The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.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
Rviks 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 Rvik 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

TQM
22,2

176

(Senge, 1990). Models of business organization or total quality management (TQM)

(Deming, ISO, the Malcolm Baldrige Criteria for Performance Excellence; European
Excellence Model (EFQM)) in various forms have for decades been assumed as
successful methods in improving productivity, continuous improvement and learning
being essential tools. By the mid-1990s, higher education institutions started
implementing quality management systems according to the quality awards of ISO in
Europe, Australia and USA; Deming Prize in Japan, Malcolm Baldrige Quality Award
in the USA, and European Quality Award in European countries. In fact, many higher
education institutions around the world, including the USA, Europe, Canada, Asia,
Africa, Australia, and New Zealand, have embraced one or some elements of these
quality systems.
Much has been said and written about the Quality Awards programs since their
inception. The miscellaneous comments made on this subject have been mostly
descriptive, somewhat prescriptive and sometimes critical. 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, some prefer to
be cautious about the issue especially when higher education and academic aspects are
taken into account. We still need to find out, as Temple (2005) and Birnbaum (2000)
stated, whether TQM is another management fad theory that might create significant
educational and organizational problems, or could be considered as an essential source
of good ideas that may be of great value to colleges and universities. There has been
much discussion in recent years about the fall of TQM, particularly in higher
education, where TQM is viewed as dated. How has this state of affairs arisen?
There is clearly a need, therefore, for specific studies that demonstrate the reality of
their effectiveness and the viability of their implementation. TQM may escape the
critical attention of researchers, because it is not firmly founded in traditional
sociological or organizational theory. To better achieve the objective of this study, an
attempt is made to link TQM to scholarly sociological and organizational theories, so
that knowledge about these theories may give new insights on advantages,
possibilities and limitations of TQM in relation to quality improvement.
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, research and services to
society. Fitness of current quality management system in higher education is a
controversial issue. The question is to what extent the idea of new quality system that
is borrowed from business is applicable in a higher education institution.
In order to do this, we use Rviks (1998) seven theoretical assumptions on how
management ideas are spread in a given sector. Like Stensaker(2005), through this
meta-analysis research the author evaluate current approaches used to improve quality
within higher education. Meta-evaluation is a useful framework for considering a
subjects or phenomena from different perspectives. Therefore, results of this study are
important because not only do they consider underlying assumptions and limitations
of these systems, but also they will be studied at micro (institutional) level as a
socio-cultural and political phenomena and specific domain system.
Rvik (1998) describes how the integration of a new tool depends on the capacity to
adopt, and for a while, partly decouple the new tool from existing practice in the
organization. Rvik proposed that there are seven central characteristics related to a

successful diffusion of management ideas (see Stensaker, 2005). They need to be

socially authorized, theorized, productivised, progressive, harmonized, dramatized,
and individualized.

Quality
management
systems

Socially authorized
According to Rvik (1998) any new management system should be socially accepted
and supported by powerful and influential stakeholders within higher education. In
relation to social acceptance of TQM, there is evidence which indicates that in higher
education institutions this idea is not positively supported.

177

Managerialism idea dominated on TQM

There are undoubtedly problems within any initiative in higher educational
institutions which can be perceived as management-led. Moreover, 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, 1993). Other problems can arise from
the reluctance of staff members to disregard existing boundaries. Writing about the
implementation of TQM in ten colleges and universities around Boston, Entin (1993)
found that while senior management was often extremely enthusiastic about the
initiative, 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, 1996). In fact, one thing which is clear in
every study about these quality systems whether in industry, services, education and
higher education is that people are happier when they are doing something for which
they are fit. 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.
Market values perspective of TQM
The market values perspective of TQM are against the traditional culture of academic
freedom in higher education. Sirvanci (2004) argued that organizations that have
adopted TQM have transformed their institutions culture into a total quality culture
that involves elements such as teamwork, customer and market focus, employee
involvement and participation, and process management. Youssef et al. (1989) cogently
point out that while the general philosophy and language behind TQM are attractive to
nearly all academics, many elements of modern university culture make it difficult for
TQM actually to be implemented. 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. Faculty members traditionally have had the right to profess their
disciplines as they see fit and to seek truth, wherever that search leads them. The
content of their courses, the nature of their research, and their professional values over
the years have been subsumed under the umbrella of academic freedom. 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.

TQM
22,2

178

Unreceptive of academic groups

Organizationally, higher education institutions are based on a strong departmental
model. As a result of the strong departmental organization, implementation of
horizontal (or process) management, which involves desirable practices such as
interdepartmental team teaching and cooperation among departments for curriculum
development, becomes difficult. Drennans (1999) results on attitudes towards the
application of TQM within the Scottish universities revealed that key personnel, with
responsibility for academic quality, had substantial reservations regarding the
usefulness and implementation of TQM within an academic environment.
Ambiguity of Faculty-students relationship
TQMs requirement that students are involved as customers and part of the teamwork
are accepted as a threat to the facultys autonomy (Motwani and Kumar, 1997). Faculties
balk at the idea of having a student as a customer, as in the the customer is always
right type of scenario. 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.
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. Koch (2002) argued that in
spite of the fact that TQM has many supporters and much use outside higher
education, it has had a remarkably small impact on colleges and universities. While
numerous institutions of higher education have sponsored quality as initiatives, nearly
all of these have focused on non-academic activities. Thus, higher education TQM has
concentrated on processes such as registration, physical plant, bill paying, and
purchasing. It has ignored the most critical questions facing the academy such as
faculty tenure, curriculum, tuition and fee levels vis-a`-vis scholarship assistance. TQM
has had virtually nothing to say about these. Two-thirds of institutions that began
TQM projects in the 1990s abandoned them because the vast majority had been
failures. This is not only because TQM has failed to address the most important issues,
but also because TQM has weakened the nature of academic culture and the difficulty
of defining the precise nature of higher education.
Theorized system
Theory has a number of distinct meanings in different fields of knowledge, depending on
the context and their methodologies. 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, makes generalizations about observations and consists of an interrelated,
coherent set of ideas and models. As Popper (1959) described that the criterion of the
scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability.
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. Demings System
of Profound Knowledge suggests four key elements that underpin successful
continuous improvement. (Lamb, 2002). The theory behind TQM ascertains that by

looking at organizations as complex systems we have a multiplicity of operational and

political dimensions, whereby knowledge is hard gained and the uncertainty of the rule
rather than the exception is brought about. 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.
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. Although the literature offers a wide variety of examples
of implementation models and satisfying results of TQM implementations in higher
education, some prefer being cautious about the issue especially when higher education
and academic aspects are taken into account.
In relation to theory underpinning of TQM, there are criticisms as follows:
.
The absence of a cohesive model of TQM. Silvestro (1998) in a paper titled Why
TQM can fail? concluded that researchers believe that TQM has failed in
industry. Their main reasons are stated as the absence of a cohesive model of
TQM. While TQM has become heavily associated with a number of well-known
exponents, a review of their teachings reveals a miscellany of ideas and
management practices, rather than a coherent philosophy or approach. Temple
(2005) argued that the EFQM Excellence Model generally and this higher
education variant in particular are, it is clear, in the tradition of what has been
called the planned approach to organizational change, or organization
development. Planned-approach ideas generally focused on two principles:
evaluation of the current problems, actions and situation of organization; and
using this information to solve the organization problems. Meanwhile, 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. This model
did not consider the issues of power, chance, opportunism, and accident as
influential in shaping organization outcomes.
.
Failure to focus on the big questions. A theory of quality in higher education
should clearly work out the relationship among input, process, output and
long-term results of higher education. 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. The
brutal truth is that TQM has had very little of consequence to say about any of
these issues. All of which is to say that TQM has missed the mark on the most
important higher education questions of the day. It focuses on how students
register rather on than what they learn or the role of faculty tenure (Selvarantam,
2005; Koch, 2002; Koch and Fisher, 1998; Silvestro, 1998).
.
Define the customer. While TQM as a customer oriented approach is generally
accepted in commercial organizations, its role in higher education is still
controversial. From a theoretical point of view, customer orientation is a more
problematic principle of TQM when applied to universities (Harvey, 1995). This
is because of the special nature of many academics whose motivation for work is
often independent of market issues. Although this spirit should be regarded as

Quality
management
systems
179

Participation
Qualitative, 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 ! ; 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, 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.
Philosophical
assumptions of TQM

Positivist framework

180

Description

TQM
22,2

having some value in scientific environments, it may also be detrimental.

Disregarding the market has the danger of ignoring the real needs of consumers
(Owlia and Aspinwall, 1997).
Conflicts with the education values. A theory should be consistent with
pre-existing theory to the extent that the pre-existing theory is experimentally
verified. From a sociological perspective, 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. Specifically, it is management-driven.
Quality in higher education is essentially a socio-culture and political issue
(Mehralizadeh, 2005) with underlying economical, technological and social
implications. This is well documented in the body of literature (Mehralizadeh,
1999; Banta, 1995; Green and Harvey, 1993; Van Vught, 1992).

Productivised
Productivised means making the quality into product, i.e., that the idea is sold as a
commodity to be purchased in a market. It follows of this assumption that the idea
must be objectified, transformed from an idea into an object in form of routines,
actions, handbooks, etc. (see Czarniawska and Sevon, 1996). It is argued that TQM is
not enough productivised because its heterogeneity is under question. Much the same
considerations hold with respect to determining the products of higher education, as
Koch (2002) argued that the products of education institution are various. The most
notable characteristics are the intangibility and heterogeneity of the outputs of
services, which are in contrast to those in the manufacturing industry that are more
measurable and standardized in their specifications (Sureshchandar et al., 2002;
Silvestro, 1998). However, there have been a number of limitations identified in the
wholesale adoption of TQM to higher education. Roffe (1998) suggests that while there
are a small number of quality indicators in industry, these are more numerous and
complex in higher education and therefore more difficult to assess. Similarly, Yorke
(1994) advises that accountability relationships are more complicated, and Roffe (1998)
indicates that while the accountability emphasis of TQM in industry is on a team, it
tends to lie with individuals in higher education (see Becket and Brookes, 2005).
Progressive
Progressive indicates that the idea is distinguished from other management ideas as
something better or improved. In terms of progressiveness aspects of TQM it is said
that this theory has side effects for higher education institutions. Stensaker (2005)
mentioned that the picture of new organizational practices related to quality assurance
in higher education, both on the national and institutional level, is not very affirmative.
A substantial number of contributions have over the years pointed to the dangers and
side effects of quality assurance, highlighting the risk of increased bureaucratization,
centralization and marketisation of higher education as not very desirable, but likely
outcomes of such procedures.
In implementing TQM in higher education, one needs to realize that higher
education is different from other service industries, particularly in relation to
measurement of organization performance. Basically, in higher education, student

Quality
management
systems
181

TQM
22,2

assessment is considered as an indicator of performance. Therefore, some

commentators in suggesting the TQM for higher education focused on student
assessment and asserted that these quality systems will improve the students
academic achievement. But when we consider the students roles in higher education,
we notice that students have multiple roles and their roles cannot be simplified to that
of a customer (Sirvanci, 2004).

182
Harmonized
Harmonized refers to the idea that is not causing disapproval from certain
stakeholders, or favoring some people over others. When we observe the results of
TQM application in higher education we notice that there is unbalance between
elements of TQM. Most of these conflicting problems are:
.
Unbalanced relationship between different criteria of models. This is particularly
true in the case of Baldrige and EFQM, because it is assumed that there is a logic
and rational balance among eight criteria of Baldrige and nine criteria of EFQM
separately. This means that in EFQM there is a linkage at four levels: across the
whole model, between enablers and results, within results, and across the
enablers (Sheffield Hallam University, 2003), while case studies show that this
relationship is in turbulent in each organization. In order words, unique situation
of higher education institutions requires that we consider the criteria scores in
these models more cautiously.
.
Conflicting between the views of customers. Higher education has a number of
complementary and contradictory customers. Four parties of potential customers
are the government, administrators, academics and the actual consumers (the
learners, their families, employers and society as a whole). The needs and desires
of these various higher education customers may, in some circumstances,
conflict with each other and this could be problematic for institutions which
attempt to produce strategies that satisfy these needs effectively and efficiently.
Further, students can be considered either as customers (with courses as the
higher education products) or as products, with the employers being the
customers (Conway et al., 1994). Whichever is chosen will have important
implications for the correct identification of institutions customers, i.e. students
or potential employers, and, thus, for the strategic planning process.(Stensaker,
2005; Michael et al., 1997). However, as Temple (2005) added, 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.
.
Issue of ICT in higher education and distance learning. Today we are talking
about the virtual organization. Advances in technology have also been affecting
higher education. Videotaped lectures, the use of multimedia in teaching and the
emergence of distance learning are changing education processes structurally,
and are reducing the role of traditional classroom teaching. These quality
systems mostly focused on the traditional structure of organization.
.
Bidirectional nature of the process of evaluation and measurement in higher
education. As Youssef et al. (1989) observed, the process of evaluation and
measurement in higher education is bidirectional, at least where faculty and
students are concerned. In a garden variety corporate TQM situation, customers

provide feedback on products, services, and personnel. Rare is the corporation

that evaluates its customers and provides feedback to them. However, that is
exactly what occurs in higher education. Yes, students evaluate faculty and
courses, but faculty also evaluate students who are customers by means of
grades, letters of recommendations, subsequent admissions decisions, and so
forth. The bidirectional nature of evaluation in higher educations subtly changes
the sociology of the situation. Will either students or faculty tell the truth when
they know that there could be retribution later? The evaluation channel, then,
suffers from more contamination in higher education than in corporate settings
(Koch, 2002).
Dramatized
Dramatized indicates that an idea is supported by dramatic narratives concerning how
successful some organizations have been when implementing the idea. The reviewed
case studies related to ISO, Deming, 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, 2004; Koch, 2002; Silvestro, 1998; Moreland and Clark,
1998; Koch and Fisher, 1998; Loomba and Johannessen, 1997; Schwartzman, 1995).
Also the results do not show a success in improving the higher education institutions.
Loomba and Johannessen (1997), in a study about the Baldrige award, concluded that
there are three main problems with this award: an unfairness award; a superficial
award; and publicity-related issues. However, Temple (2005) noted that the Excellence
Model embodies no new insights into organizational structures or processes; instead, it
recycles earlier understandings, many of which are now widely seen as, at best, partial
ways of viewing organizational change.
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). 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. Some of the higher
education institutions have tried to apply these quality systems. Temple (2005)
asserted that the Excellence Model fails to address the distinctive character of (at least)
universities.
Two of the advocates of appropriateness issue are Lewis and Smith (1994).
According to them, principles and concepts of total quality are compatible with the
best tradition and practices of higher education. Moreland and Clark (1998) in their
case study concluded that application of ISO in higher education can affect
sense-making in an institution. In fact, for the first time in 2002, a higher education
institution, University of Wisconsin-Stout, won the Baldrige education award. Some of
the implementations of TQM principles in higher education have been confined to the
administrative branches and nonacademic processes of universities. Stensaker (2005)
argued that attempts to transform external quality concepts into a more beneficial
processes for the individual institution, 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, and especially those having the
responsibility for human resource management academic leaders and administrators.

Quality
management
systems
183

TQM
22,2

184

Conclusion
This paper started with controversial question regarding the applicability and fitness
of current business quality management systems in higher education. To sum up this
discussion, we could say that in many cases the current evidence of application of
TQM is not compatible with the assumed criteria. The quality systems mostly are not
socially acceptable, they do not follow a clear philosophy and theory, do not show that
productivity of institutions, less progressive, low harmonies, unrealistic publicized but
in terms of individualized there are some supportive successful cased applied in
nonacademic higher education.
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, without some underline quality philosophy driving them, it
must be recognized that the quality systems framework derive from different
traditions and have different starting points and languages. They all attempt to
propagate quality management practices. They share a set of fundamental
philosophies, which include: acceptance of responsibility for quality by the top
management; customer orientation; high level of employee participation; open and
effective communication; fact-based management; and strategic quality planning. But
the continents of USA and Europe are different in terms of school of philosophy they
believe in and interpretation of the quality issues. There is no doubt that quality
awards have helped to focus attention on quality and facilitated a better understanding
of the underlying issues. It is, however, too early to ascertain the full impact of these
awards on improving the competitiveness of western higher education.
References
Avdjieva, M. and Wilson, M. (2002), Exploring the development of quality in higher education,
Managing Service Quality, Vol. 2 No. 6, pp. 372-83.
Ball, C. (1985), in Urwin, D. (Ed.), Fitness for Purpose. Essays in Higher Education, SRHE and
NFER-Nelson, Guildford.
Banta, T.W. (1995), Some observations about the assessment of quality worldwide, Proceedings
of the 7th International Conference on Assessing Quality in Higher Education, Tampere,
Finland, July 1995, pp. vii/viii.
Becket, N. and Brookes, M. (2005), Analysing quality audits in higher education, Brookes
Ejournal of Learning and Teaching, Vol. 1 No. 2, available at: www.brookes.ac.uk/
publications/bejlt/volume1issue2/academic/becket_brookes.html
Birnbaum, R. (2000), Management Fads in Higher Education: Where do They Come From, What
They Do, Why They Fail, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Brennan, J., de Vries, P. and Williams, R. (Eds) (1997), Standards and Quality in Higher
Education, Higher Education Policy Series No. 37, Jessica Kingsley, London.
Brown, D.J. and Koenig, H.F. (1993), Applying total quality management to business education,
Journal of Education for Business, July/August.
Bush, T. (1995), Theories of Education Management, 2nd ed., Paul Chapman Publishing, London.
Clark, B. (1983), The Higher Education System, University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.
Conway, T., Mackey, S. and Yorke, D. (1994), Planning in higher education: who are the
customers?, International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 8 No. 6, pp. 29-36.

Corwin, B. (1997), Initiating change through internal evaluation: promoting ownership of

program and service evaluation results, available at: www.cirpa-acpri.ca/
prevConferences/halifax94/cowin/cowin.html
Czarniawska, B. and Sevon, G. (1996), Translating Organizational Change, Walter de Gruyter,
Berlin.
Dale, B.G., Zairi, M., Van der Wiele, A. and Williams, A.R.T. (2000), Quality is dead in Europe
long live excellence: true or false?, available at: www.few.eur.nl/few/people/vanderwiele/
papers/mbe4(3)2000p4.pdf
Drennan, L.T. (1999), Total quality management in the Scottish universities, International
Journal: Continuous Improvement Monitor, Vol. 1 No. 4, available at: www.llanes.panam.
edu/journal/library/Vol1No4/drennan.html
Entin, D. (1993), Case study number one: Boston, less than meets the eye, Change, Vol. 25 No. 3,
pp. 28-31.
Green, D. and Harvey, L. (1993), Quality assurance in Western Europe: trends, practices and
issues, Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Assessing Quality in Higher
Education, Bonn, FRG, July 1993, pp. 177-89.
Harvey, L. (1995), Beyond TQM, Quality in Higher Education, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 123-46.
Harvey, L. (2004), The power of accreditation: views of academics, in Nauta, P.D., Omar, P.-L.,
Schade, A. and Scheele, J.P. (Eds), Accreditation Models in Higher Education: Experiences
and Perspectives, ENQA Workshop Reports No. 3, European Network for Quality
Assurance in Higher Education, Helsinki.
Harvey, L. and Knight, P.T. (1996), Transforming Higher Education, SRHE and Open University
Press, Buckingham.
Hawking, S. (1988), A Brief History of Time, Bantam, Toronto and New York, NY.
Ho, S.K. and Wearn, K. (1996), A higher education TQM excellence model: HETQMEX, Quality
Assurance in Education, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 35-42.
Izadi, M., Kashef, A.E. and Stadt, R.W. (1996), Quality in higher education: lessons learned from
the Baldrige award, Deming Prize, and ISO 9000 registration, Journal of Industrial
Teacher Education, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 60-76.
Koch, J. (2002), TQM: why is its impact in higher education so small?, The TQM Magazine,
Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 325-33.
Koch, J.V. and Fisher, J.L. (1998), Higher education and total quality management, Total Quality
Management, Vol. 9 No. 8, pp. 659-69.
Lamb, R. (2002), Demings System of Profound Knowledge: Elements and Applications, Process
Management International (Australia), available at: www.pmi-aus.com.au/spk.html
Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1990), Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Lewis, R. and Smith, H.D. (1994), Total Quality in Higher Education, St Lucie Press, Tampa, FL.
Loomba, A.P.S. and Johannessen, T.B. (1997), Benchmarking for quality, Management &
Technology, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 59-77.
Mehralizadeh, Y. (1999), What is the relationship between schools and the demands of paid
work? A case study of Rover and its partnership with Swindon schools, PhD thesis,
Department of Education, University of Bath, Bath.
Mehralizadeh, Y. (2005), New reforms in the management of the university: transition from
centralized to decentralized (university-based management) in Iran, UK: Higher
Education Policy, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 67-82.

Quality
management
systems
185

TQM
22,2

186

Michael, R.K., Sower, V.E. and Motwani, J. (1997), A comprehensive model for implementing
total quality management in higher education, Benchmarking for Quality Management &
Technology, Vol. 4 No. 2, p. 104.
Moreland, N. and Clark, M. (1998), Quality and ISO 9000 in educational organizations, Total
Quality Management, Vol. 9 Nos 2/3, pp. 311-20.
Motwani, J. and Kumar, A. (1997), A comprehensive model for implementing total quality
management in higher education, Benchmarking for Quality, Management & Technology,
Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 104-20.
Owlia, M.S. and Aspinwall, E.M. (1997), Quality in higher education: a survey, Total Quality
Management, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 161-71.
Parker, M. and Slaughter, J. (2003), Beware! TQM is coming to your campus, available at:
www2.nea.org/he/tqm.html
Popper, K. (1959), The Logic of Scientific Discovery, Basic Books, New York, NY.
Roffe, I.M. (1998), Conceptual problems of continuous quality improvement and innovation in
higher education, Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 74-82.
Rvik, K.-A. (1998), Moderne organisasjoner, Fagbokforlaget, Bergen.
Schwartzman, R. (1995), Are students customers? The metaphoric mismatch between
management and education, Education, available at: www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_
qa3673/is_199501/ai_n8714999#continue
Selvarantam, R.M. (2005), In electronic education, does total quality exist in the experiences of
the customer rather than the aspirations of the supplier?, Sunway Academic Journal,
Vol. 2, pp. 33-43.
Senge, P.M. (1990), Fifth Discipline, Random House, Sydney (reprinted).
Sheffield Hallam University (2003), Embracing Excellence in Education: A Summary of Sheffield
Hallam University (2003), EFQM Excellence Model: Higher Education Version 2003,
Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield.
Silvestro, R. (1998), The manufacturing TQM and service quality literatures: synergistic or
conflicting paradigms?, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 15
No. 3, pp. 303-28.
Sirvanci, M.B. (2004), Critical issues for TQM implementation in higher education, The TQM
Magazine, Vol. 16 No. 6, pp. 382-6.
Srikanthan, G. (2003), Developing a Model for Quality in Higher Education, Centre for
Management Quality Research, Bundoora.
Srikanthan, G. and Dalrymple, J. (2002), Developing a holistic model for quality in higher
education, Quality in Higher Education, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 215-24.
Stensaker, B. (2005), Quality as fashion exploring the translation of a management idea into
higher education, paper presented at the seminar Dynamics and Effects of Quality
Assurance in Higher Education Various Perspectives of Quality and Performance at
Various Levels, Douro, October, available at: www.fup.pt/admin/cipes/docs/eventos/
Stensaker.pdf
Sureshchandar, G.S., Rajendran, C. and Anantharaman, R.N. (2002), Determinants of
customer-perceived service quality: a confirmatory factor analysis approach, Journal of
Services Marketing, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 9-34.
Temple, P. (2005), The EFQM Excellence Modelw: higher educations latest management fad?,
Higher Education Quarterly, Vol. 59 No. 4, October, pp. 261-74.

Tierney, B. (1998), Responsive University: Restructuring for High Performance, Johns Hopkins
University Press, Baltimore, MD.
Van Vught, F. (1992), Government Strategies and Innovation in Higher Education, Jessica
Kingsley, London.
Vygotsky, L. (1978), Mind in Society The Development of Higher Psychological Processes,
Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Yorke, M. (1994), Enhancement-led higher education?, Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 2
No. 3, pp. 6-12.
Youssef, M.A., Libby, P., Al-Khafaji, A. and Sawyer, G.J.I. (1989), TQM implementation barriers
in higher education, International Journal of Technology Management, Vol. 16 Nos 4/5/6,
pp. 583-93.
Zavelys, R. (2005), Changes in Quality Assurance Systems and Theoretical Models of Education
Management, National Institution for Public Education, available at: www.oki.hu/oldal.
php?tipuscikk&kodquality-12-Zelvys
Further reading
Bowden, J. and Marton, F. (1998), The University of Learning. Beyond Quality and Competence in
Higher Education, Kogan Page, London.
Centre for Integral Excellence (2003), Linking the EFQM Excellence Model to Other Management
Models and Tools, Consortium for Excellence in Higher Education, Sheffield Hallam
University, Sheffield.
Harvey, L. and Newton, J. (2004), Transforming quality evaluation, Quality in Higher
Education, Vol. 10 No. 2, July, pp. 149-65.
HCi (n.d.), PDCA cycle, available at: www.hci.com.au/hcisite2/toolkit/pdcacycl.htm
Van Vught, F. (1997), To Innovate for Quality. Quality Assurance as Support for Processes of
Innovation. The Swedish Model in Comparative Perspective, Hgskoleverkets Skriftserie,
Stockholm.
Wikipedia (n.d.), Theory, available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory
Corresponding author
Yadollah Mehralizadeh can be contacted at: [email protected]

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Quality
management
systems
187