QUALITY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM IN HIGHER EDUCATION EMPLOYERS APPROACH

QUALITY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM IN HIGHER EDUCATION EMPLOYERS APPROACH L. ILIES 1, C. OSOIAN 2, M. ZAHARIE 3 1 Babes-Bolyai University, liviu.ilies@econ.ubbcluj.ro 2 Babes-Bolyai University, codruta.osoian@econ.ubbcluj.ro 3 Babes-Bolyai University, monica.zaharie@econ.ubbcluj.ro ABSTRACT Despite the debates still going on, the importance of quality and the quality management in higher education remains a perpetual concern with the field researchers. With regard to quality conceptualization, the difficulty to reach a consensus lies in the variety of fields for which quality needs to be defined and assessed, as well as the multifold approaching perspectives. The present paper offers an analysis of the quality of the university system from the employers perspective. The methodology is based on a quantitative online survey, conducted on companies from Romania. A set of 17 items were evaluated by the respondent companies as representing a high quality university. In order to identify the dimensions that lie behind the items measuring quality of the university system, an exploratory factor analysis was conducted. The dimensions identified bring an input for the higher education institutions useful for the improvement of the educational process and outcomes. KEY WORDS Quality, higher education, employers, quality dimensions. 1. Introduction Although much contemplated, the importance of quality and the quality management in higher education remains a perpetual concern with the field researchers. Against the background of ongoing social-economic changes and increased expectations from the educational systems, the quality of education is more and more related to the society needs (Sangeeta, Banwet, 2004). This orientation towards the needs and expectations of various stakeholders requires the fulfillment of certain quality standards, such as: Assurance of the benefits associated with the investment in education, both at individual and social level; Guarantee of the credibility of awarded diplomas, as well as graduates quality; Assurance of transparency and monitoring of the educational system. Furthermore, the pressure of the government s more utilitarian expectations from the education systems (due to financial investments and the economic interests, the increase of educational productivity has to be stronger pursued), entails the demand for more responsiveness on the part of the educational systems to the economic needs of the society (King, 2000). Without aiming to debate the justification of these requirements from the educational system, in this paper we will set forth an analysis of the notion of quality and the quality management system within the higher education system, quality dimensions and approaches thereof, in relation to the different stakeholder perspectives (employing companies). The paper will focus on identifying the dimensions of quality in university institutions from employers perspective. The empirical relevance of the proposed research topic consists in the importance of the results for at least three categories of stakeholders: higher education institutions, graduates and employers. Nationally speaking, once with the enactment of the E.O. no. 75/12.07.2005 regarding the assurance of quality in education and the external ARACIS methodology for assessment of the higher education, the issue of high quality education becomes of stringent concern. The inclusion on national level of the employability indicators as evaluation criteria for the quality of the higher education system (entailing the relation between education and the labor force market), enforces for the studies on this issue to bring forth useful data for university management. Thus, involving employers approach in the university quality management system and including the indicators regarding graduates employability in the labor market as criteria and standards of external assessment of the university quality management, determines the analysis of employers perspective upon the university management system and graduates quality to give forth practical foundations for university quality management. On the other hand, better understanding of the quality angles affects positively the participants engagement and the performance of the educational process (Telford, Masson, 2005). 75

2. Literature review and research results For Theoretically, the study of scholarly literature on quality and quality management gives vent to an analytical approach of this field and lays emphasis on the conceptual transfer in the field of quality management from the production sector towards services and, particularly, the higher education system. Moreover, we aim to highlight facets regarding concept applicability, dimensions and approaches pertaining to quality in education. Empirically, by means of the pilot study we conducted, we managed to determine the conceptualization elements of the higher education quality from the perspective of one of the stakeholder categories : companies which employ graduates. With regard to quality conceptualization, the difficulty to reach a consensus lies in the variety of fields for which quality needs to be defined and assessed, as well as the multifold approaching perspectives. Furthermore, the procedural nature of quality, rendering it a dynamic quality within the social-economic changing background, prevents a universal definition from encompassing the numerous entities in relation to which quality needs to be assessed and monitored. The process of the notion of quality may be distinguished, extending from the compliance with the requirements established by the producer, inward-organization oriented (peculiar to the industrial development of the 19th century), to an outward-oriented approach, focusing on clients needs and satisfaction (Ilies, 2003). If originally quality was considered achieved through compliance with requirements, entailing implicitly the fulfillment of clients needs, subsequently it was pointed out that needs may differ from product specifications. Therefore, in order to conceptualize quality, prior establishment and definition of specifications is in order (Crosby, 1979), as well as the clients requirements, needs and expectations (Juran and Godfrey, 1998). David Gravin provides a complex approach of the concept of quality in his treatise Managing Quality (1988, apud Ilies, 2003), defining quality according to various approaches: transcendental, product-based, userbased (consumer, client), production (process)-based and value-based, assumed subsequently by the literature specializing in quality conceptualization (Sebastianelli, Tamini, 2002): User (client) - based approach, the importance of which has grown simultaneously with service development, deems that products which meet user s needs are qualitative. This approach should consider the wide range of client preferences and the legitimacy of embracing solely the client s perspective for the plenary definition of quality. Production (process) -based approach, easier operationalizable, according to which quality means compliance with specifications, encounters certain difficulty with applicability within the service sector and is more often associated with the issue of costs through the design development investments; Product-based approach focuses on the product measurable characteristics, expressed in specifications; the advantage of this approach lies in its objectiveness, whereas its limitations, provided the foundation of quality is exclusively achieved according to clients preference, the measurement specifications are not always critical. Value-based approach, pursuant to which quality is achieved with the implication of certain expenses, and the purchase decision is based on certain-priced quality; yet, the greatest price does not automatically ensure the highest quality. Transcendental approach, revealing the subjective nature of quality, which implies implicit excellence, proclaims the difficulty in defining quality. Due to this degree of subjectivity, this approach does not set forth specification for quality assessment. The notion of quality lies at the foundation of the quality management system, which incorporates the entire process through which an organization plans to meet and assure quality. This encompasses norms, procedures, and compliance with standards, implementation of corrective measure, assignment of responsibilities, investment in human resources, feedback from clients and other processes meant to assure quality (Ellis, 1993). For the purpose of the present paper, we will focus on the clientbased approach of quality in higher education. Regardless of the approach, a core element of quality is the client s crucial role, as the education provider s perspective does not necessarily coincide with the client s. Nevertheless, providing services in compliance with specifications does not guarantee success. Organizations which follow the quality management principles approach quality as defined by the client and implement the necessary mechanisms to identify client s needs. Quality conceptualization through meeting the clients needs is sometimes called quality of perception, defined through client s perception (Sallis, 2002; Sallis and Hingley, 1991). It is remarked that this approach upon quality deems the accomplishment of specifications to be necessary, yet not sufficient, as qualitative services ought to be related to the clients, their satisfaction providing the proof of quality. On the other hand, the educational system sets forth a great variety of clients. The stakeholders expectations and the degree of satisfaction in relation to the quality of services may be identified by the systematic analysis of their perspective, by means of various methods, such as: focus groups, questionnaires/satisfaction assessment scales, in depth interviews, surveys, the critical incident technique (Gilmore, 2003). A capital aspect is the periodicity of these analyses, both at the level of the labour market and of the potential students who opted for other institutions. Information thus obtained is essential for the institutional decision-making process. Considering the quality analysis, the social-human environment in which it integrates may not be dismissed, as it entails more than mere technical-managerial concept 76

(Popescu, 2000). Therefore, the quality hierarchy needs to be considered, namely the quality analysis at multiple levels: societal quality (economy, culture, institutions), organizational quality (organizational culture, management, human resources), process quality (communication, labour) and product quality. Viewing the dimensions determined by the scholarly literature as definitive for services quality, we deem necessary to include both clients expectations and certain factors related to the external environment in order to provide a global image upon the factors which may affect quality as perceived by clients. Therefore, clients expectations may be determined through their previous experiences, clients needs (which can be implicit, explicitly presented or potential), as well as the advertising manner of the service on the market (marketing aspects). On the other hand, expectancy and the perceived degree of quality may also be influenced by economic-social-cultural or international factors (values, finance, organizational culture, interpersonal interaction). Dimensions of quality Accessibility Credibility Knowledge Trust Safety Competence Communication Responsiveness Relation with clients Tangibility Previous experience s Client s needs Client s expectations Actual service rendered Marketing aspects External context Perceived quality Fig. 1 Determining the factors of service quality perception In order to analyze the quality of the university system from the employers perspective, a quantitative survey was conducted on 127 companies. The online questionnaire included 17 items setting the quality dimensions in university systems, measured on a 5 point Likert type scale. In order to assure the validity of the instrument, the questionnaire also included control questions. A non-probability sampling method was used, based on a non-proportional quota sampling. The criteria for selecting the companies included: size of the company, field of activity, state or private ownership. A number of 127 answers were received from the total company population surveyed (with a rate of response of 33%). The respondents were representatives of the companies, occupying a leading position. The survey instrument analyzed what a high quality university means for the employing companies. A set of 17 items were evaluated by the respondent companies as representing a high quality university. What is your opinion of a high quality university? Mean score Std. dev. a) A university with tradition 4.02 1.05 b) A university with well-prepared teaching staff 4.51 0.79 c) A university with a demanding admission system 4.32 0.91 d) A university which easily grants passing grades at examinations 1.23 0.53 e) A university which only grants the graduation degree to the truly deserving students 4.32 1.06 f) A university with competent graduates 4.57 0.66 g) A university which provides excellent physical conditions to its students (spaces, dorms, 3.58 1.15 equipments) h) A state university 3.45 1.01 i) A university which provides courses adjusted to the labour market requirements 4.54 0.63 î) An externally accredited university 3.83 1.03 j) A university which supports students in taking a job during studies 4.06 0.85 l) A university which prepares good professionals 4.67 0.56 m) A university which shapes honest people 4.06 1.03 n) A university which provides a solid theoretical background 3.93 1.00 o) A university which provides a solid practical background 4.59 0.58 p) A university which provides a wide range of specializations and elective courses 3.72 1.20 r) A university which keeps in touch with the economic background 4.58 0.58 Table 1: The importance of the quality aspects representing a high quality university As the results show, for the employing companies a qualitative university is mostly considered to be a university which prepares good professionals (mean 4.67, σ = 0.56), followed by a university which provides a solid practical background (mean 4.59, σ = 0.58), and a university which keeps in touch with the economic background (mean 4.58, σ = 0.58). There is a strong emphasis on the items representing the relation between universities and the labor market. The most representative items for a high quality university are those related to the employers approach. It is noticeable that, from employers perspective, a good university means especially a university which is delivering services and graduates prepared according to the requirements of the external labor market demands. In order to identify the dimensions that lie behind the items measuring quality of the university system, an exploratory factor analysis was conducted. According to the sample criteria proposed by Comrey and Lee (1992), the sample is poor, but regarding the ratio of sample size to number of variables, the ration exceeds 7:1, which is a good value. The method of factor extraction was the principal component analysis, and as a factor rotation we used Oblimin with Kaiser Normalization, an oblique rotation method. The factor loadings were all above.65 (Anderson and Gerbing 1988, p. 416). The Kaiser-Meyer- Olkin test had a value of 0.520. 77

KMO and Bartlett's Test Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy.,520 Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 355,956 df 136 Sig.,000 The factor analysis procedure produced six factors that explain 76% of the variation. The content analysis of the factors obtained indicate a factor related to the outcomes of the universities (graduates competencies), a factor related to external university quality guarantees (historical tradition, external accreditation, ownership), a factor related to quality of the personnel and relation with labor market, a factor related to the offer for students (study specializations, internships), a factor related to the examination standards (passing grades, admittance system), and physical characteristics (spaces, equipments). Factor 1 2 3 4 5 6 A university with tradition.848 A university with well-prepared teaching staff.807 A university with a demanding admission system.802 A university which easily grants passing grades at examinations.520 A university which only grants the graduation degree to the truly.431 deserving students A university with competent graduates.889 A university which provides excellent physical conditions to its students (spaces, dorms,.564 equipments) A state university.841 A university which provides courses adjusted to the labor market.680 requirements An externally accredited university.756 A university which supports students in taking a job during.597 studies A university which prepares good professionals.608 A university which shapes honest people.640 A university which provides a solid theoretical background.829 A university which provides a solid practical background.785 A university which provides a wide range of specializations and elective courses.550 A university which keeps in touch.821 with the economic background Eigenvalue 5,74 1,82 1,62 1,56 1,18 1,03 % of variance 33,7 10,6 9,5 9,2 6,9 6,03 Considering the dimensions identified to be relevant for the quality of services, the factors obtained are related to: reliability (guarantee of the quality through external assessment, historical tradition), responsiveness (relation with labor market, competencies of the graduates), assurance (quality of the personnel, examination standards), and tangible (physical characteristics) (Ham, 2003). 3. Concluding remarks In conclusion, with implementing the quality management system, higher education institutions ought to consider clients input and valorize it for the improvement of the educational process and output respectively. On the other hand, any client oriented organization needs to be aware that it shouldn t depend altogether on clients declared needs, or at least not on only one client category (Macy, Neal, Waner, 1998). This is also our option: we are aware and acknowledge the consequence of clients perspective, yet we do not generalize its importance to the detriment of the status of our higher education institution. To this end, there is still a debate regarding the balance between the extent in which university system should train graduates in congruence with the current market requirements or educational institutions should counterbalance these instrumentalist pressures and shape students according to their own standards. References [1] Anderson, J., Gerbing, D., 1998, Structural Equation Modeling in Practice: A Review and Recommended Two Step Aproach, American Psychological Association [2] Comrey, A., Lee, H., 1992,. A first course in factor analysis, New Jerey, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates [3] Crosby, P.B. 1979, Quality is Free: The Art of Making Quality Certain. New York: New American Library. [4] Ellis, R. (1993), Quality Assurance for University Teaching, Open University Press, London. [5] Ham, C. Leugenia, 2003, Analyzing the Value of Service Quality Management: Gaining Competitive Advantages, International Journal of Value-Based Management, [6] Gilmore, A., 2003, Sevrices Marketing and Management, Sage Pub. Ltd, London. [7] Ilieş, L. 2003, Managementul calităţii totale, Editura Dacia, Cluj-Napoca. [8] Juran, J. M., Godfrey, A. B., 1998 (5 th ed.), Juran s Quality Handbook, McGraw-Hill. [9] Macy, G., Neal, J., Waner, K., 1988, Innovative Higher Education, Harder Than I Thought: A Qualitative Study of the Implementation of a Total Quality Management Approach in Business Education, Vol. 23(1): 27-47. [10] METODOLOGIA de evaluare externa, standardele, standardele de referinta si lista indicatorilor de 78

performanta a Agentiei Române de Asigurare a Calitatii în Învatamântul Superior, 2006. [11] Moodie, G. C., 1988, The debates about higher education quality in Britain and the USA, Studies in Higher Education 13, pp. 5-13. [12] OUG Nr.75/12.07.2005 [13] Popescu, S., 2000, Managementul calităţii în instituţiile de învăţământ superior prezentare în cadrul Programului de pregătire managerială a cadrelor de conducere, Universitatea Babeş-Bolyai. [14] Sallis, E., 2002, (3rd ed.), Total Quality Management in Education, Kogan Page. [15] Sallis, E., Hingley, P., 1991, College Quality Assurance Systems, Bristol. The Staff College, Mendip Papers, 20. [16] Sangeeta, S., Banwet, D. K, Karunes, S. 2004, Conceptualizing total quality management in higher education, The TQM Magazine, Bedford, Vol.16 (2): 145-160. [17] Sebastianelli, R.., Tamimi, N. "How Product Quality Dimensions Relate to Defining Quality." International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, 2002, vol. 19 [18] Telford, R., Masson, R., 2005, The congruence of quality values in higher education, Quality Assurance in Education,13(2):107-120. 79