication. There is no doubt that quality awards have helped to focus attention on quality and facilitated a better understanding of the underlying issues. 2. Guildford. But the continents of USA and Europe are different in terms of school of philosophy they believe in and interpretation of the quality issues. Berkeley. M. and Brookes.. T. They share a set of fundamental philosophies. however. International Journal of Educational Management. “Exploring the development of quality in higher education”. unrealistic publicized but in terms of individualized there are some supportive successful cased applied in nonacademic higher education. T. we could say that in many cases the current evidence of application of TQM is not compatible with the assumed criteria.). To sum up this discussion. (1995). Ho. Total Quality in Higher Education.html Lave. Vol. “What is the relationship between schools and the demands of paid work? A case study of Rover and its partnership with Swindon schools”. Koch.nl/few/people/vanderwiele/ papers/mbe4(3)2000p4. L. P. 35-42. pp. (2005). 9 No. (2000). R. Vol. J. (1999).html Entin..pmi-aus. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. 4. Vol. “Initiating change through internal evaluation: promoting ownership of program and service evaluation results”. L. pp. L. and Williams. available at: www. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Assessing Quality in Higher Education. Schade. P. Koch. St Lucie Press.S. 18 No. 1. S. J. European Network for Quality Assurance in Higher Education. and Knight. “TQM: why is its impact in higher education so small?”.. Dale. 59-77. (2004). “Higher education and total quality management”. (Eds). and Sevo´n.html Czarniawska. Change. and ISO 9000 registration”. Bath. (1996). 1 No. J. Walter de Gruyter. Mehralizadeh. Quality in Higher Education. Management & Technology.eur. Cambridge University Press. Vol. and Scheele. 2. 2. NY.V.W.K. (1993). Harvey.G. Zairi. and Johannessen. pp. D. 60-76.T. University of Bath. Buckingham. Vol. (1994). SRHE and Open University Press. and Smith. The TQM Magazine. PhD thesis. Total Quality Management. 123-46. M.au/spk. 1.L. “Beyond TQM”. 25 No. A Brief History of Time. “Quality assurance in Western Europe: trends. (2002). FRG. FL. Lamb. L. B.Corwin. July 1993. in Nauta. “New reforms in the management of the university: transition from centralized to decentralized (university-based management) in Iran”. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education. A. Y. D. pp. 3. Department of Education. 4 No. “The power of accreditation: views of academics”. “Quality in higher education: lessons learned from the Baldrige award. T. Hawking. G.. Deming’s System of Profound Knowledge: Elements and Applications. Lewis. J. (2002). (1996). pp.P. “Total quality management in the Scottish universities”. Vol. pp. 67-82. (1993). A. 5. (1997). Harvey.E. (1990). (1996). edu/journal/library/Vol1No4/drennan. available at: www. A.D. A.T. Van der Wiele. Y. Berlin. Mehralizadeh. Harvey. R. B.R. Bantam. 4 No. 659-69. Deming Prize. Translating Organizational Change.-L. (1996). Process Management International (Australia). Quality Assurance in Education. H. (1998). and Harvey. E. 3. pp. Vol. and Fisher.ca/ prevConferences/halifax94/cowin/cowin. Transforming Higher Education.P. Green. UK: Higher Education Policy. 33 No. Omar. S. International Journal: Continuous Improvement Monitor. K. B. L. Loomba. Tampa. and Wearn. “Quality is dead in Europe – long live excellence: true or false?”.pdf Drennan. Vol. and Stadt. Helsinki. 8. practices and issues”.D.. J. Kashef.. available at: www. Cambridge. “A higher education TQM excellence model: HETQMEX”. 177-89. “Case study number one: Boston. pp. Bonn.cirpa-acpri.few.T. (1988). available at: www. pp.com. Toronto and New York.panam. ENQA Workshop Reports No.B. Quality management systems 185 . “Benchmarking for quality”.llanes. (1999). 325-33. Vol. 1 No. M. 28-31. Izadi. 2. A. Accreditation Models in Higher Education: Experiences and Perspectives. (1995). P. and Wenger. 15 No. less than meets the eye”. R. (1997). nea. 4 No. pp. Vol. EFQM Excellence Model: Higher Education Version 2003. Total Quality Management. 16 No.org/he/tqm. Fagbokforlaget. (2002). (1997). Sydney (reprinted). and Slaughter. J. Quality in Higher Education. 2. Developing a Model for Quality in Higher Education. available at: www2. (1959). M. 6 No. V. Bundoora. 161-71. Vol. “The manufacturing TQM and service quality literatures: synergistic or conflicting paradigms?”. Vol.B. 382-6. “The EFQM Excellence Modelw: higher education’s latest management fad?”. Silvestro. p. K. 8 No. October.2 186 Michael.M. 215-24. Management & Technology. . available at: www. pp. Vol. 7 No. 4. R. Higher Education Quarterly. G. Douro. 104.-A. Embracing Excellence in Education: A Summary of Sheffield Hallam University (2003). Vol. 59 No. 74-82. 2. Srikanthan. NY. pp. Sirvanci. 6. does total quality exist in the experiences of the customer rather than the aspirations of the supplier?”. R. (1998). “A comprehensive model for implementing total quality management in higher education”. 9-34. Education. pp. (1998). Sower. “Quality in higher education: a survey”. A. “Critical issues for TQM implementation in higher education”. New York. Røvik. K. (2005). Vol. Random House. 104-20. Vol. P. pp. N.pdf Sureshchandar.S. Rajendran. and Anantharaman. R. 1. (1998). Srikanthan. (2004). (2005). 33-43. Stensaker. “Are students customers? The metaphoric mismatch between management and education”. M. R. (1995). C.E. “Quality as fashion – exploring the translation of a management idea into higher education”.fup. Sheffield. E. 3. Moderne organisasjoner. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management. “Beware! TQM is coming to your campus”. I. and Clark. pp. 2. 2. 9 Nos 2/3. Benchmarking for Quality Management & Technology. Bergen. “A comprehensive model for implementing total quality management in higher education”. Vol. Temple. pp. Sheffield Hallam University.S.pt/admin/cipes/docs/eventos/ Stensaker. “In electronic education. B. and Dalrymple. M. G.N.K. Vol.M. Benchmarking for Quality.html Popper. J. “Quality and ISO 9000 in educational organizations”. G. Schwartzman. Total Quality Management. and Kumar. The TQM Magazine.M. October. P. available at: www. and Aspinwall. 2. Sunway Academic Journal. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Basic Books. Motwani.. paper presented at the seminar “Dynamics and Effects of Quality Assurance in Higher Education – Various Perspectives of Quality and Performance at Various Levels”. Roffe. 311-20.M. “Conceptual problems of continuous quality improvement and innovation in higher education”. and Motwani. (1990). pp.TQM 22. “Determinants of customer-perceived service quality: a confirmatory factor analysis approach”. Journal of Services Marketing. 3.. Centre for Management Quality Research. J. 15 No.com/p/articles/mi_ qa3673/is_199501/ai_n8714999#continue Selvarantam. M. 16 No. (1997). Parker. pp. Vol. (2002). R. (2003). Owlia. Fifth Discipline. J. pp. 4 No. Vol.findarticles. 261-74. 303-28. (2003). “Developing a holistic model for quality in higher education”. Moreland. (2005). (1997). (1998). Senge. Quality Assurance in Education. Sheffield Hallam University (2003). Centre for Integral Excellence (2003).au/hcisite2/toolkit/pdcacycl. 16 Nos 4/5/6. J. M. L. (1997). The University of Learning. July. 583-93. To Innovate for Quality. (1994). J. Van Vught. Baltimore. pp. Jessica Kingsley. M. Vol. (1989). pp. Responsive University: Restructuring for High Performance. available at: www.. “PDCA cycle”. L. London. (1978).com.d. pp. and Marton. Quality Assurance in Education. HCi (n. php?tipus¼cikk&kod¼quality-12-Zelvys Further reading Bowden. and Sawyer. (2005).ir To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight. R. Johns Hopkins University Press. F.org/wiki/Theory Corresponding author Yadollah Mehralizadeh can be contacted at: [email protected]. (1998). Sheffield. “Transforming quality evaluation”. (2004). Vol.A. A. Zavelys. Al-Khafaji.htm Van Vught. “Enhancement-led higher education?”. Sheffield Hallam University. F. Consortium for Excellence in Higher Education. The Swedish Model in Comparative Perspective. Mind in Society – The Development of Higher Psychological Processes.. Vygotsky. Linking the EFQM Excellence Model to Other Management Models and Tools. MA.com Or visit our web site for further details: www. (1998). Yorke. 2 No. available at: http://en. Libby. Harvard University Press.ac. 10 No. International Journal of Technology Management. B. “Theory”. (1992). Quality Assurance as Support for Processes of Innovation. Changes in Quality Assurance Systems and Theoretical Models of Education Management. G. Kogan Page. 2. 3. National Institution for Public Education.I. and Newton. Stockholm. Høgskoleverkets Skriftserie. Vol.). Beyond Quality and Competence in Higher Education.Tierney.hu/oldal. Youssef. 6-12. “TQM implementation barriers in higher education”. MD. Government Strategies and Innovation in Higher Education. Harvey. F.d. P. available at: www. 149-65.com/reprints Quality management systems 187 .oki.). Cambridge.hci. London. Wikipedia (n.emeraldinsight. Quality in Higher Education.wikipedia.