An empirical study of total quality

management in engineering
educational institutions of India
Perspective of management
Begum Sayeda, Chandrasekharan Rajendran and
Prakash Sai Lokachari
Department of Management Studies, Indian Institute of Technology Madras,
Chennai, India
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to explore the adoption of quality management practices in
engineering educational institutions (EEIs) in India from managements perspective.
Design/methodology/approach A questionnaire was developed based on a literature review of
research in quality management and based on the responses of the pilot survey among the senior
faculty/management. The psychometric properties of this instrument were examined using tests of
reliability and validity. Correlation and multiple regression analyses were used to analyze the impact
of the total quality management (TQM) dimensions on institutional performance (effectiveness).
Findings Findings highlight 27 critical factors/dimensions of quality management, which
analyzed the relationship between TQM dimensions and institutional performance, which has been
formulated using ve dimensions. Positive and signicant relationships among the TQM dimensions
and institutional performance have been observed.
Research limitations/implications Results of the study are dependent on the prole and
number of the respondents, i.e. on the perceptions of the management.
Practical implications The paper proposes a model for achieving institutional excellence from
the macro perspective of the management. Two critical factors, i.e. healthy innovative practices and
feeder institution partnership have been identied as key enablers in the paper. Institutional
performance (effectiveness), as a holistic construct, has been measured by ve measures of
performance, institution reputation and image, infrastructure quality, faculty excellence, research and
industry exposure and stakeholders satisfaction. The instrument developed can be used as a
self-assessment tool in continuously measuring the overall performance of the institutions processes
and systems.
Originality/value The paper focuses on EEIs. It evolved a holistic framework for institutional
effectiveness and formulated a comprehensive instrument with respect to managements perceptions
on quality management issues. The paper also identied ve critical factors to measure institutional
performance and 27 dimensions of TQM in the context of EEIs.
Keywords Education, Total quality management, Performance management, India
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
Services contribute over 80 per cent of domestic gross domestic product (GDP) in the
developed countries; even in the developing world, service sectors are contributing
upwards of 50 per cent of GDP since the turn of the century (Karmakar, 2008).
International trade agreements such as General Agreement on Trade in Services
identied education as a service sector. The fact that World Trade Organization (WTO)
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1463-5771.htm
BIJ
17,5
728
Benchmarking: An International
Journal
Vol. 17 No. 5, 2010
pp. 728-767
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited
1463-5771
DOI 10.1108/14635771011076461
covers public services, including education, further intensied the prophecy of education
being transformed as a more tradable service sector (business). India signed as a
signatory body to WTOin 1995, which implies its subscription to the guiding principles
of open and free competition in the international markets including educational services.
Kelley and Sharif (2005) observed: The competitiveness of a nation is determined by its
quality of higher education that it is able to provide to its students. Indian educational
institutions, while waking up to this new reality, are gearing up to cater to the needs of
not only its domestic segment, but also the international markets.
The legendary growth of the information technology (IT) outsourcing and business
process outsourcing industries in India owes its origin to the successful demonstration
of the cost advantage of offshoring as well as the value-added services of the talented
workforce. This led to the phenomenal growth of Indian higher educational institutions
(HEIs), especially engineering educational institutions (EEIs). But, dwindling quality
standards in these institutions (quality of students, of infrastructure, lack of vision,
faculty members, project guidance and so on) have emerged as a grave concern for all
the stakeholders. Further, Indian IT industry is also trying to consolidate and advance
its competitive position in the third major growth stream, i.e. engineering services
outsourcing (ESO). ESO pertains to global innovation capacity in design, research,
innovation and engineering (National Knowledge Commission, 2008). This is duly
reected in the surge in the demand for acquiring the competent engineering workforce
(NASSCOM/Booz Allen Hamilton Report, 2006). Industrial bodies, such as National
Association of Software and Service Companies (NASSCOM) and Confederation of
Indian Industries (CII), formulated several initiatives for enhancing workforce skills
and competencies in active collaboration with the government agencies and the
academia, while ushering in a new era in the Indian education system, especially in the
EEIs (National Knowledge Commission, 2008).
Hackman and Wageman (1995) advocated that, total quality management (TQM), if
properly implemented, can enable organizations to dynamically provide cope with
their ever changing environments in a sustainable manner. Hammersley and
Pinnington (1999) suggested TQM to be a systematic and rationalized philosophy for
quality management as well as change management in higher education. Bestereld
et al. (2003) dened the three words comprising the abbreviation TQM: total refers to
made up of the whole; quality refers to the degree of excellence of a product or
service; and management refers to an act, art or manner of handling, controlling,
leading and planning. TQM in higher education implies improving the quality of
courses, input instructional process, resource management processes and structures,
student support service output and linkages with the world of work and other
organizations (Tulsi, 2001). The model supported by TQM proponents (Lagrosen et al.,
2004; Venkatraman, 2007) in education emphasized on customer satisfaction and
continuous improvement. In this study, TQM in higher education has been construed
as an approach that enabled focused attention on the core activities (e.g. teaching
and learning methodology, curriculum revision and resource development) of the
university, while improving the overall quality of its processes (e.g. continuous
improvement, student academic growth and enhancement of institutions
reputation) in order to achieve sustainable institutional outcomes and stakeholders
satisfaction.
Total quality
management
729
2. Literature review
Studies in quality management and service quality literature by researchers and
practitioners have put forth numerous total quality frameworks (both conceptual and
empirical) in the context of educational institutions with the aim of improving their
quality standards. The role of management/leadership (director/president/rector) in
HEIs gained signicance in the recent research studies. The studies highlighted the
role of management/leadership in evolving a vision for quality and also in improving
institutional effectiveness.
2.1 Total quality frameworks in HEIs
Kanji (1998) proposed a business excellence model for higher education, which
enunciated four principles: delight the customer, management by fact, people-based
management and continuous improvement. Mergen et al. (2000) proposed a model of
quality management that has three components: quality of design (QD), quality of
conformance (QC) and quality of performance (QP). It provided a framework to identify
opportunities for improvement in research, teaching and operations. Grant et al. (2002)
dealt with measuring the three quality dimensions (QD, QC and QP) in higher
education. The study indicated the paucity of research in examining the QP issues.
Sahney et al. (2004) asserted that TQM is all permeating, covering the various aspects
(e.g. quality of inputs in the form of students, faculty, staff and infrastructure) of
academic life. Viswanadhan and Rao (2005) analyzed the impact of privatization of
engineering education through the performance of undergraduate engineering
programmes in India. The factors listed in the study were commitment of top
management and leadership, customer focus, course delivery, communication, campus
facilities, congenial learning environment and continuous assessment and
improvement. Sohail and Shaikh (2004) explored students expectations of quality in
business education and identied six factors, such as contact with personnel, physical
environment, reputation, responsiveness, access of facilities and curriculum, which
contributed to their expectations towards quality business education. Sakthivel et al.
(2005) conceptualized ve TQMvariables and developed a 5-C TQMmodel of academic
excellence in technical institutions of India: commitment of top management, course
delivery, campus facilities, courtesy and customer feedback and improvement. Telford
and Masson (2005) suggested a framework of quality values in higher education which
included, course design, course marketing, student recruitment, induction, course
delivery, course content, assessment monitoring, miscellaneous and tangibles. Mustafa
and Chiang (2006) identied four key factors that reect quality in business education,
namely, teacher abilities, teacher attitude, course materials and course load. The
education sector has many patrons who enthusiastically conveyed the contribution of
TQM philosophies to the improvement of higher education, in various core areas such
as curriculum reform, pedagogy, quality of education, etc. (Koch and Fisher, 1998; Bath
et al., 2004; Peat et al., 2005; Srdoc et al., 2005; Alashloo et al., 2005).
2.2 Role of leadership in HEI
UNESCO (1998) declared:
The ultimate goal of management should be to enhance the institutional mission by ensuring
high-quality teaching, training and research, and services to the community. This objective
requires governance that combines social vision, including understanding of global issues,
BIJ
17,5
730
with efcient managerial skills. Leadership in higher education is thus a major social
responsibility and can be signicantly strengthened through dialogue with all stakeholders,
especially teachers and students, in higher education.
The most widely used example of quality assurance is the ISO 9000 series, which are
foundedoneight qualitymanagement principles: customer focus, leadership, involvement
of people, process management, system approach to management, continuous
improvement, factual approach to decision making and mutually benecial supplier
relationships (Lin and Wu, 2005). Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award (MBNQA,
2007) instituted by the USA and European Foundation for Quality Management Model
(EFQM, 2005) by Europe are the most comprehensive models of quality in education. The
core values and concepts of MBNQA are embodied in seven categories of criteria
leadership, strategic planning, student, stakeholder and market focus, measurement,
analysis and knowledge management (KM), faculty and staff focus, process management
and organizational performance results. In the MBNQA model, leadership triggers the
strategic polices into organizational results. The EFQM excellence model comprises nine
elements grouped under ve enabler criteria (leadership, policy and strategy, people,
partnerships and resources and processes) and four result criteria (customer results,
people results, key performance results and society results). The Confederation of Indian
Industry Institute of Quality released its excellence model in September 2008. The CII
excellence framework in education is based on nine criteria, ve are grouped under
enablers (leadership, policy and strategy, staff, resource management and partnership
and processes) and four are considered as results (student results, staff results, society
results and key performance results). These quality models emphasises on the leadership
parameter to drive performance-based results.
Rowley (1997) emphasized the role of leadership and explored the importance of the
contingency model of leadership and suggested that leadership style changes
accordingly to accommodate different environments. Kanji et al. (1999) identied
leadership as a prime factor that pervaded all the principles and core concepts for
achieving business excellence. Effective leadership and efcient management practices
are essential if HEIs are to achieve their overall purpose of providing the skilled
manpower required for economic and social development in the twenty-rst century
(Bush, 2003; DfES, 2003). Managing the systems, processes and people in HEIs is a
challenging task. HEIs signify multiple customers, chain of hierarchical processes and
nominal degrees to freedom to the management/leadership to work towards achieving
effectiveness. Petrov (2006) stated that the nature of leadership in higher education is
ambiguous and contested because of the organizational complexity, the multiples goals
and the traditional values of the university. There are numerous studies (Wiinn and
Cameron, 1998; Kanji and Tambi, 2002) that discussed the critical role of the
management in driving the HEIs towards excellence. These studies identied
leadership skills as the prime reasons for development and success in educational
institutions. Vora (2002) conveyed that quality management is almost impossible
without the involvement and commitment of senior leaders. In the higher education
framework, Novak (2002) expressed leadership as a personal and professional ethical
relationship between those in leadership positions and their sub-ordinate staff, needed
in order to appreciate and call forth their full potential. Martin et al. (2003) focused on
the social and personal dimensions of leadership and highlighted the collaborative and
non-collaborative thinking and practice of heads of departments and subject
Total quality
management
731
coordinators in large rst-year subjects. Aziz et al. (2005) in their leadership skills
analysis identied the importance of the leaders being competent enough for
maintaining faculty morale and their skill for reducing, resolving and preventing
conict among faculty members. In the higher education leadership literature, there is
regular reference to academic leadership qualities, such as integrity, courage and
passion, trustworthiness, consideration, responsiveness, adaptability, being able to
adapt and change, to envision alternative futures, to develop people and collaborative
partnerships, to create a positive and collegial working atmosphere, being both
supportive and able to get necessary support and being able to inuence others
positively (Drew, 2006; Bryman, 2007).
Rosser et al. (2003) collected data fromfaculty and staff for evaluating the leadership
effectiveness of deans and directors from individual and institutional perspectives. The
study measured several domains of leadership as a construct that would serve as central
criteria for the evaluation purposes within the institution. The specic domains and
criteria selected included articulating a vision and setting appropriate goals managing a
unit, possessing high-quality interpersonal relationships, having strong communication
skills, contributing to research and professional endeavours of the unit, building the
overall quality of the units educational processes and providing support for the
institutional goal of increasing diversity. The study found that female deans were rated
stronger in terms of their leadership effectiveness in the university. The study concluded
that evaluating leadership in organizations is about what the leader is perceived to do
(and actually does) in the social context of his or her unit, and not about the leadership
attributes he possesses. Kekale (2003) dealt with academic leadership, leadership
philosophy and the system of personnel management and described the ongoing
development project and the experiences gained from it at the university. The study
expressed that overall the idea of academic leaders as thermostats and the basic
leadership philosophy seemed to be rewarding since it was observed that the university
had continuously achieved higher outcomes in terms of annual degree production.
An annual survey comprising the responses of the staff of the university also showed
positive development through the three years in succession in various areas of the study,
including working atmosphere, leadership, owof information and internal cooperation.
Badri et al. (2006) developed a comprehensive measurement model grounded in the
Baldrige Performance Excellence in Education Criteria. The study underlined the
signicance of leadership as a driver for all components. It reported the existence of a
signicant relationship between the leadership, systems, and processes of higher
education organizations and the consequent outcomes. The study also added that the
Baldrige framework proved to be a useful tool for developing and managing quality
systems in institutions of higher education. Spendlove (2007) analyzed the role of the
pro-vice-chancellor, rector or principal of a university and the competencies (attitudes,
knowledge and behaviour) that are needed for effective leadership in higher education
in an UK university. The study found that most respondents perceived academic
credibility and experience of university life were crucial for effective leadership in
higher education. It asserted that precedence must be given to use a grounded
approach to build comprehensive and new models of effective leadership solely in
higher education. The study concluded by stating that the HEIs have no organizational
strategy for identifying or developing leadership skills. Osseo-Asare et al. (2007)
investigated the critical role of managerial leadership in TQM implementation in the
BIJ
17,5
732
UK HEIs. The study analysed the data compiled from both academicians and
non-academicians responsible for teaching and improvement of research quality
explained the nature of the relationship between the degrees of efciency and
effectiveness of quality management practices. The study concluded that managerial
leadership in higher education is regarding three things: rst, about communicating a
clear statement of mission; second, successful implementation of core processes with the
help of empowered staff aided by timely data, information, intelligence and knowledge
of best practices, to deliver superior results for students and other stakeholders and
eventually excellent institutional performance results. Finally, contemplating the
context of higher education in the UK and incorporating the critical success factors
found in the existing environment. Bryman (2007) assessed effective leadership in
higher education and focused on heads and department chairs. The study debated that
the department represented a critical unit of analysis in universities, as is often a key
administrative unit for the allocation of resources, and the chief springboard for the
organisations main teaching and research activities. The study also added that
leadership in academia was not dened at all and was used in different contexts to mean
different things. Adams and Gamage (2008) studied the effectiveness of head teacher
leadership within TAFE NSW, Australias largest Vocational Education and Training
(VET) institution. The theoretical framework of the study was based on the multi-factor
transformational/transactional leadership model which used both quantitative and
qualitative dimensions from the teachers and head teachers. The results suggested
signicant differences between the self-perceptions of the head teachers and perceptions
of the teachers rating of head teacher leadership effectiveness. The study identied the
self-perceived and actual leadership styles used by the head teachers of the TAFE NSW
system. It also veried whether those were the types of leadership styles that would
assist the future sustainability of the organization. The study concluded by stating that
there should be action needed to reduce the gap between the self-perceived and real or
actual leadership effectiveness.
A major concern highlighted in the literature concerning the evaluation of
administrators pertains to the development of valid and reliable measures of leadership
effectiveness (Pike, 1994). Some recent studies (Bryman, 2007; Osseo-Asare et al., 2007)
emphasised the need for providing clarity on leadership effectiveness in the HEIs.
McGoey (2007) elaborated on the difculty to identify proper measures for judging the
effectiveness of the President of a university/college.
The present studyproposedthe effectiveness of management/leadership, inthe context
of HEIs, could duly be manifested as a reliable measure of institutional effectiveness.
It is the management, which is mainly responsible for creating the vision, instituting
relevant processes and channelising the resources continually for the achievement of
institutional excellence. The top managements role in an educational institution pertains
to its commitment to provide inspirational guidance and also effective deployment of both
human and technical resources in order to achieve greater productivity.
3. Research objectives and methodology
The research objectives of this work are formulated from the perspective of the service
provider (i.e. management) of the EEIs, and they pertain to:
.
identifying the critical dimensions of TQM in EEIs;
.
developing an instrument using the critical dimensions;
Total quality
management
733
.
proposing a conceptual model to study the inuence of the critical dimensions of
TQM on the measures of institutional performance;
.
validating empirically the instrument by subjecting the data collected to various
tests;
.
validating the conceptual model by exploring relationships between the critical
dimensions and the measures of institutional effectiveness; and
.
exploring managerial implications.
The terms factors, critical dimensions andconstructs have beenusedsynonymously
in this paper.
After dening the population, an exploratory study was undertaken to develop the
constructs, questions, hypotheses and also the survey instrument (questionnaire). The
constructs for the study were nalized after conducting an exhaustive literature review
(conceptual, prescriptive and empirical). The various quality models and contextual
factors were also analyzed, which were later added on to the critical dimensions of this
study. The availability of hard evidence based on a rigorous research methodology is
mandatory for the development of reliable, valid and pragmatic diagnostic instruments
by researchers, in order to enhance the process of theory building (Sureshchandar et al.,
2001). A seven-point Likert scale (with 1 indicating extremely low and 7 indicating
extremely high) has been employed to elicit responses for the extent of TQM practices
offered (Badri et al., 2006). The TQM elements (items) have been initially rened
(wordings modied) and tested (redundancy of items) with a sample of focus group before
the nal drafts were made. The dimensions, as understood in the study, are broadly
explained in Appendix 1, Table AI. The complete instrument is given in Appendix 2.
The study is descriptive in nature as we attempt to describe the perceptions of the
management about the quality of the EEIs. This is a single cross-sectional study as
only one sample of respondents is drawn from the target population, and information is
obtained from this sample only once. A closed-ended questionnaire with nominal
scale and interval scale was used to get the responses fromthe targeted sample barring
three questions, which were open-ended. The latter were incorporated so as to
capture qualitative inputs germane to the challenges faced by the management. The
unstructured interviews, open-ended questions, allow for making a truer assessment of
what the respondents really believe; and can also result in unexpected answers, giving
them greater exibility and freedom (Cohen et al., 2000). The nominal scale/categorical
scale were used to capture the demographics of the respondents and the organization.
The interval scale was used for the measurement of variables (both independent and
dependent) identied in this study. Questionnaires were administered personally, also
sent through electronic mails and registered post to the respondents as per their
convenience.
4. A conceptual model and proposed hypotheses
The research literature on TQM establishes it as an integrated business philosophy
that synergizes processes, peoples and structures. This time-tested philosophy
establishes its design and state of existence in EEIs. The proposed model is shown in
Figure 1. It highlights and explicitly addresses the need to combine the hard aspects,
which are quantitative in nature (i.e. infrastructure, quality management system
and processes) with the soft aspects, which relate to organization development
BIJ
17,5
734
(i.e. stakeholder management). This combination of all the facets of TQM is warranted
to evolve a holistic model (conceptual-descriptive). The top management being the
performance driver triggers the whole process of achieving quality in the institutions
with the support of each of the TQM dimensions. These ve categories are have been
placed under TQM dimensions in Figure 1, which indicate the constructs (independent
variables IVs) of TQM and the box on the right-hand side shows the measures of
institutional performance (dependent variables DVs) of TQM. The present study
views institutional effectiveness as a measure of an institutions excellence/superiority.
Institutional effectiveness serves as a benchmark or a frame of reference with a set of
superior processes and practices (e.g. excellent teaching and learning methods,
outstanding industry academia interface, stakeholder involvement in the
Figure 1.
Theoretical model of TQM
in EEIs perspective of
management
Quality management system (QMS)
Measures of institutional
performance
Institution reputation and
image (INSTI-R-I)
Infrastructure quality (INF-Q)
Faculty excellence (FAC-EXC)
Research and industry
Exposure (RES-IND-EXP)
Stakeholders satisfaction
(STK-SAT)
Factors related to infrastructure
Support infrastructure external services (INF-EX)
Support infrastructure internal services (INF-INT)
Core infrastructure essential resources (INF-ESS)
Core infrastructure facilities and layout (INF-FACIL)
Core infrastructure pedagogy related (INF-PED)
Factors related to stakeholders
Faculty and staff focus performance (FS-PERF)
Faculty and staff focus professional and career
development (FS-PROF)
Student focus academic development (SF-ACAD)
Student focus co-curricular and extra-curricular
development (SF-COEX)
Student focus congenial atmosphere (SF-CON)
Alumni focus (AL-FOC)
Stakeholder focus (STK-FOC)
Social responsibility (SOC-RES)
Industry interface (IND-INT)
Feeder institution partnership (FIP)
Factors Related to Processes
Continuous improvement (CI)
Benchmarking (BM)
Measurement, information and analysis (MIA)
Knowledge management (KM)
Research and development (R&D)
Healthy and innovative practices (HIP)
Pedagogy (PED)
TQM dimensions
Factors related to top management
Top managements commitment - institutional
progress (TMC-IP)
Top managements commitment - process
excellence (TMC-PE)
Top managements support - strategic planning and
execution (TMS-SPE)
Top managements support - meeting student needs
(TMS-MSN)
Total quality
management
735
developmental stages), well-dened systems in place (e.g. multi-media, proper
infrastructure) and better opportunities for growth and management styles.
The research studies in TQM (covering manufacturing, services and higher
education and presented in Section 2) explore the importance of top managements role
in achieving the desired outcomes in an institution. Measures of excellence for tracking
institutions progress need to be evolved. This study explored 27 critical dimensions of
TQM, which directly affect institutional performance. Further, ve measures of
institutional performance have been indexed to quantify institutional performance.
4.1 Comparison with other Indian studies
Viswanadhan (2008) analyzed student performance (as an outcome variable) in Indian
engineering education programmes based on the National Board of Accreditation (NBA)
assessment process and data. However, the study (Viswanadhan and Rao, 2005) stated
discrepancies in the NBA assessment processes, which owe its origin to the subjective
assessments by the accreditation team. The model developed in this study, while
addressing the research gaps in the existing literature. The holistic approach of this
model is expected to facilitate greater acceptability of TQM philosophy in HEIs and its
effective implementation leading to academic excellence.
In addition to the variables suggested by recent studies (Sakthivel, 2007) to measure
the DV, i.e. overall educational excellence, the TQM model proposed by our study
added new variables, which were studied independently, such as faculty and staff
focus, student focus, alumni focus, stakeholder focus, feeder institution partnership
(FIP) (secondary schools and industry), benchmarking (BM), measurement,
information and analysis (MIA), KM, research and development (R&D), healthy and
innovative practices (HIP) and pedagogy (teaching-learning process). The study by
Sakthivel (2007) was intended to measure overall engineering educational excellence in
the EEIs and the variables employed were top management commitment, customer
focus, campus facilities, course delivery, communication, continuous assessment and
improvement and congenial learning environment. Though the model aimed to
measure overall educational excellence, its variables do not seem to capture the total
quality aspects being experienced in the institution. In the study by Sakthivel (2007),
the overall educational excellence (DV) was measured by capturing students
perceptions alone. Several studies ( Jauch and Orwig, 1997) had highlighted TQMs
ineffectiveness in higher education as a success philosophy. The unique nature of
higher education involves many interest groups with multi-stakeholder perspective
having multiple goals both complementary and contradictory. Our study has
collated the perspectives of both the service provider (management) and the major
stakeholders such as faculty members, students and alumni on the critical dimensions
of TQM to derive institutional effectiveness.
The instrument developed in this study is comprehensive in terms of both
dimensions and items. In comparison with the recent Indian studies (Sakthivel, 2007),
we have added new dimensions such as (alumni focus, FIP (secondary schools and
industry), industry interface and pedagogy/teaching-learning process), apart for
modifying/adopting dimensions such as faculty and staff focus, student focus, alumni
focus, stakeholder focus, societal responsibility, BM, MIA, KM, R&D and HIP from
quality models (such as, from MBNQA, EFQM and NBA, an autonomous body set up
by All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), National Assessment and
BIJ
17,5
736
Accreditation Council, an autonomous body established by University Grants
Commission (UGC) of India, CII). There were certain items explored in each of these
dimensions which were specic to Indian environment and existing practices, such as
existence and inuence of unionization of employees and students in the institution,
succession and career planning of faculty members, encouragement and support
provided to faculty members to write research proposals and research papers, presence
and effectiveness of grievance committee for students, receiving feedback from alumni
and the industry personnel in the course delivery and course details and maintaining
healthy relationships with them, informing parents regularly about the overall
performance and achievements of the institution, extent of support provided by the
institution to the physically challenged students, whether provision for exchange
programs exist for students and faculty members, extent of efforts being taken by the
management for continuously updating the infrastructure and processes, providing
encouragement and opportunities to the faculty members and students towards
theoretical research and industrial projects, providing recognition in the form of
momentary assistance or rewards to the best performing students, efforts taken by the
management to boost the employees morale for better performance, for instilling in the
minds of the student to passionately learn and grow, utilization of multi-media by the
faculty members in the classrooms, and so on.
This study, therefore, leads to some assumptions, which are tested in the form of
ve hypotheses. Hence, the ve hypotheses framed for the study are the following:
H1. TQM dimensions are positively related to institutional reputation and image.
H2. TQM dimensions are positively related to infrastructure quality.
H3. TQM dimensions are positively related to faculty excellence.
H4. TQM dimensions are positively related to research and industry exposure.
H5. TQM dimensions are positively related to stakeholders satisfaction.
5. Empirical validation of the proposed TQM dimensions
The sampling frame consisted of all the colleges in India recognised by the AICTE,
a national level Apex Advisory Body. The target population comprising management
(service provider) can be either director/principal/vice-principal/deans/HODs. In more
than 130 colleges, personnel from the management category were contacted and
requested to ll the questionnaire. Most of them agreed to participate. However, in all,
62-lled questionnaires were collected within the time frame. The administration of the
questionnaire was done both through personal contacts and mailing (by post and
electronically).
After data collection, the instrument (data-collected) went through a renement
process. First, the psychometric properties (unidimensionality, convergent validity and
reliability) of the scale were tested. The data were factor analysed in order to nd the
latent factors based on the item-factor loadings (Table I). To ensure standardization
and to make it operational, the instrument was subjected to tests of reliability and
validity (Sureshchandar et al., 2001). The technique used for this study was
conrmatory factor analysis (CFA). In the CFA technique the researcher is a priori
aware of the number of factors that are required to explain the intercorrelations among
Total quality
management
737
Factor Item no.
Item
loadings
Bentler and
Bonnet
Index (BBI) CFI
Alpha
(a)
TQM dimensions (independent variables)
Top management commitment institutional 1 0.79 0.96 0.99 0.87
progress (TMC-IP) 2 0.81
3 0.66
4 0.72
5 0.83
Top management support strategic planning and 1 0.66 0.91 0.97 0.80
execution (TMS-SPE) 2 0.71
3 0.69
4 0.60
5 0.79
6 0.72
Top management commitment process excellence 1 0.87 0.96 0.98 0.77
(TMC-PE) 2 0.66
3 0.65
4 0.74
5 0.53
6 0.79
Top management support meeting student needs 1 0.66 0.91 0.96 0.78
(TMS-MSN) 2 0.78
3 0.72
4 0.87
5 0.81
Support infrastructure external services (INF-EX) 1 0.70 0.94 0.96 0.78
2 0.74
3 0.87
4 0.58
5 0.69
6 0.83
7 0.91
Support infrastructure internal services (INF-INT) 1 0.82 0.91 0.94 0.88
2 0.59
3 0.70
4 0.84
5 0.73
6 0.79
Core infrastructure essential resources (INF-ESS) 1 0.76 0.96 0.94 0.85
2 0.64
3 0.76
4 0.60
Core infrastructure facilities and layout 1 0.82 0.98 0.99 0.86
(INF-FACIL) 2 0.72
3 0.64
4 0.77
Core infrastructure pedagogy related (INF-PED) 1 0.69 0.97 0.99 0.80
2 0.83
3 0.81
4 0.77
(continued)
Table I.
Factors of
TQM-item-factor
loadings and t indices
BIJ
17,5
738
Factor Item no.
Item
loadings
Bentler and
Bonnet
Index (BBI) CFI
Alpha
(a)
Quality management system (QMS) 1 0.81 0.95 0.98 0.84
2 0.68
3 0.53
4 0.59
Faculty and staff focus performance (FS-PERF) 1 0.79 0.97 0.95 0.78
2 0.64
3 0.58
4 0.70
5 0.78
Faculty and staff focus professional and career 1 0.66 0.93 0.96 0.87
development (FS-PROF) 2 0.60
3 0.51
4 0.50
5 0.69
Student focus academic development (SF-ACAD) 1 0.83 0.91 0.93 0.82
2 0.77
3 0.49
4 0.81
5 0.69
Student focus co- and extra-curricular 1 0.71 0.98 0.96 0.74
development (SF-COEX) 2 0.83
3 0.57
4 0.55
5 0.78
Student focus congenial atmosphere (SF-CON) 1 0.71 0.90 0.99 0.75
2 0.85
3 0.84
4 0.69
Alumni focus (AL-FOC) 1 0.70 0.94 0.96 0.74
2 0.77
3 0.83
4 0.64
Stakeholder focus (STK-FOC) 1 0.90 0.97 0.99 0.75
2 0.69
3 0.65
4 0.54
Social responsibility (SOC-RES) 1 0.87 0.94 0.96 0.74
2 0.63
3 0.61
4 0.75
Industry interface (IND-INT) 1 0.71 0.97 0.99 0.85
2 0.82
3 0.73
4 0.85
5 0.74
Feeder institution partnership (secondary schools 1 0.67 0.97 0.95 0.84
and industry) (FIP) 2 0.54
(continued) Table I.
Total quality
management
739
Factor Item no.
Item
loadings
Bentler and
Bonnet
Index (BBI) CFI
Alpha
(a)
3 0.67
4 0.71
Continuous improvement (CI) 1 0.54 0.90 0.93 0.87
2 0.67
3 0.71
4 0.67
5 0.89
Benchmarking (BM) 1 0.69 0.96 0.98 0.90
2 0.84
3 0.90
4 0.75
Measurement, information and analysis (MIA) 1 0.91 0.90 0.92 0.87
2 0.80
3 0.71
4 0.75
Knowledge management (KM) 1 0.60 0.94 0.95 0.88
2 0.66
3 0.70
4 0.75
Research and development (R&D) 1 0.59 0.91 0.94 0.78
2 0.81
3 0.78
4 0.75
Healthy and innovative practices (HIP) 1 0.67 0.92 0.98 0.90
2 0.77
3 0.71
4 0.86
5 0.88
6 0.84
7 0.73
Pedagogy (teaching-learning process) (PED) 1 0.88 0.90 0.96 0.89
2 0.69
3 0.68
4 0.74
5 0.70
Measures of institutional performance (dependent variables)
Institute reputation and image (INSTI-R-I) 1 0.77 0.97 0.99 0.88
2 0.80
3 0.63
4 0.70
5 0.84
Infrastructure quality (INF-Q) 1 0.66 0.91 0.93 0.81
2 0.81
3 0.79
4 0.77
Faculty excellence (FAC-EXC) 1 0.88 0.91 0.96 0.79
2 0.83
3 0.90
(continued)
Table I.
BIJ
17,5
740
the measured variables. Furthermore, the researcher is also aware of (through extant of
literature available on TQM studies) the observed components that are apparently
reliable indicators of each of the factors, and the components that are not related to a
factor (Sureshchandar et al., 2001; Kaynak, 2003). Unidimensionality and convergent
validity have been computed using EQS for Windows Version 5.7, whereas reliability
was computed with SPSS 12.0.
Once the scale is developed, its construct validity should be ensured so that one can
have condence that explanations based on proposed model reect reality (Dath et al.,
2008). Construct validity is essentially dened as the extent to which the items measure
the concept it is supposed to measure. It is generally used to refer to the vertical
correspondence between a construct, which is at an indiscernible, latent and abstract
level, and a purported measure of it that is at an observable, operational level
(Peter, 1981). The frequent list of validity types mentioned in scholarly research includes
face, content, convergent, discriminant and criterion-related validity. Unidimensionality
of the construct is the basic precondition for checking construct validity. One of the
important conditions for construct validity and reliability is the unidimensionality of the
measure. Unidimensionality is dened as the existence of one latent trait or construct
underlying a set of measures (Hattie, 1985). Whenever summated scales are used to
measure variables/constructs, the concept of unidimensionality enables us to represent
the value of a scale by a solitary number (Venkatraman, 1989). If a summated scale is
proposed to have multiple dimensions, each dimension should be reected by a separate
factor (Hair et al., 2003). A comparative t index (CFI) of 0.90 or above for the model has
been said to imply that there is a strong evidence of unidimensionality (Dath et al., 2008).
All the constructs used in this study, have a value more than 0.90. Table I shows the
relevant details.
Unidimensionality, though a required condition, is not sufcient adequate for
ascertaining the standardization and usefulness of the scale. The statistical reliability
of the instrument has to be further determined. Reliability is a measure of the extent to
which a multi-item scale produces consistent results if repeated measurements are
made (Malhotra, 2004). Although several methods are available, the most commonly
Factor Item no.
Item
loadings
Bentler and
Bonnet
Index (BBI) CFI
Alpha
(a)
4 0.75
5 0.69
Research and industry exposure (RES-IND-EXP) 1 0.80 0.92 0.93 0.85
2 0.56
3 0.68
4 0.83
Stakeholder satisfaction (STK-SAT) 1 0.77 0.92 0.94 0.78
2 0.75
3 0.67
4 0.81
5 0.78
Notes: Acceptable limits item loadings . 0.3; CFA index: BBI . 0.9, CFI . 0.9; reliability: a . 0.6
Table I.
Total quality
management
741
used one for assessing reliability uses the Cronbachs alpha (also known as coefcient
a), which represents the internal consistency of a given scale item. Hair et al. (2005)
pointed out that the generally accepted lower limit for Cronbachs alpha is 0.60. The
Cronbachs alpha of most of the constructs discussed in this study is . 0.70 and a
values for few variables are . 0.6. The reliability values for the 31 constructs (IVs and
DVs) are presented in Table I (Cronbach, 1951).
Validity is concerned with how well the concept is dened by the measure(s), hence,
validity is the extent to which a measure or set of measures correctly represents the
concept of study and the degree to which it is free from any systematic or
non-systematic random error (Hair et al., 2003). There are several types of validity.
Face and content validity are a subjective but systematic evaluation of how well the
content of a scale represents the measurement task at hand (Malhotra, 2004). Face
validity is the subjective assessment of the correspondence between the individual
items and the concept through rating by expert judges (Hair et al., 1998). To ensure the
face validity, the questionnaire used in this study was read to eight academicians on
whom it has to be nally administered. This is a systematic evaluation of how well the
content of a scale represents the measurement task at hand and is sometimes called
face validity (Malhotra, 2004). Content validity of an instrument refers to the degree to
which it provides an adequate depiction of the conceptual domain that it is designed to
cover (Hair et al., 1998). Content validity is not evaluated numerically; rather it is
predominantly a subjective judgement by the researchers. The TQM dimensions
implemented in the manufacturing and service quality literature and in the quality
models were adopted for this study. Hence, the selection of the constructs is absolutely
justied with reference to the existing literature in TQM, the quality models and
the prevailing scenario of the contextual domain ensuring the content validity of the
instrument. However, there are few constructs, which have been tried and tested in the
context of EEIs for the rst time. Hence, they have been subjected to all validity
testing. The establishment of content validity shows sound logic, good intuitive and
high perseverance on the part of the instrument designer (Kaplan and Sacuzzo, 1993).
In this study, the face and content validity were tested during the pilot study phases
involving prospective respondents of the survey. In addition to this, the questionnaire
was checked for its face and content validity by nine experts from various category of
colleges (government, aided and self-nancing) to ensure its validity. Based on the
experts suggestions, a few items were reworded and some items had to be claried as
per the respondent. Convergent validity refers to the degree to which the various
approaches to measure a construct are similar or convergent. When there is high
correlation between a measure and other measures that are believed to measure the
same construct, convergent evidence for validity is obtained (Kaplan and Sacuzzo,
1993). Convergent validity is based on the correlation between responses obtained by
maximally different methods of measuring the same construct (Ahire et al., 1996).
The BBI is the indicator of convergent validity. The scale with values of 0.90 or above is
an indication of strong convergent validity (Bentler and Bonett, 1980 in Sureshchandar
et al., 2001). All the variables used in this study have met the required indices, justifying
convergent validity of the scale. Discriminant validity refers to the degree to which
measures of different factors are distinct. An instrument has discriminant validity if the
correlations between measures of different factors using the same method of
measurement are lower than the reliability coefcients (Crocker and Algina, 1986 in
BIJ
17,5
742
Kaynak, 2003). The correlation results in Table III show that no pair of correlations
exceeds 0.90, suggesting that there is no multi-collinearity (Hair et al., 2005).
Traditionally, criterion-related validity is evaluated by examining the correlations of
the different constructs with one or more measures of business performance (Saraph
et al., 1989). In the present context, criterion-related validity is exhibited by correlating
the scales scores with the outcome constructs, namely INSTI-R-I, INF-Q, FAC-EXC,
STK-SATand RES-IND-EXP, indicated in Table II. All constructs showsignicant and
positive correlation with the DV, indicating that there is good criterion-related validity.
To sum up, all the dimensions exhibited strong unidimensionality, reliability,
convergent, discriminant and criterion-related validities. Moreover, the item-factor
loadings, indicated in the Table I, are above 0.3. The items eliminated during the
validation process are given in Table III, and the complete instrument is given in
Appendix 2. Some of the items (such as, unionization of employees and students in the
institution and social clubs for faculty members in the institution) under top management
and infrastructure construct (TQM dimensions, independent variables indicated by IVs)
and an item(e.g. alumni network) fromthe measures of performance (dependent variables
indicated by DVs) were eliminated during the validation process and the table indicates
only the validated items for both TQM dimensions and for the measures of institutional
performance. The reason for these items not scoring a decent factor loading could
possibly be due to lack of its presence/practice in most of the institutions. This study used
SPSS package for obtaining Cronbachs alpha and the EQS 5.7 package was used to
obtain CFI and BBI values.
The bivariate correlation for all the variables used in this study is given in Table II.
All the constructs of TQM dimensions and sub-dimensions along with ve DVs
(which are measures of effectiveness) are signicantly correlated with each other at
p , 0.01 level.
Top management commitment and support (TMC-S) is seen to be highly correlated
with student focus (0.692), faculty focus (0.641), industry interface (0.675), continuous
improvement (0.714), MIA (0.701) and R&D (0.712) which establishes the inuence of
top management on the activities and processes in the EEIs. Top management
commitment and support, which is reiterated in the present model, emerged as a key
enabler for achieving organizational goals through quality initiatives. There is a high
correlation between top management commitment and support and most of the DVs,
such as institution reputation and image (0.773) and stakeholder satisfaction (0.725).
Infrastructure excellence (0.783), faculty excellence (0.692) and research and industry
exposure (0.780) also exhibited good amount of correlation with top management
commitment and support. The recent studies (such as Sakthivel, 2007) in the context of
EEIs explored the signicance of top management. The critical role of top management
in achieving institutional excellence is highlighted in the quality models such as in
MBNQA, European Quality Award, International Organization for Standardisation
(ISO) and CII education excellence model.
Other dimensions also showan interesting relationship such as pedagogy (0.715) and
faculty excellence, continuous improvement and institution reputation and image
(0.724), continuous improvement and infrastructure quality (0.781), between continuous
improvement and faculty excellence (0.722), HIP and stakeholder satisfaction (0.683).
Industry interface shows signicant positive correlation with dimensions such as KM,
faculty focus, alumni focus and research and industry exposure.
Total quality
management
743
V
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
s
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
0
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
4
1
5
1
6
1
7
1
8
1
9
2
0
2
1
2
2
2
3
2
4
2
5
2
6
2
7
2
8
2
9
3
0
3
1
3
2
T
M
C
-
I
P
(
1
)
1
T
M
C
-
P
E
(
2
)
0
.
4
5
1
T
M
S
-
S
P
E
(
3
)
0
.
5
4
0
.
6
4
1
T
M
S
-
S
N
(
4
)
0
.
5
9
0
.
6
5
0
.
5
9
1
I
N
F
-
E
X
(
5
)
0
.
5
1
0
.
7
1
0
.
4
1
0
.
5
4
1
I
N
F
-
I
N
T
(
6
)
0
.
6
1
0
.
5
3
0
.
3
7
0
.
6
8
0
.
4
7
1
I
N
F
-
E
S
S
(
7
)
0
.
5
6
0
.
6
5
0
.
5
7
0
.
4
3
0
.
5
2
0
.
3
9
1
I
N
F
-
F
A
C
I
L
(
8
)
0
.
5
3
0
.
6
7
0
.
5
2
0
.
6
2
0
.
5
9
0
.
6
7
0
.
5
9
1
I
N
F
-
P
E
D
(
9
)
0
.
6
3
0
.
6
7
0
.
5
6
0
.
5
1
0
.
3
9
0
.
6
9
0
.
4
8
0
.
6
7
1
Q
M
S
(
1
0
)
0
.
4
9
0
.
5
5
0
.
5
8
0
.
4
4
0
.
6
4
0
.
4
7
0
.
4
3
0
.
6
3
0
.
5
1
1
F
S
-
P
E
R
F
(
1
1
)
0
.
6
1
0
.
6
4
0
.
6
1
0
.
6
5
0
.
4
9
0
.
5
2
0
.
4
2
0
.
4
4
0
.
6
0
0
.
5
1
1
F
S
-
P
R
O
F
(
1
2
)
0
.
5
8
0
.
6
0
0
.
6
8
0
.
5
9
0
.
5
0
0
.
4
9
0
.
6
2
0
.
5
8
0
.
6
3
0
.
4
4
0
.
5
4
1
S
F
-
A
C
A
D
(
1
3
)
0
.
6
3
0
.
6
0
0
.
5
8
0
.
6
1
0
.
5
5
0
.
4
9
0
.
5
8
0
.
5
4
0
.
6
5
0
.
5
9
0
.
6
2
0
.
5
9
1
S
F
-
C
O
E
X
(
1
4
)
0
.
6
1
0
.
6
7
0
.
4
9
0
.
6
4
0
.
6
6
0
.
6
4
0
.
5
3
0
.
6
3
0
.
4
9
0
.
5
4
0
.
4
3
0
.
6
1
0
.
6
6
1
S
F
-
C
O
N
(
1
5
)
0
.
5
1
0
.
6
9
0
.
5
6
0
.
6
8
0
.
4
7
0
.
5
5
0
.
6
2
0
.
6
1
0
.
5
7
0
.
5
1
0
.
6
3
0
.
5
9
0
.
6
8
0
.
6
5
1
A
L
-
F
O
C
(
1
6
)
0
.
5
9
0
.
5
7
0
.
6
3
0
.
6
4
0
.
6
1
0
.
4
2
0
.
5
9
0
.
7
1
0
.
4
3
0
.
6
0
0
.
5
1
0
.
4
9
0
.
5
4
0
.
6
4
0
.
6
1
1
S
T
K
-
F
O
C
(
1
7
)
0
.
5
4
0
.
5
8
0
.
4
9
0
.
6
9
0
.
5
4
0
.
6
3
0
.
4
0
0
.
5
4
0
.
3
9
0
.
5
8
0
.
7
3
0
.
5
1
0
.
6
1
0
.
5
6
0
.
6
5
0
.
5
3
1
S
O
C
-
R
E
S
(
1
8
)
0
.
5
7
0
.
6
2
0
.
5
5
0
.
5
7
0
.
4
4
0
.
4
5
0
.
3
7
0
.
4
4
0
.
6
5
0
.
5
4
0
.
5
5
0
.
6
3
0
.
4
7
0
.
5
9
0
.
5
7
0
.
6
2
0
.
5
3
1
I
N
D
-
I
N
T
(
1
9
)
0
.
6
7
0
.
6
0
0
.
6
0
0
.
5
8
0
.
6
2
0
.
5
3
0
.
5
7
0
.
6
2
0
.
5
5
0
.
5
9
0
.
5
7
0
.
6
6
0
.
4
2
0
.
5
3
0
.
5
4
0
.
5
2
0
.
4
6
0
.
5
3
1
F
I
P
(
2
0
)
0
.
5
9
0
.
6
7
0
.
6
8
0
.
7
2
0
.
6
3
0
.
5
4
0
.
5
2
0
.
6
3
0
.
6
4
0
.
6
3
0
.
5
7
0
.
5
6
0
.
6
3
0
.
5
4
0
.
5
3
0
.
4
3
0
.
4
3
0
.
5
3
0
.
5
7
1
(
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
Table II.
Correlation between the
various constructs
BIJ
17,5
744
V
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
s
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
0
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
4
1
5
1
6
1
7
1
8
1
9
2
0
2
1
2
2
2
3
2
4
2
5
2
6
2
7
2
8
2
9
3
0
3
1
3
2
C
I
(
2
1
)
0
.
6
5
0
.
7
1
0
.
6
5
0
.
6
1
0
.
6
1
0
.
6
3
0
.
5
6
0
.
7
0
0
.
5
8
0
.
6
9
0
.
4
5
0
.
6
3
0
.
4
5
0
.
6
3
0
.
5
8
0
.
5
9
0
.
5
2
0
.
6
2
0
.
6
8
0
.
5
6
1
B
M
(
2
2
)
0
.
6
4
0
.
5
8
0
.
7
2
0
.
6
7
0
.
6
6
0
.
5
4
0
.
5
9
0
.
6
6
0
.
6
4
0
.
6
4
0
.
5
5
0
.
6
9
0
.
6
4
0
.
5
4
0
.
5
3
0
.
4
0
0
.
4
2
0
.
5
2
0
.
6
7
0
.
5
4
0
.
6
4
1
M
I
A
(
2
3
)
0
.
7
0
0
.
6
1
0
.
5
3
0
.
6
5
0
.
5
8
0
.
5
3
0
.
5
1
0
.
5
8
0
.
6
4
0
.
6
3
0
.
5
5
0
.
6
2
0
.
6
0
0
.
5
3
0
.
6
3
0
.
5
5
0
.
5
3
0
.
4
3
0
.
5
5
0
.
6
6
0
.
6
8
0
.
6
3
1
K
M
(
2
4
)
0
.
5
9
0
.
6
8
0
.
6
4
0
.
6
2
0
.
5
4
0
.
6
1
0
.
4
8
0
.
4
5
0
.
4
6
0
.
4
9
0
.
5
4
0
.
5
6
0
.
6
3
0
.
6
1
0
.
6
7
0
.
5
7
0
.
4
9
0
.
5
9
0
.
6
5
0
.
6
2
0
.
6
1
0
.
6
3
0
.
5
4
1
R
&
D
(
2
5
)
0
.
7
1
0
.
6
7
0
.
5
6
0
.
5
3
0
.
5
9
0
.
4
3
0
.
6
8
0
.
5
5
0
.
6
9
0
.
5
5
0
.
6
7
0
.
5
9
0
.
5
9
0
.
5
3
0
.
5
8
0
.
5
7
0
.
4
0
0
.
4
0
0
.
5
3
0
.
6
7
0
.
7
7
0
.
6
3
0
.
6
1
0
.
6
9
1
H
I
P
(
2
6
)
0
.
6
1
0
.
5
7
0
.
6
3
0
.
6
1
0
.
5
3
0
.
4
7
0
.
4
9
0
.
5
5
0
.
5
4
0
.
6
0
0
.
5
2
0
.
4
9
0
.
5
6
0
.
6
7
0
.
5
2
0
.
5
3
0
.
5
2
0
.
5
5
0
.
6
9
0
.
6
1
0
.
5
1
0
.
5
6
0
.
5
1
0
.
5
6
0
.
5
2
1
P
E
D
(
2
7
)
0
.
6
0
0
.
6
6
0
.
5
2
0
.
4
3
0
.
6
9
0
.
6
4
0
.
6
7
0
.
5
4
0
.
6
1
0
.
5
8
0
.
6
9
0
.
6
5
0
.
6
8
0
.
6
4
0
.
4
5
0
.
6
2
0
.
5
4
0
.
5
7
0
.
5
6
0
.
4
9
0
.
6
4
0
.
6
7
0
.
6
3
0
.
4
2
0
.
6
3
0
.
4
5
1
I
N
S
T
I
-
R
-
I
(
2
8
)
0
.
7
7
0
.
7
9
0
.
6
5
0
.
4
7
0
.
6
4
0
.
5
6
0
.
6
1
0
.
5
3
0
.
4
7
0
.
6
5
0
.
6
9
0
.
6
1
0
.
6
4
0
.
6
2
0
.
6
7
0
.
6
5
0
.
6
1
0
.
5
7
0
.
4
2
0
.
5
2
0
.
7
1
0
.
7
1
0
.
6
5
0
.
5
4
0
.
6
7
0
.
6
5
0
.
6
4
1
I
N
F
-
Q
(
2
9
)
0
.
6
3
0
.
7
8
0
.
6
4
0
.
6
4
0
.
4
6
0
.
6
2
0
.
5
8
0
.
6
2
0
.
4
5
0
.
5
2
0
.
6
4
0
.
5
0
0
.
6
7
0
.
6
2
0
.
6
8
0
.
6
2
0
.
5
3
0
.
4
5
0
.
5
3
0
.
4
5
0
.
7
8
0
.
6
3
0
.
6
6
0
.
5
2
0
.
7
1
0
.
4
9
0
.
5
6
0
.
7
9
1
F
A
C
-
E
X
C
(
3
0
)
0
.
6
9
0
.
6
6
0
.
5
6
0
.
5
6
0
.
6
3
0
.
5
6
0
.
6
5
0
.
6
5
0
.
7
2
0
.
6
0
0
.
7
5
0
.
6
7
0
.
6
9
0
.
6
3
0
.
5
4
0
.
4
9
0
.
6
2
0
.
5
5
0
.
6
2
0
.
5
5
0
.
7
2
0
.
5
6
0
.
6
9
0
.
6
3
0
.
7
8
0
.
5
6
0
.
7
1
0
.
7
1
0
.
6
2
1
S
T
K
-
S
A
T
(
3
1
)
0
.
7
2
0
.
6
8
0
.
6
3
0
.
6
2
0
.
6
7
0
.
6
3
0
.
6
1
0
.
6
2
0
.
5
7
0
.
5
4
0
.
6
5
0
.
6
3
0
.
5
4
0
.
6
6
0
.
5
8
0
.
5
6
0
.
6
7
0
.
5
5
0
.
6
5
0
.
5
5
0
.
6
5
0
.
5
2
0
.
5
2
0
.
5
6
0
.
7
5
0
.
6
8
0
.
6
4
0
.
7
4
0
.
5
5
0
.
6
5
1
R
E
S
-
I
N
D
-
E
X
P
(
3
2
)
0
.
6
0
0
.
7
8
0
.
6
5
0
.
5
6
0
.
6
3
0
.
5
7
0
.
6
6
0
.
4
2
0
.
8
3
0
.
6
6
0
.
6
2
0
.
6
9
0
.
6
1
0
.
6
7
0
.
6
1
0
.
5
1
0
.
5
1
0
.
5
4
0
.
6
2
0
.
5
4
0
.
7
1
0
.
5
6
0
.
6
6
0
.
6
2
0
.
5
1
0
.
5
9
0
.
6
1
0
.
5
2
0
.
7
1
0
.
6
8
0
.
6
5
1
N
o
t
e
s
:
C
o
r
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
i
s
s
i
g
n
i

c
a
n
t
a
t
t
h
e
0
.
0
1
l
e
v
e
l
(
t
w
o
-
t
a
i
l
e
d
)
;
T
M
C
-
I
P
(
1
)
:
t
o
p
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
c
o
m
m
i
t
m
e
n
t

i
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
a
l
p
r
o
g
r
e
s
s
;
T
M
C
-
P
E
(
2
)
:
t
o
p
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
c
o
m
m
i
t
m
e
n
t

p
r
o
c
e
s
s
e
x
c
e
l
l
e
n
c
e
;
T
M
S
-
S
P
E
(
3
)
:
t
o
p
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
s
u
p
p
o
r
t

s
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
c
p
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
a
n
d
e
x
e
c
u
t
i
o
n
;
T
M
S
-
M
S
N
(
4
)
:
t
o
p
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
s
u
p
p
o
r
t

m
e
e
t
i
n
g
s
t
u
d
e
n
t
n
e
e
d
s
;
I
N
F
-
E
X
(
5
)
:
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
i
n
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e

e
x
t
e
r
n
a
l
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
;
I
N
F
-
I
N
T
(
6
)
:
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
i
n
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e

i
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
;
I
N
F
-
E
S
S
(
7
)
:
c
o
r
e
i
n
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e

e
s
s
e
n
t
i
a
l
r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
;
I
N
F
-
F
A
C
I
L
(
8
)
:
c
o
r
e
i
n
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e

f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
a
n
d
l
a
y
o
u
t
;
I
N
F
-
P
E
D
(
9
)
:
c
o
r
e
i
n
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e

p
e
d
a
g
o
g
y
r
e
l
a
t
e
d
;
Q
M
S
(
1
0
)
:
q
u
a
l
i
t
y
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
s
y
s
t
e
m
;
F
S
-
P
E
R
F
(
1
1
)
:
f
a
c
u
l
t
y
a
n
d
s
t
a
f
f
f
o
c
u
s

p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
;
F
S
-
P
R
O
F
(
1
2
)
:
f
a
c
u
l
t
y
a
n
d
s
t
a
f
f
f
o
c
u
s

p
r
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l
a
n
d
c
a
r
e
e
r
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
;
S
F
-
A
C
A
D
(
1
3
)
:
s
t
u
d
e
n
t
f
o
c
u
s

a
c
a
d
e
m
i
c
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
;
S
F
-
C
O
E
X
(
1
4
)
:
s
t
u
d
e
n
t
f
o
c
u
s

c
o
-
a
n
d
e
x
t
r
a
-
c
u
r
r
i
c
u
l
a
r
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
;
S
F
-
C
O
N
(
1
5
)
:
s
t
u
d
e
n
t
f
o
c
u
s

c
o
n
g
e
n
i
a
l
a
t
m
o
s
p
h
e
r
e
;
A
L
-
F
O
C
(
1
6
)
:
A
l
u
m
n
i
f
o
c
u
s
;
S
T
K
-
F
O
C
(
1
7
)
:
s
t
a
k
e
h
o
l
d
e
r
f
o
c
u
s
;
S
O
C
-
R
E
S
(
1
8
)
:
s
o
c
i
a
l
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
;
I
N
D
-
I
N
T
(
1
9
)
:
i
n
d
u
s
t
r
y
i
n
t
e
r
f
a
c
e
;
F
I
P
(
2
0
)
:
f
e
e
d
e
r
i
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
p
a
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
(
s
e
c
o
n
d
a
r
y
s
c
h
o
o
l
s
a
n
d
i
n
d
u
s
t
r
y
)
;
C
I
(
2
1
)
:
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
o
u
s
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
;
B
M
(
2
2
)
:
b
e
n
c
h
m
a
r
k
i
n
g
;
M
I
A
(
2
3
)
:
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
m
e
n
t
,
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
;
K
M
(
2
4
)
:
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
;
R
&
D
(
2
5
)
:
r
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
a
n
d
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
;
H
I
P
(
2
6
)
:
h
e
a
l
t
h
y
/
i
n
n
o
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
s
;
P
E
D
(
2
7
)
:
p
e
d
a
g
o
g
y
(
t
e
a
c
h
i
n
g
-
l
e
a
r
n
i
n
g
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
)
;
I
N
S
T
I
-
R
-
I
(
2
8
)
:
i
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
r
e
p
u
t
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
i
m
a
g
e
;
I
N
F
-
Q
(
2
9
)
:
i
n
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
q
u
a
l
i
t
y
;
F
A
C
-
E
X
C
(
3
0
)
:
f
a
c
u
l
t
y
e
x
c
e
l
l
e
n
c
e
;
S
T
K
-
S
A
T
(
3
1
)
:
s
t
a
k
e
h
o
l
d
e
r
s
a
t
i
s
f
a
c
t
i
o
n
;
R
E
S
-
I
N
D
-
E
X
P
(
3
2
)
:
r
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
a
n
d
i
n
d
u
s
t
r
y
e
x
p
o
s
u
r
e
Table II.
Total quality
management
745
6. Results and analysis
Multiple regressionanalysis was undertakentostudythe effect of the TQMdimensions on
each of the measures of performance indexed in this study to measure the organizational
outcome, i.e. institutional effectiveness. Table IV presents the results of multiple
regressionanalysis of the IVs of TQMoneachof the measures of institutional performance
(DVs) indexed in this study to measure the ultimate outcome, i.e. institutional
effectiveness. The R
2
-values, the adjusted R
2
-values, F-values and the signicance level
of the relationship, are provided in the table. All the ve hypotheses are accepted. The
explanation for each of the accepted hypotheses is given below:
H1. TQM dimensions explained 63.6 per cent of variation in institutional reputation
and image with an F-value of 39.61, which is signicant at p , 0.000 level. The
TQM dimensions that have had signicant positive inuence on institutional
reputation and image are top management commitment in institutional progress
and top management support in meeting student needs, core infrastructure
pedagogy related, quality and management system, faculty and staff focus
performance, student focus academic development, student focus co- and
extra-curricular development, social responsibility, industry interface,
continuous improvement, MIA, HIP and pedagogy, thereby accepting H1.
H2. TQM dimensions explained 37.7 per cent of variation in infrastructure quality
with an F-value of 19.04, which is signicant at p , 0.001 level, which accepts
the H2. The TQM dimensions that resulted in attributing a signicant positive
inuence on infrastructural quality were top management support in strategic
planning and execution, top management commitment in process excellence,
Independent variables (core infrastructure and top
management commitment-institutional progress)
Dependent variables (institution reputation and
image)
Top management commitment institutional
progress
Institution reputation and image
(vi) The extent to which unionization of
employees and students exist and inuence
the various activities of your institution
(vi) The extent to which alumni network has
strengthened, over the last three years
Total usable items 23 (full questionnaire is
given in Appendix 2)
Core infrastructure facilities and layout
(v) The extent of availability of the following
avenues present for the refreshment/relaxation
of faculty members and students
Total usable items 128 (full questionnaire is
given in Appendix 2)
Table III.
List of items eliminated
during the validation
process
Measures of performance Adjusted R
2
F-value Signicance level
Institution reputation and image 0.636 39.61 0.000
Infrastructure quality 0.377 19.04 0.001
Faculty excellence 0.324 17.35 0.001
Research and industry exposure 0.431 24.71 0.000
Stakeholders satisfaction 0.560 31.78 0.000
Table IV.
Relationship between
constructs of TQM and
the measures of
performance for
institutional effectiveness
BIJ
17,5
746
core infrastructure facilities and layout, core infrastructure pedagogy
related, support infrastructure internal services, student focus co- and
extra-curricular development, continuous improvement, R&D and pedagogy.
H3. TQM dimensions explained about 32 per cent of variation in faculty excellence
with an F-value of 17.35, which is signicant at p , 0.001 level, leading to
acceptance of the H3. Top management commitment in institutional progress,
top management support in meeting student needs, core infrastructure
facilities and layout, core infrastructure pedagogy related, faculty and staff
focus performance, faculty and staff focus professional and career
development, student focus academic development, industry interface, BM,
MIA and R&D bear a signicantly positive inuence on faculty excellence.
H4. TQM dimensions explained 43 per cent of variation in research and industry
exposure with an F-value of 24.71, thereby accepting the H4. Top management
commitment in institutional progress and process excellence, core
infrastructure essential and pedagogy related, quality management system,
faculty and staff focus professional and career development, student academic
development, industry interface, FIP, BM, MIA, KM and R&D contributed
towards a signicant positive inuence in research and industry exposure.
H5. TQM dimensions explained 56 per cent of variation in stakeholders (faculty
members, students, alumni, industry and society) level of satisfaction with an
F-value of 31.78, which is signicant at p , 0.000 level, which accepts the H5.
The TQM dimensions which resulted in attributing a signicant positive
inuence on stakeholders satisfaction were top management support in
strategic planning, in meeting student needs, support infrastructure external
and internal services, core infrastructure pedagogy related, faculty and staff
focus performance, student focus academic development and congenial
atmosphere in campus, alumni focus, stakeholder focus, social responsibility,
industry interface, continuous improvement, HIP and pedagogy.
6.1 Findings and observations in respect of management perspective
The study explicitly addressed and solicited inputs from the management perspective
pertaining to the inhibitors for accomplishing quality objectives in educational
institutions. The same have been obtained through the open-ended items in the
instrument (see Sections Cand Din Appendix 2) and also through face-to-face interviews
with the management. The following provide the key ndings and also the observations
of the authors:
.
The need for industry interaction for R&D and live projects appears to be a major
concern amongst the management group, especially for those colleges which were
located in the remote areas far removed from the industrial complexes. The
students were dissatised as the lack of physical proximity to the industrial areas
curtailed their exposure to practical world to some extent. It also creates a
disadvantage of lack of placement opportunities for the students since the
institutions are not even guring in the radar maps of the industry. Managements
networking with the industry has been found wanting besides near absence of
institute-organized industry visits and lectures delivered by the industry
Total quality
management
747
personnel. Earlier research works (DeShields et al., 2005; Sahney et al., 2003)
emphasized the need for factoring in the expectations of the industry and also
equipping students for future careers.
.
Many academic institutions imparting engineering education are teaching
institutions and they lack physical amenities for conducting research. While the
management highlighted the dwindling numbers of dedicated teachers in
academic institutions, the faculty often harp on lack of congenial atmosphere for
undertaking research activities. The reasons could be many, such as lack of
motivation from the management for pursuing research, lack of appreciation and
recognition, administrative work loads handled by faculty members, lack of
sophisticated laboratory facilities and lack of access to scholarly journals and
articles. Some authors (Hersey and Blanchard, 1982; Birnbaum, 1989) opined that
leaders were expected to contribute actively to the process by providing support,
advice as applicable or a more direct leadership. Kekale (2003) expressed that the
reward structures and salary systems of the organization should support and
rewardgoodwork and accordingto the strategic preferences of the university. Good
leadership should be increasingly used as a strategic and operational requirement
for being actively connected with business and community along with high-quality
teaching and research (HEFCE, 2004). The graduating students either were
interested to pursue research in universities abroad or were interested to join the
industry, which offered themlucrative jobs. Some senior faculty members observed
that the number of students motivated to pursue research inthe EEIs was declining.
The students do not seem to nd the scholarships attractive enough to consider
academic research as a career option. Notwithstanding these surmountable
challenges, the ultimate goal of management should be to enhance the institutional
mission by ensuring high-quality teaching, training and research and services to
the community. Leadership in higher education is thus a major social responsibility
and can be signicantly strengthened through dialogue with all stakeholders,
especially teachers and students, in higher education (UNESCO, 1998).
.
Visionary leadership, shared values and strategic alignment with institutional
goals are expected to focus onthe professional growthopportunities for the faculty
members and on the overall development of the students. There was not much
encouragement of co- and extra-curricular activities (NCC, NSS, sports, etc.)
planned for the students. The commitment of the management to proactively seek
inputs and analyse the feedback fromstudents as well as faculty is absent in many
an institution. Many studies (Groth, 1995; Ramsden, 1998; Davies et al., 2001;
Rosser et al., 2003; Zigarmi et al., 2005) and TQM models (MBNQA, EFQM, etc.)
underlined the role of dening long-term vision as an essential ingredient for
achieving institutional excellence.
.
The administrative challenges (owing to bureaucratic procedures and political
interference) and perfunctory adherence to fullling certication norms
(AICTE-related) were often cited as inhibitors for instituting quality management
practices. Kaul (2006) portrayed the Indian higher education system as a highly
bureaucratized system with multiple controls and regulations exercised by central
and state governments, statutory bodies (UGC, AICTE and others), university
administration and local management.
BIJ
17,5
748
.
The under representation of woman both in terms of their overall numbers among
the faculty and the numbers occupying higher academic positions is prevalent in
EEIs. This has been largely attributed to lowintake of female students in the past
two decades in EEIs and also to the preference exercised by qualied women to
pursue industry-oriented careers. An earlier study by UNESCO (1998) stated:
Further efforts are required to eliminate all gender stereotyping in higher education, to
consider gender aspects in different disciplines and to consolidate womens participation
at all levels and in all disciplines, in which they are under-represented and, in particular,
to enhance their active involvement in decision-making.
7. Summary and conclusions
The present study made an attempt to develop and explore the critical constructs of
TQM in EEIs from the managements (service provider) perspective. The constructs
are validated by a series of statistical tests and analysis. The relationship between the
constructs of TQM and the measures of institutional performance has been assessed.
It is seen that the TQM dimensions signicantly inuence all the measures of
performance of the institution, which have a signicant bearing on institutional
effectiveness. The individual dimensions which result in each of the particular measure
of institutional performance is highlighted for the purpose of reection for the service
provider to concentrate more on each of the performance areas for improvement. Some
important observations and concerns from the managements perspective are also
highlighted and they pertain to developing vision, commitment of resources for
launching quality management initiatives and process lacunae experienced by key
stakeholders.
7.1 Utility of the instrument
An instrument has been prepared for this study using all the TQM dimensions as
shown in the conceptual model and items have been prepared using each dimension.
Appendix 2 gives the sample items as administered to the management (service
provider) of an EEI using all the explored TQM dimensions with measures of
performance. When operationalised in EEIs, the instrument would function as follows:
.
To serve the management of the institution to understand the perceived
academic gap (difference) of its major stakeholders towards the institutions
structure, function, processes and outcomes and helps to bridge the existing
academic gap.
.
To help to bring an associative thinking and involvement of the stakeholders in
the systems and processes of an institution.
.
To act as a self-assessment tool in continuously measuring the overall
performance of the institutions processes and systems.
.
To assess the satisfaction levels of its stakeholders.
.
To facilitate the institution to track the improvement areas/processes and ensure
to make progressive improvement made on the institutions processes.
.
To benchmark the best practices being followed in various institutions
(best-in-class).
Total quality
management
749
.
To measure the processes and practices, and make efforts to improve processes
continuously.
.
To develop interfaces and strengthen relationship between secondary schools,
industry and corporate sectors.
.
To create a climate of institutional growth and prosperity.
7.2 Contributions of the model
.
This work presents a holistic TQM model (Figure 1) for achieving institutional
excellence. Most of the dimensions adopted in the model have been implemented
successfully in the manufacturing and other service sectors, but tried for the rst
time in engineering education (such as industry interface, MIA, KM, etc.). The
two dimensions, namely HIP and FIP have been contributed from this study in
the model.
.
The study has taken into account the service providers (managements) views on
service quality, which possibly would provide a different perspective to analyze
it from a macro-level understanding of the challenges.
.
To capture the effectiveness (excellence) of the engineering institutions,
institutional effectiveness as a holistic construct has been measured by ve
measures of performance: institution reputation and image, infrastructure quality,
faculty excellence, research and industry exposure and stakeholders satisfaction.
References
Adams, D. and Gamage, D.T. (2008), A study of leadership effectiveness in a large VET
institution in Australia, International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 22,
pp. 214-28.
Ahire, S., Golhar, D. and Waller, M. (1996), Development and validation of TQM implementation
constructs, Decision Sciences, Vol. 27, pp. 23-56.
Alashloo, F.R., Castka, P. andSharp, J.M. (2005), Towards understandingthe impeders instrategy
implementation in higher education (HE) a case of HE in Iran, Quality Assurance in
Education, Vol. 13, pp. 132-47.
Aziz, S., Mullins, M., Balzer, W., Grauer, E., Burneld, J., Lodato, M. and Cohen-Powless, M.
(2005), Understanding the training needs of department chairs, Studies in Higher
Education, Vol. 30, pp. 571-93.
Badri, M.A., Selim, H., Alshare, K., Grandon, E.E., Younis, H. andAbdulla, M. (2006), The Baldrige
education criteria for performance excellence framework, International Journal of Quality
& Reliability Management, Vol. 23, pp. 1118-57.
Bath, D., Smith, C., Stein, S. and Swann, R. (2004), Beyond mapping and embedding graduate
attributes: bringing together quality assurance and action learning to create a validated
and living curriculum, Higher Education Research and Development, Vol. 23, pp. 313-28.
Bentler, P.M. and Bonett, D.G. (1980), Signicance tests and goodness of t in the analysis of
covariance structures, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 88, pp. 588-606.
Bestereld, D.H., Bestereld-Michna, C., Bestereld, G.H. and Bestereld, M. (2003), Total Quality
Management, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Birnbaum, R. (1989), How Colleges Work: The Cybernetics of Academic Organization and
Leadership, 1st ed., Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
BIJ
17,5
750
Bryman, A. (2007), Effective leadership in higher education: a literature review, Studies in
Higher Education, Vol. 32, pp. 693-710.
Bush, T. (2003), Theories of Educational Leadership and Management, 3rd ed., Sage, London.
Cohen, L., Manion, L. and Morrison, K. (2000), The ethics of educational and social research,
in Cohen, L., Manion, L. and Morrison, K. (Eds), Research Methods in Education, 5th ed.,
Routledge Falmer, London.
Crocker, L. and Algina, J. (1986), Introduction to Classical and Modern Test Theory, Harcourt
Brace and Jovanovich, Forth Worth, TX.
Cronbach, L.J. (1951), Coefcient alpha and the internal structure of tests, Psychometrika,
Vol. 16, pp. 297-334.
Dath, T.N.S., Rajendran, C. and Narashiman, K. (2008), A study on supply chain management
from the retailers perspective, International Journal of Procurement Management, Vol. 1,
pp. 453-71.
Davies, J., Hides, M.T. and Casey, S. (2001), Leadership in higher education, Total Quality
Management, Vol. 12, pp. 1025-30.
DeShields, O.W. Jr, Kara, A. and Kaynak, E. (2005), Determinants of business student
satisfaction and retention in higher education: applying Herzbergs two-factor theory,
International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 19, pp. 128-39.
DfES (2003), The future of higher education: creating opportunity, releasing potential, achieving
excellence, Government White Paper, Department for Education and Skills (DfES),
London, January, pp. 1-106.
Drew, G. (2006), Balancing academic advancement with business effectiveness?, International
Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Change Management, Vol. 6, pp. 117-25.
EFQM (2005), The EFQM Business Excellence Model, European Foundation for Quality
Management, available at: www.efqm.org/Default.aspx?tabid35/ (accessed 24 November
2008).
Grant, D., Mergen, E. and Widrick, S. (2002), Quality management in US higher education,
Total Quality Management, Vol. 13, pp. 207-15.
Grant, R.M. (1996), Toward a knowledge-based theory of the rm, Strategic Management
Journal, Vol. 17, pp. 109-22.
Groth, J.C. (1995), Total quality management: perspectives for leaders, The TQM Magazine,
Vol. 7, pp. 54-9.
Hackman, J.R. and Wageman, R. (1995), Total quality management: empirical, conceptual and
practical issues, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 40, pp. 309-42.
Hair, J.F., Bush, R.P. and Ortinau, D.J. (2003), Marketing Research within a Changing Information
Environment, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill Irwin, Boston, MA.
Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. and Black, W.C. (1998), Multivariate Data Analysis,
Pearson Education, Singapore.
Hair, F.J. Jr, Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. and William, B.C. (2005), Multivariate Data Analysis,
Pearson Education, Patparganj.
Hammersley, G. and Pinnington, A. (1999), Employee response to continuous improvement
groups, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 11, pp. 29-34.
Hattie, J. (1985), Methodology review: assessing unidimensionality of tests and items, Applied
Psychological Measurement, Vol. 9, pp. 139-64.
HEFCE (2004), HEFCE Strategic Plan 2003-08, HEFCE (Higher Education Funding Council for
England), London (revised April 2004).
Total quality
management
751
Hersey, P. and Blanchard, K.H. (1982), Management of Organizational Behaviour, Utilizing
Human Resources, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Jauch, L.R. and Orwig, R.A. (1997), Violation of assumptions: why TQM wont work in the Ivory
tower, Journal of Quality Management, Vol. 2, pp. 279-92.
Kanji, G.K. (1998), Measurement of business excellence, Total Quality Management, Vol. 9,
pp. 633-43.
Kanji, G.K. and Tambi, A.M. (2002), Business Excellence in Higher Education, Kingsham, London.
Kanji, G.K., Tambi, A.M. and Wallace, W. (1999), A comparative study of quality practices in
higher education institutions in the US and Malaysia, Total Quality Management, Vol. 10,
pp. 357-71.
Kaplan, R.M. and Sacuzzo, D.P. (1993), Psychological Testing: Principles, Applications and Issues,
Brookes/Cole, Pacic Grove, CA.
Karmakar, S. (2008), An Open Services Regime Recipe for Jobless Growth?, Working Paper
No. 210, Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations, New Delhi.
Kaul, S. (2006), Higher Education in India: Seizing the Opportunity, Working Paper No. 179,
Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations, New Delhi.
Kaynak, H. (2003), The relationship between total quality management practices and their
effects on rm performance, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 21, pp. 405-35.
Kekale, J. (2003), Academic leaders as thermostats, Tertiary Education and Management, Vol. 9,
pp. 281-98.
Kelley, T.D. and Sharif, N.M. (2005), Understanding the mindset of higher education CIOs,
Educause Quarterly, Vol. 4, pp. 33-43.
Koch, J.V. and Fisher, J.L. (1998), Higher education and total quality management, Total Quality
Management, Vol. 9, pp. 659-68.
Lagrosen, S., Seyyed-Hashemi, R. and Leitner, M. (2004), Examination of the dimensions of
quality in higher education, Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 12, pp. 61-9.
Lin, C. and Wu, C. (2005), Managing knowledge contributed by ISO 9001:2000, International
Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 22, pp. 968-85.
McGoey, S.P. (2007), A comparison of institutional stakeholders perceptions of presidential
effectiveness, International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 21, pp. 86-104.
Malhotra, N. (2004), Marketing Research: An Applied Orientation, Prentice-Hall, Englewood
Cliffs, NJ.
Martin, E., Trigewell, K., Prosser, M. and Ramsden, P. (2003), Variation in the experience of
leadership of teaching in higher education, Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 28,
pp. 247-59.
MBNQA (2007), National Institute of Standards and Technology, US, Malcolm Baldrige National
Quality Award, available at: www.quality.nist.gov/Education_Criteria.htm/ (accessed
24 November 2008).
Mergen, E., Grant, D. and Widrick, S. (2000), Quality management applied to higher education,
Total Quality Management, Vol. 11, pp. 345-52.
Mustafa, S.T. and Chiang, D. (2006), Dimensions of quality in higher education: how academic
performance affects university students teacher evaluations, Journal of American
Academy of Business, Vol. 8, pp. 294-303.
NASSCOM/Booz Allen Hamilton Report (2006), Globalisation of Engineering Services.
BIJ
17,5
752
National Knowledge Commission (2008), Report of Working Group on Engineering Education,
available at: www.knowledgecommission.gov.in/downloads/documents/wg_engineer.pdf
(accessed 20 April 2009).
Novak, J.M. (2002), Inviting Educational Leadership: Fullling Potential and Applying an Ethical
Perspective to the Educational Process, School Leadership & Management Series,
Pearson Education, London.
Osseo-Asare, A.E., Longbottom, D. and Chourides, P. (2007), Managerial leadership for total
quality improvement in UK higher education, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 19, pp. 541-60.
Peat, M., Taylor, C.E. and Franklin, S. (2005), Re-engineering of undergraduate science curricula
to emphasise development of lifelong learning skills, Innovations in Education and
Teaching International, Vol. 42, pp. 135-46.
Peter, P.J. (1981), Construct validity: a review of basic issues in marketing practices, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 18, pp. 133-45.
Petrov, G. (2006), The leadership foundation research on collective leadership in higher
education, Leadership Matters, Vol. 7, p. 11.
Pike, G. (1994), The relationship between alumni satisfaction and work experiences, Research
in Higher Education, Vol. 35, pp. 105-23.
Ramsden, P. (1998), Learning to Lead in Higher Education, Routledge, London.
Rosser, V.J., Johnsrud, L.K. and Heck, R.H. (2003), Academic deans and directors: assessing their
effectiveness from individual and institutional perspectives, The Journal of Higher
Education, Vol. 74, pp. 1-25.
Rowley, J. (1997), Academic leaders: made or born?, Industrial & Commercial Training, Vol. 29,
pp. 78-84.
Sahney, S., Banwet, D.K. and Karunes, S. (2004), Customer requirement constructs: the premise
for TQM in education: a comparative study of select engineering and management
institutions in the Indian context, International Journal of Productivity and Performance
Management, Vol. 53, pp. 499-520.
Sahney, S., Banwet, D.K. and Karunes, S. (2003), Enhancing quality in education: application of
quality function deployment an industry perspective, Work Study, Vol. 52, pp. 297-309.
Sakthivel, P.B. (2007), Top management commitment and overall engineering education
excellence, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 19, pp. 259-73.
Sakthivel, P.B., Rajendran, G. and Raju, R. (2005), TQM implementation and students
satisfaction of academic performance, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 17, pp. 573-89.
Saraph, J.V., Benson, P.G. and Schroeder, R.G. (1989), An instrument for measuring the critical
factors of quality management, Decision Sciences, Vol. 20, pp. 810-29.
Sohail, M.S. and Shaikh, N.M. (2004), Quest for excellence in business education: a study of
student impressions of service quality, The International Journal of Education
Management, Vol. 18, pp. 58-65.
Spendlove, M. (2007), Competencies for effective leadership in higher education, International
Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 21, pp. 407-17.
Srdoc, A., Sluga, A. and Bratko, I. (2005), A quality management model based on the deep
quality concept, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 22,
pp. 278-302.
Sureshchandar, G.S., Rajendran, C. and Anantharaman, A.N. (2001), A holistic model for total
quality service, International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 12, pp. 378-412.
Total quality
management
753
Telford, R. and Masson, R. (2005), The congruence of quality values in higher education,
Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 13, pp. 107-19.
Tulsi, P.K. (2001), Total Quality in Higher Education, Reforms and Innovations in Higher
Education, AIU, New Delhi.
UNESCO (1998), Article adoptedbyWorldConference onHigher EducationHigher Educationinthe
Twenty-rst Century: Vision and Action, United Nations Educational, Scientic and Cultural
Organization, available at: www.unesco.org/education/educprog/wche/declaration_eng.htm
(accessed 27 April 2009).
Venkatraman, N. (1989), The concept of t in strategy research: toward verbal and statistical
correspondence, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 14, pp. 423-44.
Venkatraman, S. (2007), A framework for implementing TQM in higher education programs,
Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 15, pp. 92-112.
Viswanadhan, K.G. (2008), Employability of graduates a search through the educational
processes of Indian engineeringinstitutions, International Education Studies, Vol. 1, pp. 34-9.
Viswanadhan, K.G. and Rao, N.J. (2005), Accreditation and continuous assessment of quality of
engineering programmes a mechanism based on distance mode, paper presented at the
ICDE International Conference, New Delhi, 19-23 November.
Vora, M. (2002), Business excellence through quality management, Total Quality Management,
Vol. 13, pp. 1151-9.
Wiinn, B. and Cameron, K. (1998), Organizational quality: an examination of the Malcolm
Baldrige quality framework, Research in Higher Education, Vol. 39, pp. 491-512.
Zigarmi, D., Lyles, D. and Fowler, S. (2005), Context: the Rosetta stone of leadership, Leader to
Leader, Vol. 38, pp. 37-44.
Further reading
Lloyds, T.S.B. (2001), Quality in Education: School Self-assessment Using the Excellence Model
and Improvement Techniques, British Quality Foundation, London.
BIJ
17,5
754
Appendix 1
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
s
o
f
T
Q
M
E
x
p
l
a
n
a
t
i
o
n
T
o
p
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
c
o
m
m
i
t
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
(
T
M
C
-
S
)
T
o
p
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
(
T
M
)
i
s
t
h
e
k
e
y
d
r
i
v
e
r
t
o
t
r
i
g
g
e
r
a
n
y
q
u
a
l
i
t
y
i
n
i
t
i
a
t
i
v
e
a
n
d
g
i
v
e
t
h
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
o
f
i
t
s
f
u
l

l
m
e
n
t
t
o
a
l
l
t
h
e
p
e
o
p
l
e
.
T
M
C
-
S
i
s
i
n
s
t
r
u
m
e
n
t
a
l
i
n
b
r
i
n
g
i
n
g
a
l
l
s
t
a
k
e
h
o
l
d
e
r
s

t
o
g
e
t
h
e
r
a
n
d
s
h
a
r
i
n
g
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
m
t
h
e
p
r
o
s
p
e
c
t
s
a
n
d
s
e
e
k
i
n
g
t
h
e
i
r
c
o
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
i
n
v
o
l
v
e
m
e
n
t
t
o
a
c
h
i
e
v
e
t
h
e
i
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n

s
o
b
j
e
c
t
i
v
e
s
.
T
M
i
s
t
h
e
e
n
a
b
l
i
n
g
f
o
r
c
e
t
o
c
r
e
a
t
e
a
n
d
b
u
i
l
d
a
f
a
v
o
u
r
a
b
l
e
o
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
c
l
i
m
a
t
e
w
h
e
r
e
t
h
e
i
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n

s
e
t
h
o
s
t
h
r
i
v
e
s
a
n
d
a
l
l
s
t
a
k
e
h
o
l
d
e
r
s
w
o
r
k
w
i
t
h
p
r
i
d
e
I
n
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
(
I
N
F
)
I
n
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
e
n
c
o
m
p
a
s
s
e
s
t
h
e
e
n
t
i
r
e
p
h
y
s
i
c
a
l
a
n
d
e
s
s
e
n
t
i
a
l
i
n
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
(
p
o
s
t
o
f

c
e
,
t
e
l
e
g
r
a
p
h
o
f

c
e
,
b
a
n
k
s
,
h
o
s
p
i
t
a
l
s
,
s
t
a
t
i
o
n
e
r
y
s
h
o
p
s
,
e
t
c
)
;
a
l
s
o
i
t
t
a
k
e
s
i
n
t
o
a
c
c
o
u
n
t
t
h
e
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
l
a
y
o
u
t
s
a
n
d
l
a
b
o
r
a
t
o
r
y
s
e
t
-
u
p
s
(
a
d
e
q
u
a
t
e
e
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
s
)
i
n
t
h
e
i
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
.
T
h
e
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
(
b
o
t
h
p
h
y
s
i
c
a
l
a
n
d
d
i
g
i
t
a
l
)
f
o
r
m
s
a
m
a
j
o
r
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
a
d
e
q
u
a
t
e
a
n
d
u
p
d
a
t
e
d
b
o
o
k
s
a
n
d
t
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
I
n
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
a
l
s
o
m
e
a
n
s
t
h
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
c
e
o
f
s
u
f

c
i
e
n
t
c
o
m
p
u
t
i
n
g
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
,
a
m
p
l
e
s
c
o
p
e
f
o
r
r
e
l
a
x
a
t
i
o
n
s
u
c
h
a
s
g
y
m
n
a
s
i
u
m
,
p
l
a
y
g
r
o
u
n
d
s
,
s
i
t
t
i
n
g
p
l
a
c
e
s
,
e
t
c
.
I
n
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
a
l
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
a
r
e
a
p
r
e
r
e
q
u
i
s
i
t
e
i
n
a
n
y
e
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
i
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
t
o
c
a
r
r
y
o
u
t
i
t
s
m
u
l
t
i
-
f
a
r
i
o
u
s
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
i
n
a
s
m
o
o
t
h
f
a
s
h
i
o
n
.
T
h
e
q
u
a
l
i
t
y
a
n
d
q
u
a
n
t
i
t
y
o
f
e
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
s
u
c
h
a
s
m
u
l
t
i
-
m
e
d
i
a
w
o
r
k
s
h
o
p
s
,
l
a
b
o
r
a
t
o
r
i
e
s
,
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
(
b
o
t
h
p
h
y
s
i
c
a
l
a
n
d
d
i
g
i
t
a
l
)
,
c
o
m
p
u
t
i
n
g
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
a
n
d
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
s
y
s
t
e
m
s
a
s
s
u
m
e
a
k
e
y
r
o
l
e
i
n
t
h
e
l
e
a
r
n
i
n
g
a
s
w
e
l
l
a
s
t
h
e
t
e
a
c
h
i
n
g
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
e
s
;
t
h
e
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
l
i
k
e
a
c
c
o
m
m
o
d
a
t
i
o
n
,
s
p
o
r
t
s
,
c
e
n
t
e
r
s
,
s
t
a
t
i
o
n
e
r
y
s
h
o
p
s
,
r
e
s
t
a
u
r
a
n
t
s
,
t
h
e
e
s
s
e
n
t
i
a
l
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
a
n
d
t
h
e
g
e
n
e
r
a
l
e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
f
o
r
m
a
p
a
r
t
o
f
t
h
i
s
d
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
i
n
E
E
I
s
Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
s
y
s
t
e
m
s
(
Q
M
S
)
Q
M
S
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
s
a
l
l
t
h
e
p
r
o
c
e
d
u
r
e
s
t
a
k
i
n
g
p
l
a
c
e
i
n
a
n
i
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
,
w
h
i
c
h
s
u
b
s
e
q
u
e
n
t
l
y
e
n
h
a
n
c
e
s
t
h
e
a
c
t
o
f
m
a
n
a
g
i
n
g
q
u
a
l
i
t
y
.
I
t
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
s
d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
a
l
l
t
h
e
a
c
t
i
o
n
p
l
a
n
s
,
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
a
n
d
t
h
e
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
b
e
i
n
g
u
n
d
e
r
t
a
k
e
n
t
o
w
a
r
d
s
e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
i
n
g
q
u
a
l
i
t
y
a
n
d
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
i
n
t
h
e
i
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
a
l
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
.
I
t
a
l
s
o
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
s
t
h
e
e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
s
a
f
e
t
y
a
n
d
a
l
s
o
t
h
e
s
e
c
u
r
i
t
y
a
s
p
e
c
t
s
o
f
a
n
i
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
F
a
c
u
l
t
y
a
n
d
s
t
a
f
f
f
o
c
u
s
(
F
-
S
-
F
O
C
)
F
a
c
u
l
t
y
m
e
m
b
e
r
s
a
r
e
t
h
e
f
u
l
c
r
u
m
o
f
a
n
y
e
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
i
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
.
T
h
e
y
p
l
a
y
a
m
a
j
o
r
r
o
l
e
i
n
i
n

u
e
n
c
i
n
g
s
t
u
d
e
n
t
s

p
r
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l
c
a
r
e
e
r
s
a
s
w
e
l
l
a
s
p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l
l
i
v
e
s
.
T
h
e
i
r
i
m
p
a
c
t
u
p
o
n
t
h
e
s
t
u
d
e
n
t
s

m
i
n
d
s
i
s
t
h
e
g
r
e
a
t
e
s
t
h
e
n
c
e
;
t
h
e
i
r
c
o
m
m
i
t
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
a
c
c
o
u
n
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
t
o
w
a
r
d
s
t
e
a
c
h
i
n
g
a
n
d
r
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
s
h
o
u
l
d
b
e
e
x
e
m
p
l
a
r
y
i
n
a
l
l
r
e
s
p
e
c
t
s
.
F
-
S
-
F
O
C
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
s
q
u
a
l
i
t
y
o
f
l
e
c
t
u
r
e
s
b
e
i
n
g
d
e
l
i
v
e
r
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
c
l
a
s
s
r
o
o
m
,
t
h
e
k
i
n
d
o
f
a
t
t
e
n
t
i
o
n
s
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
g
e
t
,
t
h
e
q
u
a
l
i
t
y
o
f
a
s
s
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
s
a
n
d
t
e
s
t
s
g
i
v
e
n
t
o
s
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
,
a
n
d
k
i
n
d
o
f
a
s
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
g
i
v
e
n
d
u
r
i
n
g
r
e
p
o
r
t
w
r
i
t
i
n
g
,
t
h
e
e
x
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
p
r
o
c
e
d
u
r
e
s
t
o
t
e
s
t
t
h
e
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
a
n
d
u
n
d
e
r
s
t
a
n
d
i
n
g
o
f
s
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
a
n
d
t
h
e
g
r
a
d
i
n
g
p
a
t
t
e
r
n
s
.
T
h
e
i
r
i
n
t
e
r
e
s
t
a
n
d
i
n
v
o
l
v
e
m
e
n
t
i
n
t
h
e
t
e
a
c
h
i
n
g
a
n
d
l
e
a
r
n
i
n
g
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
a
n
d
t
o
w
a
r
d
s
r
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
e
x
c
e
l
l
e
n
c
e
i
s
a
l
s
o
a
f
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
F
-
S
-
F
O
C
.
T
h
e
f
a
c
u
l
t
y
m
e
m
b
e
r
s

s
a
t
i
s
f
a
c
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
i
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n

s
w
o
r
k
c
l
i
m
a
t
e
i
s
a
l
s
o
a
n
i
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
t
a
s
p
e
c
t
i
n
F
-
S
-
F
O
C
.
O
n
e
o
f
t
h
e
u
n
i
q
u
e
c
u
l
t
u
r
e
o
f
h
i
g
h
e
r
e
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
i
s
t
o
h
o
n
e
o
n
t
h
e
i
r
f
a
c
u
l
t
y
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
a
n
d
t
h
e
i
r
p
r
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
i
n
o
r
d
e
r
t
o
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
t
h
e
b
e
s
t
o
f
e
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
t
o
t
h
e
s
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
S
t
u
d
e
n
t
f
o
c
u
s
(
S
F
)
S
F
c
o
m
p
r
i
s
e
s
o
v
e
r
a
l
l
s
t
u
d
e
n
t
c
a
r
e
;
i
n
t
e
r
m
s
o
f
a
c
a
d
e
m
i
c
,
c
o
-
a
n
d
e
x
t
r
a
-
c
u
r
r
i
c
u
l
a
r
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
.
I
t
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
s
c
l
a
s
s
r
o
o
m
t
e
a
c
h
i
n
g
a
n
d
l
e
a
r
n
i
n
g
,
g
r
o
u
p
d
i
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
s
,
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
w
o
r
k
,
p
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
i
o
n
i
n
t
h
e
c
l
a
s
s
r
o
o
m
,
i
n
t
e
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
s
w
i
t
h
f
a
c
u
l
t
y
m
e
m
b
e
r
s
,
a
t
t
e
n
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
a
c
a
d
e
m
i
c
a
l
l
y
a
n
d
s
o
c
i
a
l
l
y
w
e
a
k
s
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
,
t
o
w
a
r
d
s
t
h
e
i
r
g
r
i
e
v
a
n
c
e
s
,
c
a
r
e
f
o
r
t
h
e
i
r
p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
a
s
e
n
s
e
o
f
c
o
n
s
c
i
o
u
s
n
e
s
s
t
o
w
a
r
d
s
s
o
c
i
e
t
a
l
w
e
l
l
-
b
e
i
n
g
.
S
F
v
e
r
y
i
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
t
l
y
f
o
c
u
s
e
s
o
n
l
i
f
e
l
o
n
g
l
e
a
r
n
i
n
g
a
n
d
g
r
o
w
t
h
a
s
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
l
e
c
i
t
i
z
e
n
s
o
f
t
h
e
n
a
t
i
o
n
.
S
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
a
r
e
t
h
e
p
r
i
m
a
r
y
c
o
n
s
u
m
e
r
s
a
n
d
t
h
e
p
r
i
n
c
i
p
a
l
p
a
r
t
n
e
r
s
i
n
a
n
y
H
E
I
.
T
h
e
i
r
a
c
a
d
e
m
i
c
a
n
d
o
v
e
r
a
l
l
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
i
s
t
h
e
r
e
f
o
r
e
b
o
t
h
a
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
a
n
d
a
n
o
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
y
f
o
r
t
h
e
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
o
f
t
h
e
i
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
A
l
u
m
n
i
f
o
c
u
s
(
A
L
-
F
O
C
)
A
l
u
m
n
i
,
b
e
i
n
g
e
x
t
e
r
n
a
l
s
t
a
k
e
h
o
l
d
e
r
s
,
d
e
s
i
r
e
t
o
a
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
w
i
t
h
a
n
d
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
e
t
o
t
h
e
g
r
o
w
t
h
o
f
t
h
e
i
r
a
l
m
a
m
a
t
e
r
.
T
h
e
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
o
f
a
l
u
m
n
i
c
a
n
b
e
u
t
i
l
i
z
e
d
i
n
m
a
n
y
w
a
y
s
f
o
r
t
h
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
o
f
a
n
i
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
.
T
h
e
y
c
a
n
b
e
i
n
a
b
e
t
t
e
r
p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n
t
o
e
v
a
l
u
a
t
e
t
h
e
c
o
u
r
s
e
s
,
p
e
d
a
g
o
g
y
u
s
e
d
,
a
f
t
e
r
t
w
o
o
r
t
h
r
e
e
y
e
a
r
s
o
f
t
h
e
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
i
r
s
t
u
d
i
e
s
a
n
d
t
h
e
s
a
m
e
m
i
g
h
t
b
e
a
n
a
l
y
s
e
d
a
n
d
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
d
f
o
r
t
h
e
f
u
t
u
r
e
.
A
l
u
m
n
i
c
a
n
b
e
t
r
e
a
t
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
E
E
I
s
a
s
b
r
a
n
d
a
m
b
a
s
s
a
d
o
r
s
,
w
h
o
w
o
u
l
d
t
u
r
n
o
u
t
t
o
b
e
c
o
m
e
t
h
e
e
v
e
r
l
a
s
t
i
n
g
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
o
f
p
o
s
i
t
i
v
e
r
e
f
e
r
r
a
l
s
.
T
h
e
i
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
/
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
c
a
n
t
a
k
e
i
n
i
t
i
a
t
i
v
e
s
t
o
i
n
v
i
t
e
t
h
e
i
r
a
l
u
m
n
i
f
o
r
v
a
r
i
o
u
s
g
e
t
-
t
o
g
e
t
h
e
r
s
,
a
n
n
u
a
l
f
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
s
a
n
d
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
t
o
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
o
u
s
l
y
k
e
e
p
t
h
e
b
o
n
d
i
n
g
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
t
h
e
m
.
A
L
-
F
O
C
d
e
a
l
s
w
i
t
h
w
a
y
s
o
f
a
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
i
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n

s
a
l
u
m
n
i
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
i
r
a
l
m
a
m
a
t
e
r
t
o
k
e
e
p
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
n
g
t
o
i
t
s
g
r
o
w
t
h
i
n
v
a
r
i
o
u
s
p
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
w
a
y
s
S
t
a
k
e
h
o
l
d
e
r
f
o
c
u
s
(
S
T
K
-
F
O
C
)
S
T
K
-
F
O
C
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
s
b
o
t
h
i
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
-
(
s
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
,
f
a
c
u
l
t
y
m
e
m
b
e
r
s
a
n
d
s
t
a
f
f
)
a
n
d
e
x
t
e
r
n
a
l
-
s
t
a
k
e
h
o
l
d
e
r
s

(
a
l
u
m
n
i
,
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
r
s
,
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
s
e
c
t
o
r
s
,
s
o
c
i
e
t
y
,
p
a
r
e
n
t
s
,
e
t
c
.
)
i
n
t
e
r
e
s
t
s
a
n
d
c
o
n
c
e
r
n
s
.
I
t
i
s
t
h
e
t
o
p
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

s
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
t
o
c
o
l
l
e
c
t
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
(
d
a
t
a
)
r
e
g
a
r
d
i
n
g
t
h
e
s
e
s
t
a
k
e
h
o
l
d
e
r
s

s
a
t
i
s
f
a
c
t
i
o
n
,
c
o
n
c
e
r
n
s
a
n
d
i
s
s
u
e
s
o
f
w
e
l
l
-
b
e
i
n
g
.
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
m
a
y
m
a
k
e
a
t
t
e
m
p
t
s
t
o
h
o
l
d
m
e
e
t
i
n
g
s
a
n
d
g
e
t
-
t
o
g
e
t
h
e
r
s
t
o
b
r
i
n
g
t
h
o
s
e
i
n
t
e
r
e
s
t
e
d
p
a
r
t
i
e
s
t
o
g
e
t
h
e
r
f
o
r
f
r
e
q
u
e
n
t
o
c
c
a
s
i
o
n
s
t
o
i
n
v
o
l
v
e
t
h
e
m
i
n
v
a
r
i
o
u
s
a
c
a
d
e
m
i
c
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
s
u
c
h
a
s
c
o
u
r
s
e
c
u
r
r
i
c
u
l
u
m
d
e
s
i
g
n
i
n
g
,
i
n
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
a
l
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
,
i
n
v
i
t
i
n
g
f
o
r
s
h
a
r
i
n
g
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
,
e
t
c
.
(
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
Table AI.
Explanation of the
dimensions
of TQM in EEIs
Total quality
management
755
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
s
o
f
T
Q
M
E
x
p
l
a
n
a
t
i
o
n
S
o
c
i
e
t
a
l
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
(
S
O
C
-
R
E
S
)
E
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
i
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
s
h
a
v
e
a
n
o
b
l
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
t
o
w
a
r
d
s
s
o
c
i
e
t
y
,
h
e
n
c
e
t
h
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
s
(
s
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
)
h
a
v
e
a
g
r
e
a
t
e
r
r
o
l
e
t
o
p
l
a
y
a
n
d
g
i
v
e
b
a
c
k
t
o
t
h
e
s
o
c
i
e
t
y
i
n
t
e
r
m
s
o
f
s
h
a
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
i
r
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
b
y
t
e
a
c
h
i
n
g
t
h
e
l
e
s
s
e
r
-
p
r
i
v
i
l
e
g
e
d
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
.
I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
s
m
a
y
o
f
f
e
r
s
c
h
e
m
e
s
o
r
h
o
l
d
a
w
a
r
e
n
e
s
s
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
m
e
s
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
N
C
C
,
N
S
S
,
l
i
t
e
r
a
c
y
s
c
h
e
m
e
s
,
A
I
D
S
a
w
a
r
e
n
e
s
s
s
e
r
i
e
s
,
e
t
c
.
S
t
u
d
e
n
t
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
a
r
e
a
p
o
w
e
r
f
u
l
m
e
d
i
a
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
w
h
i
c
h
s
u
c
h
i
d
e
a
s
c
a
n
r
e
a
c
h
t
h
e
m
a
s
s
e
s
.
S
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
a
r
e
t
h
e
b
e
s
t
m
e
d
i
a
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
w
h
i
c
h
t
h
e
w
e
l
f
a
r
e
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
c
a
n
b
e
i
n
i
t
i
a
t
e
d
.
T
h
e
c
u
l
t
u
r
e
o
f
b
e
i
n
g
s
o
c
i
a
l
l
y
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
l
e
(
e
.
g
.
b
y
s
p
r
e
a
d
i
n
g
a
n
d
d
i
s
s
e
m
i
n
a
t
i
n
g
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
i
n
s
o
c
i
e
t
i
e
s
b
e
s
i
d
e
s
s
e
r
v
i
n
g
t
h
e
l
e
s
s
p
r
i
v
i
l
e
g
e
d
o
n
e
s
(
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
p
r
o
v
i
d
i
n
g
r
e
l
i
e
f
d
u
r
i
n
g
n
a
t
u
r
a
l
c
a
l
a
m
i
t
i
e
s
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
N
C
C
a
n
d
N
S
S
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
)
s
h
o
u
l
d
b
e
i
m
b
i
b
e
d
i
n
t
o
t
h
e
m
i
n
d
s
o
f
t
h
e
s
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
b
e
s
i
d
e
s
s
t
u
d
i
e
s
a
n
d
c
o
-
c
u
r
r
i
c
u
l
a
r
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
t
o
m
a
k
e
t
h
e
m
a
c
c
o
u
n
t
a
b
l
e
i
n
t
h
e
f
u
t
u
r
e
f
o
r
t
h
e
n
a
t
i
o
n

s
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
I
n
d
u
s
t
r
y
i
n
t
e
r
f
a
c
e
(
I
N
D
-
I
N
T
)
I
n
d
u
s
t
r
y
i
n
t
e
r
f
a
c
e
r
e
f
e
r
s
t
o
t
h
e
i
n
t
e
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
a
c
a
d
e
m
i
a
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
b
o
d
i
e
s
,
i
n
t
e
r
m
s
o
f
e
x
c
h
a
n
g
e
o
f
i
d
e
a
s
,
p
r
o
b
l
e
m
s
a
n
d
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
f
o
r
m
u
t
u
a
l
b
e
n
e

t
.
I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
s
m
a
y
g
e
t
l
i
v
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
i
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
e
s
w
h
i
c
h
m
a
y
g
e
t
t
h
e
m
m
o
n
e
t
a
r
y
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
i
n
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
t
o
t
h
e
p
r
a
c
t
i
c
a
l
e
x
p
o
s
u
r
e
.
S
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
w
i
l
l
g
e
t
t
o
w
o
r
k
o
n
l
i
v
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
w
h
i
c
h
w
i
l
l
s
t
r
e
n
g
t
h
e
n
t
h
e
i
r
c
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
.
S
u
c
h
a
n
e
x
p
e
r
i
e
n
c
e
c
a
n
h
e
l
p
t
h
e
s
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
t
i
g
h
t
e
n
u
p
f
o
r
t
h
e
r
e
a
l
w
o
r
k
e
x
p
e
r
i
e
n
c
e
.
I
n
d
u
s
t
r
y
p
e
r
s
o
n
n
e
l
m
a
y
a
l
s
o
b
e
i
n
v
i
t
e
d
o
n
a
r
e
g
u
l
a
r
b
a
s
i
s
f
o
r
s
h
a
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
i
r
r
e
a
l
l
i
f
e
e
x
p
e
r
i
e
n
c
e
s
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
s
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
.
T
h
e
f
a
c
u
l
t
y
m
e
m
b
e
r
s
a
l
s
o
m
a
y
g
e
t
t
o
k
n
o
w
t
h
e
d
e
m
a
n
d
s
a
n
d
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
o
f
t
h
e
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
w
o
r
l
d
w
h
i
c
h
c
a
n
h
e
l
p
t
h
e
m
r
e
d
e
s
i
g
n
/
d
e
l
i
v
e
r
t
h
e
c
o
u
r
s
e
c
u
r
r
i
c
u
l
u
m
.
T
h
i
s
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
m
i
g
h
t
p
o
s
s
i
b
l
y
t
u
r
n
o
u
t
t
o
b
e
a
w
i
n
-
w
i
n
e
p
i
s
o
d
e
f
o
r
b
o
t
h
t
h
e
p
a
r
t
i
e
s
a
l
s
o
i
n
t
e
r
m
s
o
f
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
,
i
n
t
h
e
s
e
n
s
e
s
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
m
i
g
h
t
d
i
s
c
o
v
e
r
t
h
e
i
r
i
n
t
e
r
e
s
t
s
i
n
s
u
c
h
a
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
a
n
d
t
h
e
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
m
a
y

n
d
t
h
e
i
r
p
r
o
s
p
e
c
t
i
v
e
c
a
n
d
i
d
a
t
e
s
.
E
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
c
u
r
r
i
c
u
l
a
a
r
e
u
n
a
b
l
e
t
o
k
e
e
p
p
a
c
e
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
c
h
a
n
g
i
n
g
m
a
r
k
e
t
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
a
n
d
a
r
e
o
f
t
e
n
s
e
e
n
a
s
f
a
i
l
i
n
g
t
o
m
e
e
t
t
h
e
n
e
e
d
s
o
f
i
n
d
u
s
t
r
y
F
e
e
d
e
r
i
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
p
a
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
(
F
I
P
)
(
h
i
g
h
e
r
s
e
c
o
n
d
a
r
y
s
c
h
o
o
l
s
a
n
d
i
n
d
u
s
t
r
y
)
F
I
P
i
s
a
n
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
l
j
o
i
n
t
a
f

l
i
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
e
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
i
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
s
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
s
e
c
o
n
d
a
r
y
s
c
h
o
o
l
s
a
n
d
t
h
e
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
b
o
d
i
e
s
t
o
r
e
a
p
m
u
t
u
a
l
l
y
b
e
n
e

t
s
.
T
h
e
e
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
i
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
s
(
E
I
s
)
c
o
u
l
d
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
e
t
h
e
i
r
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
m
e
s
,
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
s
t
r
e
n
g
t
h
s
t
o
t
h
e
s
c
h
o
o
l
s
i
n
o
r
d
e
r
t
o
e
n
a
b
l
e
t
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
a
n
d
u
p
g
r
a
d
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
l
a
t
t
e
r

s
s
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
.
T
h
e
E
I
s
c
a
n
a
l
s
o
d
e
s
i
g
n
s
h
o
r
t
-
t
e
r
m
o
r
f
a
s
t
t
r
a
c
k
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
m
e
s
(
U
G
/
P
G
l
e
v
e
l
)
f
o
r
t
h
e
i
n
d
u
s
t
r
y
p
e
r
s
o
n
n
e
l
t
o
s
t
u
d
y
w
h
i
l
e
a
t
w
o
r
k
.
T
h
e
p
a
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
i
s
a
s
g
o
o
d
a
s
t
a
k
i
n
g
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
f
o
r
t
h
e
o
t
h
e
r
p
a
r
t
y

s
u
p
l
i
f
t
m
e
n
t
i
n
t
h
e
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
o
f
s
e
l
f
-
g
r
o
w
t
h
.
I
t
i
s
a
m
e
a
n
s
o
f
a
c
q
u
i
r
i
n
g
m
u
t
u
a
l
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
t
o
p
r
o
s
p
e
r
i
n
t
e
r
m
s
o
f
u
n
d
e
r
s
t
a
n
d
i
n
g
t
h
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
a
n
d
o
f
o
n
e
a
n
o
t
h
e
r
a
n
d
m
a
k
i
n
g
a
t
t
e
m
p
t
s
t
o
a
c
c
o
m
m
o
d
a
t
e
t
h
e
m
.
I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
s
c
a
n
a
s
s
i
s
t
i
n
o
r
g
a
n
i
z
i
n
g
m
e
e
t
i
n
g
s
f
o
r
t
h
e
a
s
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
o
f
s
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
i
n
p
r
o
v
i
d
i
n
g
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
r
e
g
a
r
d
i
n
g
c
o
m
p
e
t
i
t
i
v
e
e
x
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
s
(
s
u
c
h
a
s
s
t
a
t
e
a
n
d
c
o
u
n
t
r
y
l
e
v
e
l
)
;
i
n
t
h
e

l
l
i
n
g
u
p
s
u
c
h
f
o
r
m
s
a
n
d
a
l
s
o
i
n
g
u
i
d
i
n
g
t
h
e
m
i
n
s
e
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
b
r
a
n
c
h
e
s
a
f
t
e
r
s
u
c
h
e
x
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
s
.
F
I
P
c
o
u
l
d
l
e
a
d
t
o
a
w
i
n
-
w
i
n
(
g
r
o
w
i
n
g
t
o
g
e
t
h
e
r
)
s
i
t
u
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
a
l
l
p
a
r
t
i
e
s
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
o
u
s
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
(
C
I
)
C
I
i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e
s
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
a
l
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
o
f
a
l
l
t
h
e
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
e
s
i
n
a
s
y
s
t
e
m
.
A
s
e
v
e
r
y
s
u
b
-
s
y
s
t
e
m
o
f
E
E
I
c
o
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
s
e
a
c
h
o
t
h
e
r
t
o
d
e
l
i
v
e
r
t
h
e
e
n
d
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
,
a
n
i
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
s
h
o
u
l
d
b
e
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
o
u
s
l
y
a
s
s
e
s
s
e
d
a
n
d
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
d
u
p
o
n
.
I
t
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
s
p
e
r
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
e
f
f
o
r
t
s
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
t
o
p
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
t
o
l
o
o
k
i
n
t
o
d
e
t
a
i
l
s
o
f
t
h
e
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
e
s
.
T
h
e
c
h
a
n
n
e
l
s
o
f
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
c
a
n
b
e
d
e
s
i
g
n
e
d
a
c
c
o
r
d
i
n
g
l
y
l
i
k
e
h
o
l
d
i
n
g
r
e
g
u
l
a
r
s
e
m
i
n
a
r
s
a
n
d
w
o
r
k
s
h
o
p
s
t
o
a
s
s
i
s
t
i
n
t
h
e
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
o
f
e
n
h
a
n
c
e
d
l
e
a
r
n
i
n
g
o
f
f
a
c
u
l
t
y
m
e
m
b
e
r
s
.
T
h
e
q
u
a
l
i
t
y
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
m
e
s
(
Q
I
P
)
c
a
n
b
e
l
a
u
n
c
h
e
d
f
o
r
t
h
e
f
a
c
u
l
t
y
m
e
m
b
e
r
s

c
a
r
e
e
r
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
.
E
v
e
r
y
s
y
s
t
e
m
n
e
e
d
s
t
o
b
e
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
o
u
s
l
y
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
d
t
o
k
e
e
p
i
n
t
a
c
t
i
t
s
e
f

c
i
e
n
c
y
,
a
n
d
h
e
n
c
e
f
r
e
q
u
e
n
t
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
m
e
n
t
o
f
t
h
e
s
y
s
t
e
m
i
s
n
e
e
d
e
d
.
T
h
e
r
e
v
i
e
w
p
l
a
n
s
h
a
v
e
t
o
b
e
r
e
i
n
f
o
r
c
e
d
e
a
c
h
t
i
m
e
a
c
h
a
n
g
e
i
n
a
c
t
i
o
n
i
s
t
a
k
e
n
p
l
a
c
e
.
O
t
h
e
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
p
l
a
n
s
m
a
y
b
e
c
o
u
r
s
e
c
u
r
r
i
c
u
l
u
m
e
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
,
s
t
u
d
e
n
t
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
,
f
a
c
u
l
t
y
m
e
m
b
e
r
s

e
x
p
e
r
t
i
s
e
,
l
a
b
o
r
a
t
o
r
y
a
n
d
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
,
u
p
d
a
t
i
n
g
s
t
a
f
f
(
a
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
,
l
a
b
o
r
a
t
o
r
y
a
n
d
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
)
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
a
n
d
s
k
i
l
l
l
e
v
e
l
s
,
e
t
c
.
C
I
i
n
a
c
a
d
e
m
i
c
i
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
s
h
a
s
b
e
e
n
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
e
d
a
s
a
n
e
s
s
e
n
t
i
a
l
i
n
g
r
e
d
i
e
n
t
f
o
r
e
x
p
l
o
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
n
e
e
d
s
a
n
d
a
s
p
i
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
o
f
t
h
e
i
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
s

c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
b
a
s
e

c
o
m
p
r
i
s
i
n
g
t
h
e
f
a
c
u
l
t
y
m
e
m
b
e
r
s
,
t
h
e
s
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
,
t
h
e
s
t
a
f
f
,
t
h
e
b
o
a
r
d
o
f
r
e
g
e
n
t
s
,
t
h
e
a
c
c
r
e
d
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
a
g
e
n
c
i
e
s
a
n
d
t
h
e
m
e
m
b
e
r
s
o
f
t
h
e
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y

c
o
m
p
r
i
s
i
n
g
r
e
e
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
n
g
t
h
e
e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
n
e
s
s
o
f
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
m
e
s
a
n
d
t
o
t
a
l
q
u
a
l
i
t
y
i
n
i
t
i
a
t
i
v
e
s
B
e
n
c
h
m
a
r
k
i
n
g
(
B
M
)
T
h
e
i
d
e
a
o
f
B
M
i
s
a
n
a
c
t
i
v
e
a
n
d
r
i
g
o
r
o
u
s
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
o
f
m
a
k
i
n
g
c
o
m
p
a
r
i
s
o
n
s
a
g
a
i
n
s
t
t
h
e
b
e
s
t
-
i
n
-
c
l
a
s
s
(
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
/
s
y
s
t
e
m
s
/
t
e
c
h
n
i
q
u
e
s
)
f
o
r
t
h
e
p
u
r
p
o
s
e
o
f
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
l
e
a
r
n
i
n
g
.
B
M
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
a
t
e
s
k
n
o
w
i
n
g
o
n
e

s
s
t
a
t
u
s
a
g
a
i
n
s
t
t
h
e
b
e
s
t
i
n
t
h
e
c
l
a
s
s
a
n
d
c
a
t
e
g
o
r
y
.
B
M
g
i
v
e
s
a
c
l
e
a
r
p
i
c
t
u
r
e
o
f
a
n
o
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

s
p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n
b
y
c
o
m
p
a
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
e
s
,
p
e
o
p
l
e
a
n
d
s
y
s
t
e
m
s
.
I
n
t
h
i
s
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
,
a
s
e
t
o
f
b
e
s
t
p
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
s
b
e
i
n
g
f
o
l
l
o
w
e
d
i
n
v
a
r
i
o
u
s
i
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
s
a
r
e
i
d
e
n
t
i

e
d
a
n
d
a
f
r
a
m
e
o
f
r
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
i
s
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
d
.
A
n
i
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
m
a
y
b
e
n
c
h
m
a
r
k
i
t
s
f
a
u
l
t
y
m
e
m
b
e
r
s

e
x
p
e
r
t
i
s
e
a
n
d
c
o
m
m
i
t
m
e
n
t
,
a
s
w
e
l
l
a
s
t
h
e
i
r
i
n
v
o
l
v
e
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
a
c
c
o
m
p
l
i
s
h
m
e
n
t
s
,
s
t
u
d
e
n
t
s

a
c
a
d
e
m
i
c
a
c
h
i
e
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
r
e
c
o
r
d
s
,
i
n
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
a
l
p
r
o
g
r
e
s
s
a
n
d
i
t
s
o
v
e
r
a
l
l
c
o
m
p
e
t
i
t
i
v
e
n
e
s
s
.
I
t
m
a
y
a
l
s
o
b
e
n
c
h
m
a
r
k
t
h
e
i
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n

s
i
m
a
g
e
a
n
d
r
e
p
u
t
a
t
i
o
n
f
r
o
m
a
g
e
n
e
r
a
l
(
s
o
c
i
e
t
a
l
)
p
o
i
n
t
o
f
v
i
e
w
.
T
h
e
s
e
s
e
t
o
f
p
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
s
m
i
g
h
t
h
e
l
p
t
o
p
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
o
f
E
E
I
s
t
o
p
r
o
b
e
i
n
t
o
t
h
e
s
y
s
t
e
m
s
/
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
e
s
o
f
t
h
e
i
r
i
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
s
a
n
d
m
a
k
e
a
r
r
a
n
g
e
m
e
n
t
s
t
o
s
t
r
e
n
g
t
h
e
n
t
h
e
m
(
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
Table AI.
BIJ
17,5
756
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
s
o
f
T
Q
M
E
x
p
l
a
n
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
m
e
n
t
,
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
(
M
I
A
)
A
s
a
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
s
a
y
i
n
g
g
o
e
s
,

w
h
a
t
g
e
t
s
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
d
,
g
e
t
s
d
o
n
e

.
H
e
n
c
e
,
c
o
l
l
e
c
t
i
n
g
f
e
e
d
b
a
c
k
(
d
a
t
a
f
r
o
m
i
n
t
e
r
e
s
t
e
d
s
t
a
k
e
h
o
l
d
e
r
g
r
o
u
p
s
,
b
o
t
h
i
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
,
i
.
e
.
s
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
,
f
a
c
u
l
t
y
m
e
m
b
e
r
s
,
a
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
t
a
f
f
,
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
g
r
o
u
p
;
a
n
d
e
x
t
e
r
n
a
l
,
i
.
e
.
a
l
u
m
n
i
,
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
b
o
d
i
e
s
,
p
a
r
e
n
t
s
,
s
o
c
i
e
t
y
,
p
o
l
i
c
y
m
a
k
e
r
s
,
g
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t
,
e
t
c
.
)
m
a
y
h
e
l
p
t
h
e
i
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
s
t
o
a
n
a
l
y
s
e
o
n
v
a
r
i
o
u
s
w
o
r
k
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
e
s
(
t
e
a
c
h
i
n
g
a
n
d
l
e
a
r
n
i
n
g
,
c
o
u
r
s
e
c
u
r
r
i
c
u
l
u
m
d
e
s
i
g
n
i
n
g
,
i
n
c
l
u
s
i
o
n
o
f
n
e
w
c
o
u
r
s
e
s
,
e
t
c
.
)
s
y
s
t
e
m
s
(
i
n
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
,
c
a
m
p
u
s
l
a
y
o
u
t
,
e
t
c
.
)
a
n
d
t
o
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
a
l
l
y
k
e
e
p
t
r
y
i
n
g
t
o
i
m
p
r
o
v
i
s
e
o
n
t
h
e
m
.
T
h
i
s
e
x
p
e
r
i
e
n
c
e
m
a
y
p
o
s
s
i
b
l
y
e
a
r
n
d
o
u
b
l
e
b
e
n
e

t
s
:

r
s
t
,
i
n
g
e
t
t
i
n
g
s
u
g
g
e
s
t
i
o
n
s
f
o
r
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
;
a
n
d
s
e
c
o
n
d
,
i
n
b
r
i
n
g
i
n
g
t
o
g
e
t
h
e
r
a
l
l
i
n
t
e
r
e
s
t
e
d
s
t
a
k
e
h
o
l
d
e
r
g
r
o
u
p
s
.
T
h
i
s
m
a
y
s
e
r
v
e
a
s
a
g
r
e
a
t
o
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
y
f
o
r
t
h
e
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
o
f
t
h
e
i
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
t
o
a
s
k
f
o
r
h
e
l
p
a
n
d
c
o
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
s
t
a
k
e
h
o
l
d
e
r
g
r
o
u
p
s
i
n
f
r
a
m
i
n
g
a
v
i
s
i
o
n
f
o
r
a
l
l
,
a
n
d
s
e
e
k
i
n
g
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
i
n
a
c
h
i
e
v
i
n
g
i
t
a
l
s
o
i
n
t
h
e
l
o
n
g
-
r
u
n
.
S
e
l
f
-
a
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
i
n
s
t
r
u
m
e
n
t
s
a
r
e
t
o
o
l
s
t
h
a
t
h
e
l
p
i
n
a
s
s
e
s
s
i
n
g
t
h
e
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
s
t
a
t
u
s
o
f
a
n
o
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
w
h
i
l
e
a
s
s
i
s
t
i
n
g
i
n
s
e
t
t
i
n
g
g
o
a
l
s
a
n
d
t
a
r
g
e
t
s
f
o
r
i
t
s
s
u
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
l
e
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
K
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
(
K
M
)
K
M
e
s
s
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
m
e
a
n
s
c
r
e
a
t
i
n
g
,
s
h
a
r
i
n
g
,
t
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
u
t
i
l
i
z
i
n
g
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
.
E
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
i
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
s
p
l
a
y
a
c
r
i
t
i
c
a
l
r
o
l
e
i
n
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
.
T
h
u
s
,
t
h
e
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
a
s
s
e
t
s
(
f
a
c
u
l
t
y
m
e
m
b
e
r
s
,
s
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
,
e
t
c
.
)
a
t
s
u
c
h
a
p
l
a
c
e
n
e
e
d
s
t
o
b
e
e
x
p
l
o
i
t
e
d
(
a
p
p
l
i
e
d
)
,
n
u
r
t
u
r
e
d
a
n
d
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
d
t
o
a
l
a
r
g
e
e
x
t
e
n
t
f
o
r
t
h
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
o
f
t
h
e
i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
s
a
n
d
t
h
e
c
o
u
n
t
r
y
a
s
w
e
l
l
.
K
M
c
a
n
b
e
s
t
b
e
p
r
a
c
t
i
s
e
d
h
e
r
e
f
o
r
b
o
t
h
t
h
e
i
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n

s
g
o
o
d
a
n
d
a
l
s
o
f
o
r
t
h
e
b
e
n
e

t
o
f
s
o
c
i
e
t
y
.
K
M
c
a
n
b
e
i
n
i
t
i
a
t
e
d
b
y
p
r
o
v
i
d
i
n
g
p
l
a
t
f
o
r
m
s
t
o
f
a
c
u
l
t
y
m
e
m
b
e
r
s

a
n
d
s
t
u
d
e
n
t
s

c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
t
o
a
c
q
u
i
r
e
,
c
r
e
a
t
e
a
n
d
s
h
a
r
e
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
f
o
r
m
a
l
a
n
d
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
l
w
a
y
s
.
T
h
i
s
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
s
h
a
r
i
n
g
c
a
n
b
e
d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
f
o
r
m
o
f
t
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l
r
e
p
o
r
t
s
a
n
d
m
a
y
b
e
u
s
e
d
a
m
o
n
g
s
t
i
n
t
e
l
l
e
c
t
u
a
l
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
i
n
t
h
e
s
a
m
e
o
r
a
n
y
o
t
h
e
r
e
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
i
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
s
a
c
r
o
s
s
t
h
e
g
l
o
b
e
.
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
i
e
s
a
r
e
t
h
e
a
b
o
d
e
w
h
e
r
e
t
h
e
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
o
f
e
n
q
u
i
r
y
t
a
k
e
s
s
h
a
p
e
i
n
s
t
u
d
e
n
t
s

m
i
n
d
s
f
o
r
g
r
e
a
t
e
r
c
h
a
l
l
e
n
g
e
s
a
n
d
d
i
s
c
o
v
e
r
i
e
s
.
K
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
i
s
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
o
n
e
o
f
t
h
e
p
r
i
m
a
r
y
r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
t
h
a
t
c
a
n
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
a
t
e
a
s
u
s
t
a
i
n
e
d
c
o
m
p
e
t
i
t
i
v
e
a
d
v
a
n
t
a
g
e
(
G
r
a
n
t
,
1
9
9
6
)
.
I
n
H
E
I
s
,
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
i
s
s
h
a
r
e
d
,
e
x
p
r
e
s
s
e
d
a
n
d
o
r
g
a
n
i
z
e
d
.
K
M
i
s
n
o
t
s
i
m
p
l
y
a
m
a
t
t
e
r
o
f
m
a
n
a
g
i
n
g
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
i
n
i
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
s
.
H
E
I
s
s
h
o
u
l
d
b
e
a
b
l
e
t
o
d
e
s
i
g
n
s
y
s
t
e
m
s
t
o
e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
l
y
c
a
p
t
u
r
e
b
o
t
h
t
a
c
i
t
a
n
d
e
x
p
l
i
c
i
t
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
o
f
t
h
e
f
a
c
u
l
t
y
m
e
m
b
e
r
s
a
n
d
s
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
a
n
d
d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
i
t
f
o
r
f
u
t
u
r
e
u
s
e
R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
a
n
d
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
(
R
&
D
)
R
&
D
a
r
e
i
n
h
e
r
e
n
t
t
o
a
n
y
H
E
I
,
i
n
c
r
e
d
i
b
l
y
i
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
t
l
y
f
o
r
a
n
e
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
i
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
.
R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
i
n
t
h
e
s
e
i
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
s
i
s
a
m
e
a
n
s
f
o
r
s
o
c
i
a
l
a
n
d
e
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
o
f
t
h
e
c
o
u
n
t
y
.
R
&
D
s
e
r
v
e
s
a
s
a
b
r
i
d
g
i
n
g
g
a
p
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
i
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
i
n
t
e
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
a
c
a
d
e
m
i
a
.
T
h
r
o
u
g
h
R
&
D
,
b
o
t
h
f
a
c
u
l
t
y
m
e
m
b
e
r
s
a
n
d
s
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
c
a
n
g
e
t
t
h
e
p
r
a
c
t
i
c
a
l
e
x
p
o
s
u
r
e
a
n
d
w
o
r
k
o
n
r
e
a
l
-
t
i
m
e
p
r
o
b
l
e
m
s
.
C
o
l
l
e
g
e
a
c
a
d
e
m
i
c
s
t
a
f
f
s
h
o
u
l
d
e
v
o
l
v
e
m
e
c
h
a
n
i
s
m
s
t
o
i
n
t
e
r
a
c
t
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
i
n
d
u
s
t
r
y
,
d
e
l
i
b
e
r
a
t
e
o
n
r
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
t
o
p
i
c
s
w
i
t
h
p
r
a
c
t
i
s
i
n
g
e
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
s
a
n
d
s
h
a
r
e
t
h
e
r
e
s
e
a
r
c
h

n
d
i
n
g
s
i
n
i
n
d
u
s
t
r
y
f
o
r
u
m
s
H
e
a
l
t
h
y
a
n
d
i
n
n
o
v
a
t
i
v
e
p
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
s
(
H
I
P
)
T
h
e
h
e
a
l
t
h
y
a
n
d
b
e
s
t
p
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
s
a
r
e
e
n
u
m
e
r
a
t
e
d
t
o
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
t
o
t
h
e
c
u
l
t
u
r
e
o
f
t
h
e
i
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
.
I
t
s
h
o
u
l
d
c
o
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
l
e
a
r
n
i
n
g
a
n
d
g
r
o
w
t
h
o
f
t
h
e
s
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
h
o
l
i
s
t
i
c
a
l
l
y
a
n
d
j
o
y
f
u
l
l
y
.
H
I
P
a
l
s
o
h
e
l
p
i
n
s
t
r
e
n
g
t
h
e
n
i
n
g
t
h
e
c
u
l
t
u
r
e
a
n
d
i
m
a
g
e
o
f
t
h
e
i
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
.
T
h
e
s
e
H
I
P
s
n
e
e
d
a
p
r
o
a
c
t
i
v
e
t
h
i
n
k
i
n
g
b
y
t
h
e
t
o
p
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
o
f
E
E
I
s
w
h
o
c
a
n
p
l
a
n
s
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
c
a
l
l
y
a
n
d
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
t
o
b
u
i
l
d
a
c
u
l
t
u
r
e
o
f
b
e
l
o
n
g
i
n
g
n
e
s
s
a
n
d
t
r
u
s
t
a
m
o
n
g
t
h
e
s
t
a
k
e
h
o
l
d
e
r
s
.
T
h
e
p
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
s
s
u
c
h
a
s
r
e
w
a
r
d
i
n
g
t
h
e
m
e
r
i
t
o
r
i
o
u
s
s
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
(
w
i
t
h
i
n
d
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
s
,
c
o
l
l
e
g
e
s
/
s
t
a
t
e
l
e
v
e
l
)
a
n
d
t
h
e
s
a
m
e
p
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
c
a
n
b
e
e
x
t
e
n
d
e
d
t
o
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
b
l
e
f
a
c
u
l
t
y
m
e
m
b
e
r
s
.
A
p
r
a
c
t
i
s
e
c
a
n
a
l
s
o
b
e
o
f
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
t
a
k
i
n
g
s
o
m
e
t
i
m
e
o
u
t
r
e
g
u
l
a
r
l
y
f
o
r
s
i
t
t
i
n
g
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
s
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
f
o
r
t
h
e
i
r
c
o
n
c
e
r
n
s
a
n
d
p
r
o
b
l
e
m
s
i
s
a
t
h
o
u
g
h
t
t
h
a
t
w
o
u
l
d
a
d
d
a
l
o
n
g
w
a
y
t
o
w
a
r
d
s
b
u
i
l
d
t
r
u
s
t
a
n
d
g
o
o
d
w
i
l
l
i
n
t
h
e
s
t
u
d
e
n
t
s

m
i
n
d
s
a
n
d
h
e
a
r
t
s
.
T
h
e
s
e
p
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
s
h
e
l
p
t
h
e
i
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
s
t
o
a
t
t
a
i
n
l
o
n
g
-
t
e
r
m
s
u
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
P
e
d
a
g
o
g
y
(
t
e
a
c
h
i
n
g
-
l
e
a
r
n
i
n
g
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
)
(
P
E
D
)
T
h
e
t
e
a
c
h
i
n
g
a
n
d
l
e
a
r
n
i
n
g
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
(
p
e
d
a
g
o
g
y
)
i
s
v
i
t
a
l
f
o
r
t
h
e
s
t
u
d
e
n
t
s

a
c
a
d
e
m
i
c
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
s
e
r
v
e
s
a
s
a
n
i
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
t
m
e
a
n
s
f
o
r
h
i
s
/
h
e
r
l
i
f
e
l
o
n
g
l
e
a
r
n
i
n
g
.
I
t
i
s
i
n
c
l
u
s
i
v
e
o
f
t
h
e
m
o
d
e
s
o
f
c
l
a
s
s
r
o
o
m
t
e
a
c
h
i
n
g
s
u
c
h
a
s
p
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
i
v
e
l
e
a
r
n
i
n
g
,
u
s
a
g
e
o
f
m
u
l
t
i
-
m
e
d
i
a
i
n
t
h
e
c
l
a
s
s
r
o
o
m
,
g
r
o
u
p
d
i
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
s
a
m
o
n
g
s
t
s
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
,
u
n
d
e
r
s
t
a
n
d
i
n
g
c
o
n
c
e
p
t
s
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
p
r
a
c
t
i
c
a
l
a
n
d
r
e
a
l
-
l
i
f
e
e
x
a
m
p
l
e
s
,
e
t
c
.
S
t
u
d
e
n
t
s

p
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
l
e
a
r
n
i
n
g
a
r
e
o
n
l
y
r
e
c
i
p
r
o
c
a
l
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
e
s
i
n
t
h
e
c
o
u
r
s
e
o
f
p
e
d
a
g
o
g
i
c
a
l
s
t
e
p
s
.
T
h
e
m
o
r
e
e
f

c
i
e
n
t
t
h
e
p
e
d
a
g
o
g
y
,
t
h
e
m
o
r
e
e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
i
s
t
h
e
l
e
a
r
n
i
n
g
b
y
t
h
e
s
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
.
T
y
p
i
c
a
l
l
y
,
p
e
d
a
g
o
g
y
i
n
s
p
i
r
e
s
s
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
t
o
l
e
a
r
n
n
e
w
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
(
i
.
e
.
v
a
l
u
e
s
,
u
n
d
e
r
s
t
a
n
d
i
n
g
s
a
n
d
p
r
o
c
e
d
u
r
e
s
)
a
n
d
e
n
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
s
t
h
e
m
t
o
c
h
a
l
l
e
n
g
e
t
h
e
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
p
a
t
t
e
r
n
s
Table AI.
Total quality
management
757
Appendix 2. Instrument-perspective of management
TQM practices/dimensions Section A
1. Top management commitment and support:
(a) Top managements commitment institutional progress
Extent to which:
(i) The vision of your institution emphasizes upon value/importance for quality.
(ii) Your institutions mission statement reects congruency with the stakeholders
interests and concerns.
(iii) The management maintains transparency and fairness in recruitment, work
allocation, recognition and promotion of its employees.
(iv) The institution has standardized the appropriate parameters to measure the
achievement of the institutions envisaged goals.
(v) Data and information are gathered to assess the performance level of each department.
(b) Top managements support strategic planning and execution
Extent to which:
(i) The management of the institution deploys strategic plans for: the overall
development of students.
(ii) The management of the institution deploys strategic plans for: the development of the
institutions infrastructural facilities.
(iii) The management of the institution deploys strategic plans for: the performance
enhancement of the staff.
(iv) The management of the institution takes measures to attract competent faculty
members and bright students to the institution.
(v) The institutions evaluation (for students and staff) processes are known, understood
and accepted by the employees.
(vi) The management understands the responsibility of communicating the strategic
policies and goals to all the employees of the respective departments.
(c) Top managements commitment achieving process excellence
Extent to which:
(i) Social welfare programs and activities such as NCC and NSS are being encouraged
and nurtured by the institution.
(ii) Efforts are taken by the faculty members and the institution to make as many
students as possible get placements.
(iii) Your institution provides the academic calendar well in advance to all the employees
and the students.
(iv) The management of your institution is very particular about the student-faculty ratio
and hence continuously tries to balance the needs (i.e. plans for new recruitments)
with the requirements.
(v) Measures are taken by the institution to improve the quality of the placements
(goodness of offers made, average salary, core jobs, etc.).
(vi) The management takes feedback (formal/informal) from outgoing faculty
members/staff, as well as from alumni.
(d) Top managements support meeting student needs
Extent to which:
BIJ
17,5
758
(i) The management of the institution participates in, and supports the quality
initiatives and activities in the institution.
(ii) The management of the institution lays importance on accountability for fees paid by
the students.
(iii) The management of the institution values the time spent by the students in your
institution.
(iv) The management seeks to strive and infuse value for quality and excellence in the
minds of both internal and external stakeholders.
(v) The placement ofcer consistently keeps in touch with the nal year students to
communicate the industry needs and practices.
2. Infrastructure
(a) Support infrastructure external services
Extent of availability of the following essential (amenities and external services/physical
and support) services in your institution:
(i) Telecom facilities (telephone booths).
(ii) Post ofce.
(iii) Hospitals in the campus.
(iv) Stationary shops.
(v) Book stalls/canteens.
(vi) Banks.
(vii) ATM counters.
(b) Support infrastructure internal services
Extent of availability of the following essential (amenities and internal services/physical
and support) services in your institution:
(i) Transport (bus) facilities.
(ii) Internet connectivity in the laboratory/campus.
(iii) Avenues present for the refreshment/relaxation of faculty members and students:
common rooms.
(iv) Residential facilities/hostels.
(v) Avenues present for the refreshment/relaxation of faculty members and students:
open air theatres (theatre).
(vi) Avenues present for the refreshment/relaxation of faculty members and students:
gymnasium (with coach/guide to teach).
(c) Core infrastructure essential resources
(i) The extent of adequate availability of the essential service being present in the
institution: general hygiene (toilets).
(ii) The degree of easiness of the locations of the laboratory in the institution.
(iii) The degree of easiness of the locations of the library in the institution.
(iv) The degree of easiness of the locations of the classrooms in the institution.
(d) Core infrastructure facilities and layout
(i) The extent of availability of the following avenues present for the
refreshment/relaxation of faculty members and students: gardens/sit-outs.
Total quality
management
759
(ii) The degree of easiness of the locations of the following buildings in the institution:
campus layout and appearance.
(iii) The degree of easiness of the locations of the following buildings in the institution:
administrative building.
(iv) The degree of easiness of the locations of the following buildings in the institution:
lecture/seminar halls.
(e) Core infrastructure pedagogy related
Extent of:
(i) Availability of multi-media laboratory (with overhead projector, etc.).
(ii) Adequacy and accessibility of the computing facilities for the students.
(iii) Availability of the state-of-art physical library (with good quality current/up-to-dated
text-books, reference books and technical research journals) in your institution.
(iv) Availability of state-of-art digital library with updated books and journals.
3. Quality management system
Extent to which:
(i) Your institution has documented, shared and disseminated its quality policy, vision,
mission, values and goals among its stakeholders.
(ii) The quality manuals and procedures to be followed in the institution are properly
documented, and adhered to.
(iii) The employees and the students are persuaded to adhere and abide by the quality
management systems (QMS) (e.g. pollution control, environment protection laws, etc.).
(iv) Information is gathered about the usefulness and effectiveness of quality
management systems such as ISO 9001:2000.
4. Faculty and staff focus
(a) Faculty and staff focus performance
Extent to which:
(i) The management empowers the faculty members in academic matters and decisions
(e.g. in terms of freedomand exibility in delivering the course curricula, pedagogy to
be used in class, etc.).
(ii) The performance of the faculty members and the staff is appraised regularly, and are
suitably appreciated and acknowledged by the management of the institution.
(iii) The areas of possible improvement (after the performance appraisal) are
communicated to the faculty members and staff.
(iv) Measures are taken by the institution to support the faculty members to train and
teach them to cope up with their inefciencies.
(v) The institution takes efforts to promote teamwork and healthy competition among
faculty members by motivating them through group activities, project planning, etc.
(b) Faculty and staff focus professional and career development
Extent to which:
(i) The management promotes succession planning of faculty members in the academic
administration of the institution (e.g. training faculty members in administration
activities).
BIJ
17,5
760
(ii) Management supports (nancially) the faculty members to attend conferences/
workshops (e.g. allocating budgets at the beginning of the year, especially for research
and development activities).
(iii) Management plans the career growth of both faculty members and administrative
staff.
(iv) Management encourages and supports (such as incentives or promotions, etc.) faculty
members to write research proposals and research papers, and to take up industrial
projects.
(v) The management communicates clearly to the faculty members about the performance
expectations (from faculty members) with respect to their involvement and output in
the processes involving teaching, research and industrial collaboration.
5. Student focus
(a) Student focus academic development
Extent to which:
(i) Options are given to students in choosing their elective courses.
(ii) The grading/evaluating systems are well-suited and designed to properly evaluate
the students academic performance.
(iii) Students overall performance is monitored and enhanced (e.g. through academic
counselling, special classes for the academically weak students, etc.).
(iv) Students are counselled and guided to practice moral values and ethics in their daily
lives (such as not succumbing to corruption, bribery or short cuts).
(v) The students are persuaded to follow certain environmental and societal matters (e.g.
pollution, discipline, respect for law, waste disposal, social service, etc.).
(b) Student focus co- and extra-curricular development
Extent to which:
(i) The course materials, as per the prescribed syllabi, are designed properly and
delivered in time to the students.
(ii) Students participation and involvement is sought regularly in all curricular and
co-curricular activities in the institution.
(iii) The students are encouraged and supported to attend seminars, conferences and
workshops.
(iv) Students are provided with nancial and institutional support for developing their:
co-curricular activities (e.g. in the form of holding symposia conferences, having
students chapter of IEEE, etc. in the institution).
(v) Students are provided with nancial and institutional support for developing their:
extra-curricular activities (e.g. holding intercollegiate sports/meet and cultural
events).
(c) Student focus congenial atmosphere in campus
Extent to which:
(i) The management takes measures to keep unfavourable activities away from the
campus (especially from students), e.g. strikes, political parties, etc.
(ii) The management takes measures to keep unfavourable activities away from the
campus (especially from students), e.g. use of alcohol, drugs, etc.
(iii) You take various efforts (in respect of your students) to maintain a disciplinary
atmosphere inside the institution.
Total quality
management
761
(iv) The grievance (counseling) committee for the redressal of complaints and problems
of employees and students is effective.
6. Alumni focus
Extent to which:
(i) The institution takes measures to involve alumni and persons from industry in the
decision-making bodies for the overall development of the institution (e.g. in
Academic Council/Board, Syllabus Committee).
(ii) Formal or informal meetings are regularly conducted to obtain feedback from faculty
members, staff, students, alumni and funding agencies in respect of: attitude of the
management;
(iii) Formal or informal meetings are regularly conducted to obtain feedback from faculty
members, staff, students, alumni and funding agencies in respect of: performance
(functioning) of the management;
(iv) Formal or informal meetings are regularly conducted to obtain feedback from faculty
members, staff, students, alumni and funding agencies in respect of: achieving
continuous improvement in the institutions overall performance.
7. Stakeholder focus
Extent to which:
(i) Feedback from industry and alumni is sought and incorporated in the course design
and course materials.
(ii) Efforts are made by the institution to build regular and healthy relationship with
industry for placements.
(iii) Information regarding your institutions overall performance is circulated properly to
the stakeholders, especially to the alumni, industry and parents of students (e.g.
about achievements, etc.).
(iv) Feedback is gathered and analyzed in respect of the academic programs and
activities of your institution from corporates and the sister institutions.
8. Social responsibility
Extent to which:
(i) Social awareness programs are being conducted through your institution (e.g. AIDS
awareness, child labour problems, dowry system, eradication of illiteracy, etc.).
(ii) Your institution provides educational support to the physically challenged (e.g.
reading software for the blind persons ease, reservation for leprosy cured eligible
students, etc.).
(iii) The level of the provisions present in your institution: for the ease of movement of
physically challenged persons is.
(iv) The level of the provisions present in your institution: for the security and safety of
persons (emergency exits and re extinguishers) in classrooms, laboratories, library,
etc.
9. Industry interface
Extent to which:
(i) Feedback is gathered from industry, parents of students and alumni in respect of
students overall performance.
(ii) Seminars and workshops are arranged frequently in collaboration with industry and
government agencies.
BIJ
17,5
762
(iii) Field/industry experts are invited periodically for guest lectures in regular courses.
(iv) The institution makes necessary arrangements for periodical industrial visits,
summer projects and internships for the students.
(v) Information is gatheredandanalyzed fromcorporates, regarding their requirements and
expectations with respect to the overall personality and potential of your students.
10. Feeder institution partnership
Extent to which:
(i) There is provision for students and faculty members to exchange programs with
sister institutions (other colleges) to share different cultural values and academic
know-how.
(ii) Partnership is built by designing specic courses/programs are designed to cater to
the needs of the sister institutions (short-term training and development/refresher
courses);
(iii) Partnership is built by designing specic courses/programs are designed to cater to
the needs of the corporate employees (e.g. executive MBA, part-time degree courses,
etc.).
(iv) Efforts are taken by the institution to build partnership with the feeder and sister
institutions to improve the quality and standards of the students joining in your
institution.
11. Continuous improvement
Extent to which:
(i) The institution keeps track of the changes/demands of industry and proactively
responds accordingly (e.g. revision of courses and syllabi to address the emerging
and recent trends and technology).
(ii) The institution strives to continuously measure and improve: the overall performance
of the students;
(iii) The institution strives to continuously measure and improve: the overall performance
level of the faculty members and staff.
(iv) Efforts are being taken by the institution to update the library, laboratory facilities
and courses following the recent updates/advances in science and technology.
(v) Efforts are being taken by the management to update the knowledge and skill-set of
the faculty members and staff.
12. Benchmarking
Extent to which:
(i) Efforts are taken by your institution to use comparative information from other
competing institutions to benchmark your institutions; (through surveys, feedback
system, informal meetings, etc.): faculty members education, expertise and
commitment.
(ii) Efforts are taken by your institution to use comparative information from other
competing institutions to benchmark your institutions; (through surveys, feedback
system, informal meetings, etc.): faculty members satisfaction with the institutions
policies.
(iii) Efforts are taken by your institution to use comparative information from other
competing institution s to benchmark your institutions; (through surveys, feedback
system, informal meetings, etc.): level of your students placements.
Total quality
management
763
(iv) Efforts are taken by your institution to use comparative information from other
competing institution s to benchmark your institutions; (through surveys, feedback
system, informal meetings, etc.): students overall performance (in terms of their
curricular performance and co- and extra-curricular activities.
13. Measurement, information and analysis
Extent to which:
(i) Data and information are gathered (from students and staff) for the effective
functioning/performance of the institution with respect to: students satisfaction with
the institutions policy and functioning (e.g. surveys, etc.).
(ii) Data and information are gathered (from students and staff) for the effective
functioning/performance of the institution with respect to: staffs satisfaction with the
institutions policy and functioning (e.g. surveys, etc.).
(iii) Data and information are gathered (from students and staff) for the effective
functioning/performance of the institution with respect to: infrastructure such as
lecture halls, library and laboratories and computing facilities.
(iv) The vision and mission statements of your institution are reviewed and revised
periodically keeping the stakeholders interests in mind.
14. Knowledge management
Extent to which:
(i) Faculty members and students, from different departments with similar interests, are
pooled in towards creating a useful knowledge base.
(ii) The knowledge of students and faculty members is documented (through the creation
of research/technical reports and working papers) for internal circulation and future
reference.
(iii) Creativity and innovation among students and faculty members is encouraged by
providing formal and informal platforms to share knowledge across disciplines.
(iv) The management tries to continually improve and update the information systems of
the institution for better and quick transmission of important campus news and
information.
15. Research and development
Extent to which:
(i) The management proactively plans the budgets for necessary purposes likely to be
spent on faculty members, staff and students (e.g. on training, research and
development, etc.).
(ii) The management provides encouragement and opportunities to you to work towards
theoretical/fundamental research and industrial projects.
(iii) Extent to which required infrastructural/institutional support is provided to the
faculty members and students to carry out projects.
(iv) Efforts are made to seek data from competing institutions for the purpose of BM your
institutions position on various issues.
16. Healthy and innovative practices
Extent to which:
(i) The management tries to instil in the minds of the students to passionately learn and
grow (lifelong learning).
BIJ
17,5
764
(ii) The management of the institution takes conscious efforts to identify the conicting
diverse interests of the stakeholders and takes appropriate measures to synthesize
them.
(iii) The management of the institution sits together with the students (i.e. students
community or representatives) to discuss and solve their issues and problems.
(iv) You take efforts to create an atmosphere where students, faculty members and staff
take in pride and fullment to come to your institution.
(v) You take efforts to encourage and consistently boost the morale of your employees.
(vi) The management takes initiatives to educate and support the faculty members to
counsel and guide the students.
(vii) Institution provides recognition in the form of monetary assistance or rewards to the
best performing students (such as fellowships, etc.) to enhance the institutions
reputation and image.
17. Pedagogy
Extent to which:
(i) Students are encouraged to give regular feedback on the pedagogy (i.e. teaching
process, its effectiveness, communication between the teacher and the students,
etc.).
(ii) Multi-media (in teaching) is being regularly utilized (e.g. use of overhead projector,
power-point presentation, etc.) by the faculty members of your institution.
(iii) The students work together with faculty and staff to create the culture of learning
and academic growth in an institution.
(iv) The institution makes efforts to recruit experienced faculty members to meet the
needs of the various categories of students (graduate and postgraduate) at regular
intervals.
Measures of institutional performance Section B
1. Institution reputation and image
The extent to which:
(i) The institution is successful in creating a culture of learning and growth.
(ii) The institutions reputation and image has increased, over the last three years.
(iii) The quality (academic-performance) of the students joining into your institution has
improved, over the last three years.
(iv) The percentage of students going for higher studies has increased over the last three
years.
(v) The overall performance of the students has increased and improved, over the last
three years.
2. Infrastructure quality
The extent to which:
(i) The infrastructural facilities in your institution, has increased and improved, over the
last three years.
(ii) The percentage of library resources (number of books and journals) has increased and
improved, over the years.
Total quality
management
765
(iii) The laboratory equipments (seats and experimental setups) has increased and
improved over the last three years.
(iv) The accession of computing facilities has increased and improved, over the last three
years.
3. Faculty excellence
The extent to which:
(i) The institution is successful in achieving its overall vision, mission, strategic plans
and stated goals.
(ii) The student-faculty ratio in your institution has improved, in the last three years.
(iii) The level of overall performance of faculty members has increased in terms of:
commitment to continuous improvement in quality and excellence.
(iv) The level of overall performance of faculty members has increased in terms of:
providing guidance and counselling to students.
(v) The level of overall performance of faculty members has increased in terms of:
excelling in academic activities (including teaching, research conduct of continuing
education programs and consultancy).
4. Research and industry exposure
The extent to which:
(i) Excellence of research-based and industry-based projects undertaken by the faculty
members and the students, over the last three years.
(ii) Increase in the research activities and publication of research papers in journals and
conferences, patents, awards and prizes won by the faculty members and students,
over the last three years.
(iii) The quality of placement has increased over the last three years (in terms of number
of students placed, goodness of placement offers made, etc.).
(iv) The industry interface and partnership has increased and strengthened, over the past
three years.
5. Stakeholder satisfaction
With respect of overall performance of your institution over the last three years:
(i) Increase in the satisfaction level of: your students.
(ii) Increase in the satisfaction level of: your staff.
(iii) Increase in the satisfaction level of: your alumni.
(iv) Increase in the satisfaction level of: employers of your students.
(v) Increase in the satisfaction level of: parents of your students.
Section C
Subjective questions:
(1) What are the main problems/hindrances that your institution faces which hinders its
growth from being the excellent engineering educational institution in India?
(2) What are the reasons for the above-mentioned problems?
(3) What are the ways to overcome the problems?
BIJ
17,5
766
Section D
Demographic questions:
a. Your position (designation) in the Institution: ___________________________
b. Age: ________ (years)
c. Gender: Male Female
d. Name of the University/College: ________________________________________
e. State/City in which it is situated: ________________________________________
f. Year of establishment of your Institution: _______________
g. Number of years you have been serving in the Institution: _____________
h. Wheth er you had any industry experience before joining academics?
i. Whether you have worked in any other academic Institution before this Institute?
Yes No
Yes No
Corresponding author
Chandrasekharan Rajendran can be contacted at: craj@iitm.ac.in
Total quality
management
767
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints