Theoretical Background Total Quality Management

The “total quality” approach is a QA model that, similarly to the EFQM excellence model, prioritises the customer. According to Charantimath (2011: 78), TQM is commonly used in the industrial and commercial sectors to create a corporate culture that revolves around customer satisfaction, to the point where both external and internal customers are more satisfied with the company’s performance and dedication, and are therefore more interested in continuously doing business with the company that employs the TQM approach. Furthermore, Mutafelija and Stromberg (2003) explain that TQM is a QA model that is based on four consecutive processes, under the PDCA initials, which stand for: plan, do, check and act. The planning phase consists of identifying the problem and analysing it; the doing phase concerns itself with the development and implementation of a solution; the checking phase evaluates and analyses the results; while the acting phase adopts the solution, while monitoring the results and searching for the next improvement opportunity (Mutafelija and Stromberg, 2003: 16).

Considering that in a HEI, every person involved is a customer (i.e. the students, the employees, the parents, society), Sallis (2002: 26) explains that TQM’s success is feasible, given that quality “must be matched to the expectations and requirements of customers and clients”, and is therefore defined by the customer, not just by the institution. Furthermore, Peratec (1995: 11) asserts that TQM strives for satisfying customers, perpetual improvement in both management and the creation of the product through process monitoring, as well as preventive strategies and teamwork, and its application in the higher education sector is potentially beneficial. With this in mind, Morfaw (2009: 17) argues that TQM is based on several tenets that are simple to understand, in order to further facilitate TQM’s implementation. For example, a systematic and result-driven approach to problems; an acceptance and practice by all personnel, with a notable dedication from the top leadership; a long-term commitment to improving institutional quality culture.

It is Williams’ (1993: 373-374) belief that TQM is beneficial to the education sector due to its potential to combat complacency and to “offer an effective way of developing a sense of common enterprise and interest”, which are aspects required in HE. However, if the people involved in the delivery of quality services are interdependent and equally important, the QA approach is more susceptible to failure, as there are numerous

40

variables that can fail, such as the method of teaching, the capacity of absorbing knowledge and so on (Williams, 1993: 374). This being said, Argia and Ismail (2013: 138) argue that TQM’s ability to increase internal cooperation within a HEI contributes to the establishment and distribution of quality services, by “fulfilling the needs and expectations of the stakeholders”. However, as Sallis (2002: 26-27) notes, shifting the focus onto the customer is not a sufficient condition to ensure the success of TQM, as the institution that adopts the method needs to create and strictly follow the afore-mentioned strategies that ensure customer’s needs are met. Yet this goal is particularly difficult to attain in HEIs, as both the definition of quality and expectations of success are diverse and difficult to secure in their entirety.

Nonetheless, Owlia and Aspinwall’s (1997: 540) research into the effects of introducing TQM into certain HEIs revealed several benefits, including an increase in customer satisfaction, productivity and both staff and student morale, thus arguing that while implementing TQM in HE is different from its implementation in the business sector, they retain some similarities. In addition, Ali and Shastri (2010: 12-15) list the benefits of TQM as varying from teamwork enhancement, to an increase in staff morale, and an elevated perception of the quality of services delivered from the customer’s viewpoint. Furthermore, other positive results include improved definition and development of administrative processes, better customer services and more efficient resource management (Owlia and Aspinwall, 1997: 536-537).

On the other hand, Sirvanci (2004: 382-385) has identified a variety of limitations for the application of TQM in HE, including issues in leadership, cultural and organisational transformation, customer identification and the role of students.

Firstly, given that TQM relies on the full commitment and involvement of management, Sirvanci (2004: 382-383) argues that the limited authority of the presidents and chancellors of HEIs, as well as the shared governance systems that are typical of the HE sector, causes difficulties in implementing the QA model. The issue with proper leadership guidance is, according to Brigham (1993: 43-46), common to both education and industry segments, as leaders who desire the outcomes indicated by TQM, yet are not dedicated to following the model, are universal. For this reason, in order for TQM to be successful, its culture needs to be fully embraced by the personnel of an institution, as it is a process that consumes considerable resources, exposes management issues, as well as

41

requiring continuous involvement and dedication of personnel (Charantimath, 2011: 76). Nonetheless, according to Sims and Sims (1995: 13), HEIs “where the top leadership was actively involved and committed to the effort” managed to successfully introduce TQM, therefore showing that while management can be an impediment, dedication and a shared interest can overcome potentially difficult issues.

Another limitation of TQM in the HE sector is the need for cultural and organisational transformation, which is typically easily overcome in organisations outside the education industry, yet the process is difficult within HEIs with “deep-rooted traditions”, as the history of a university can cause the personnel to resist change (Sirvanci, 2004: 383). According to Hart and Shoolbred (1993: 22), as TQM is concerned with the behaviour of individuals, this behaviour is dependent on the institution’s “climate and culture”. Bearing this in mind, an example of the benefits of TQM can be seen in its implementation in a Malaysian university, where the lecturers openly accepted the QA model, which conclusively prompted improvement in both teamwork and commitment to ensuring QA (Sabet et al., 2012: 214). According to Sabet et al. (2012), communication between employees escalated throughout the practice of TQM, and thus the decision- making process conjointly improved, as members of staff shared ideas and offered suggestions. Overall, the study demonstrates that TQM can, under the right circumstances, improve satisfaction levels of stakeholders, management processes and, lastly, teamwork, an element that is capable of triggering innovations in organisational culture (Taskov, Mitreva, 2015: 228). Similarly, Hart and Shoolbred (1993: 23) argue that HEIs need to be aware of the necessary changes to the institutional culture if an efficient QA system is to be adopted. From this point of view, TQM is capable of improving QA processes within a HEI.

Furthermore, Wiklund et al. (2003: 99) argue that, regardless of the model’s customer- oriented approach and its spread in the business sector, the issue with implementing TQM in the education sector is the fact that TQM is not clearly defined, thus creating confusion. On a similar note, Meirovich and Romar (2006: 325) indicate that TQM envisions quality from the customer’s perspective and that this aspect is the very reason that can cause difficulties with successfully implementing the model. Therefore, given the fact that every participant in the academic process, including students, graduates, employees, employers and taxpayers, are considered customers, their needs and interests diverge, and thus the various, subjective concepts of quality cannot form a coherent

42

culture (Meirovich and Romar, 2006: 325). Moreover, Ahmed’s (2006: 195-196) research into the implementation of TQM in HEIs revealed that the model had the most positive impact on the empowerment of customers, which implies an elevated degree of involvement from the students in the achievement of educational goals. The classification of students as participants in the delivery process is further explored by Meirovich and Romar (2006: 326-327), who ascertain that the behaviour of certain students, who, for example, cheat on a test or engage in plagiarism, are not specific to the student-customer, who does not actively participate in the process of acquiring knowledge. Such negative behaviours undermine the relevance of providing high quality teaching services and they constitute one of the unintended consequences of TQM, as the model, much like other similar QA models, is not particularly equipped to handle them. As a result, the quality provided by the HEI suffers, as well as the institution’s ability to successfully adhere to its mission, vision and objectives. However, it is important to understand that student behaviour is not independent of institutional culture or practice, and that these behaviours may stem from said institutional issues, as institutional culture frequently moulds people’s beliefs and attitudes (Smart, 2008). Thus, universities need to employ a QA model that focuses on creating a quality culture among all participants, including students.

Returning to classifying students as participants in the delivery of quality, Ahmed (2006: 196) argues that, while empowering the students has a positive impact on the quality culture of the university, this also creates a burden for the academics, who are required to assist the students in their endeavours. On the other hand, Motwani and Kumar (1997: 231-232) argue that while the involvement of students could be beneficial to QA, HEIs consider the acceptance of students as a part of the QA unit is a decision that threatens the autonomy of the institution. Similarly, Helms and Key (1994: 97-99) argue that students’ desires may not coincide with the intentions of the university, and that HEIs ultimately might not be able to fulfil the demands of society, as well as their contribution to society as a whole, if they entertain the needs of the students. However, it is important to bear in mind that students can also be viewed as stakeholders or customers of HE, and their perspectives as a crucial part in creating and ensuring quality (Furedi, 2011, in Molesworth, Scullion and Nixon, 2011). In addition, the view expressed by Helms and Key (1994) in relation to university-student perceptions not being aligned, is antiquated and bizarre, as HEIs need to take into consideration the fact that students are not only

43

stakeholders or participants in HE, they are the main customer of this industry. As such, the involvement of students in creating an optimal QA system that oversees the needs and demands of the clients, first and foremost, is a crucial aspect of providing quality services (QAA, 2016d: 7-8).