Constructs of quality in higher education services

Abstract

Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to present various quality constructs, their application, success and shortcomings, in higher education (HE) services.

Design/methodology/approach
This paper aims at reviewing the quality constructs in higher education services through a general review. The paper is organised to highlight different quality practices which higher education institutions have followed from 1990s till date. The paper is scoped to discuss about total quality management (TQM), Kaizen, Six Sigma, Lean and Lean Six Sigma (LSS) comparing their value addition and shortcoming in imbibing quality into the higher education. Publications indexed in Scopus database are considered for the review. The focus of the search in the selected publications was to identify the success and shortcomings of various quality constructs in HE services.

Findings
The requirement for a quality construct in higher education industry is an important finding of the paper. Alongside this, the reasons behind the shortcoming of quality practices used in higher education system were highlighted. The findings include the opportunities for future research for imbibing quality culture in HE.

Research limitations/implications
The literature discussed in the part of the paper is restricted to TQM, Kaizen, Six Sigma, Lean and LSS. Though the usage of such quality practices in HE originated in 1990s, there is no one robust sustainable practice till date, which proved to be a pacesetter. This paper validates this assertion, which helps both academicians and practitioners with a new perspective.

Originality/value
This paper would serve as an excellent resource for both academicians and practitioners to understand the history of quality which contributed to the improvement in HE services, and how the quality excellence has evolved over the years. The paper concludes with a discussion on opportunities for future research to develop quality frameworks for HE services.

Full text

Constructs of quality in higher
education services
Vijaya Sunder M.
Department of Management Studies, Indian Institute of Technology,
IIT-Madras, Chennai, India
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to present various quality constructs, their application,
success and shortcomings, in higher education (HE) services.
Design/methodology/approach –This paper aims at reviewing the quality constructs in higher
education services through a general review. The paper is organised to highlight different quality practices
which higher education institutions have followed from 1990s till date. The paper is scoped to discuss
about total quality management (TQM), Kaizen, Six Sigma, Lean and Lean Six Sigma (LSS) comparing
their value addition and shortcoming in imbibing quality into the higher education. Publications indexed in
Scopus database are considered for the review. The focus of the search in the selected publications was to
identify the success and shortcomings of various quality constructs in HE services.
Findings –The requirement for a quality construct in higher education industry is an important
finding of the paper. Alongside this, the reasons behind the shortcoming of quality practices used in
higher education system were highlighted. The findings include the opportunities for future research
for imbibing quality culture in HE.
Research limitations/implications –The literature discussed in the part of the paper is restricted
to TQM, Kaizen, Six Sigma, Lean and LSS. Though the usage of such quality practices in HE
originated in 1990s, there is no one robust sustainable practice till date, which proved to be a
pacesetter. This paper validates this assertion, which helps both academicians and practitioners with a
new perspective.
Originality/value –This paper would serve as an excellent resource for both academicians and
practitioners to understand the history of quality which contributed to the improvement in HE
services, and how the quality excellence has evolved over the years. The paper concludes with a
discussion on opportunities for future research to develop quality frameworks for HE services.
Keywords Six Sigma, Lean, Lean Six Sigma, Higher education, Improvement, TQM, Quality, Kaizen
Paper type Literature review
1. Introduction to quality
During the past few decades, “Quality”has become a major area of interest for
practitioners, and researchers owing to its strong impact on performance in
organisations, lower costs, customer satisfaction, customer loyalty and profitability
(Leonard and Sasser, 1982; Seth et al., 2005). Quality has indeed evaded a standard
definition because quality tends to depend on the context, especially in the service
environment and can often be based subjectively on several parameters like the
industry, segment, customer needs, organisation culture, time, etc. However, the works
of Deming, Crosby and Juran did provide a foundation for defining relevant criteria to
establish quality as a management science. According to Crosby, quality excellence
means “Conformance to requirements”and quality must be defined as a measurable
action based on tangible targets rather than based on experience or opinions International Journal of
Productivity and Performance
Management
Vol. 65 No. 8, 2016
pp. 1091-1111
© Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1741-0401
DOI 10.1108/IJPPM-05-2015-0079
Received 27 May 2015
Revised 9 November 2015
Accepted 8 December 2015
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/1741-0401.htm
The author would like to dedicate this paper to Sri Sathya Sai Baba, who taught the author the
value of integral education. The author would like to thank Professor L.S. Ganesh (IIT-M), for
being the author’s guide and inspiration in research.
1091
Constructs
of quality in
HE services

(Crosby, 1979). Juran mentioned that quality excellence is a concept of managerial
breakthrough and could be achieved through the quality trilogy ( Juran, 1986). Deming
suggested that quality excellence could not be achieved in organisations without
educating leadership on importance of quality –obligations, principles and methods
(Krishnaiah and Rao, 1988). The research on quality excellence has been building over
the theories of these three masters. From past two decades, researchers have seen a
paradigm shift of viewing quality excellence from manufacturing to services. There
has been incessant effort made by researchers to understand the quality perspectives
across service industry and higher education sector is not an exception. This paper
aims at reviewing the literature of quality in higher education services. Publications
indexed in Scopus database are considered for the review. The focus of the search in the
selected publications was to identify the success and shortcomings of various quality
constructs in HE services. The paper is organised to highlight different quality
constructs which higher education institutions have followed since the 1990s. From the
initial concepts of total quality management (TQM) to the recent evolution of Lean Six
Sigma (LSS), the constructs of quality for higher education are elaborated in this paper.
Every section below starts with an introduction to the respective quality construct,
following its application and success in the HE. Each section is further elaborated with
the shortcoming of the respective quality construct. The paper is discusses about TQM,
Kaizen, Six Sigma, Lean and LSS comparing and contrasting their value addition and
drawbacks in introducing quality into higher education. Future research opportunities
on the subject are also discussed as part of the paper.
2. Higher education industry (HEI) –an overview
Higher education is defined as education beyond secondary level. Higher education
courses are usually studied at universities, university colleges and higher
education institutions. Higher education also includes certain college-level institutions
which include vocational schools and career colleges that award academic degrees or
professional certifications. The difference between education institutions and higher
education institutions need not be looked at only from the higher-grade degrees
perspective. Bebedelis (2008) says that higher education is a process of eliciting and
rearing the human values latent in every individual. This underpins the additional
responsibility for higher education institutions to prepare students from a holistic
perspective, making them readily acceptable for the betterment of society. Engineering
colleges, arts and science institutions and B-schools predominantly contribute to higher
education in today’s competitive education system. The HEI is complex and diverse.
It combines a dominant public sector of state universities and community colleges that
educate majority of all students. The benefits of higher education include advanced
peer learning, field placements, broadened discipline knowledge, specialisation, etc.
(Litten, 1980; Bynner et al., 2003). Perna (2003) attributes the private benefits of higher
education to the observed earnings premium. However, in the twentieth century,
economists argued education as a public good that could drive national technological
progress through developing human capital or by increasing individual employability
for the benefit of nation’s economy. Researchers such as Milton Friedman, Gary Becker
and Jacob Mincer developed the “human capital”theory as a way of understanding and
estimating the value of education to both individuals and society for the public good
(Bloom et al., 2007). More recently the public good of HE has been linked to the
promotion of social justice through increasing social mobility and exposure towards
human values (Williams, 2014). According to SaiBaba (2008), education is for life and
1092
IJPPM
65,8

not merely for living. The purpose of higher education is beyond private and public
good, leading to self-actualisation through human values.
Today the HEI has evolved with the flourishing of non-profit schools that
encompass some of the world’s most influential research universities, such as Harvard,
Princeton, Stanford, etc., and other hundreds of schools, many of which are
competitively oriented. There is no single measure of the industry’s size, but in the
USA, HEI enrols about 19 million students and employs 3.4 million people, which is
3 per cent of the entire US service-sector workforce. A small number of schools are very
illustrious, but the industry includes 4,314 degree-granting institutions (US Department
of Education, National Studies of Education Statistics, 2007). According to the
UK-based studies, HEI is a major service sector and export earner, attracting over £10
billion of export earnings, nearly £5.7 billion of which was paid directly to universities
for their services. It was also identified that in the UK, the HEI is contributing to
2.8 per cent of UK GDP, generating significant employment opportunities accounting
for 2.7 per cent of all UK employment equivalent to 757,268 jobs (Snowden, 2014).
In India, the number of higher education institutions has grown to greater numbers
since independence. In 2011, there were 611 universities and university-level
institutions and 31324 colleges in India (Bhalla, 2012). It is evident that a significant
variation exists among national higher education systems around the world.
Differences amongst nations include the types of higher education institutions
(universities, vocational schools, polytechnics, etc.) and nature of those institutions
(public and private) and the relative weight and reputation of each of these in the
overall higher education system. The analysis of the evolution of HEI, in the course of
the past 30 years across different parts of the world reveal that the basic mission of HEI
remains and will remain attached to four principal goals (World Conference on Higher
Education, 1998) namely: the development of new knowledge –the research function,
the training of highly qualified personnel –the teaching function, the provision of
services to society, the ethical function, and which implies social criticism.
3. Need for quality in higher education
The evolving application of quality in the education sector takes its roots from the theories
emerging since the early 1990s and even before. The definition of quality adopted by most
analysts and policy makers in higher education is that of fitness for purpose (Vroeijenstijn,
1990). Quality is a relative concept, that different interest groups or “stakeholders”in
higher education have different priorities and their focus of attention may be different. The
need for quality has become more significant for HE institutions across the globe, over the
passage of time. Both global and national forces are driving change within and across
individual countries and their higher education institutions, and hence adopting a quality
excellence framework becomes essential for the HE institutions (Brookes and Beckett,
2009). According to Bandyopadhyay and Lichtman (2007), universities and colleges in the
USA and other countries have been continuously striving for higher standards under the
continuous pressure of public scrutiny and budget cuts in private, state and federal
funding. Amongst British evidence, Hussain et al. (2009) interacted with various graduate
groups and a set of quality variables identified that reinforced the need for quality in HE.
Chevalier (2014), highlights through a study the importance of quality in the UK education
system. Gandhi (2015) argues that the changes in the educational landscape have forced
theHEsysteminIndiatorevolutionisethestyleofworkingandhencethereisaneedfor
quality practice to revamp the process of teaching-learning-evaluation. According to
Harmon (2015), though Australian universities recognise the importance of quality in
1093
Constructs
of quality in
HE services

HE system, there are major quality issues involved, particularly in working with
international students, as well as major financial risks concerning overseas campus
developments by Australian public universities. A recent study claims that quality is
neglected in the HE system in China. Though China experienced dramatic higher
education expansion in the past decade, low importance of quality caused many problems,
such as decline of educational expense per student, deteriorating teaching conditions and
employment difficulty for colleges graduates ( Jiang, 2015).
Hence, higher education providers need to consider innovative ways to arrange their
infrastructure and education processes. The rapid expansion of the community college
system in the USA put postsecondary institutions within the geographic reach of most
of the American population, but this was a result of massive investment, and there is
definitely a need to safeguard this investment though quality excellence. The UNESCO
World conference report, of 2009, states that the European Union directives are
pursuing the goal of maximising both flexibility and security in employment. However,
the analysis shows that lack of practical knowledge makes this goal challenging for
students after completing their higher education. Ideally, the approach should involve
engaging students actively in the learning process by exposing them to practical
perspective and application-oriented learning. According to Vijaya Sunder (2014),
quality excellence models can provide such learning in students. He further argues that,
for efficient learning and career development of students, imparting application-
oriented practical knowledge into students becomes more essential than the traditional
book theory knowledge, and quality excellence frameworks are essential to define,
manage and stabilise the processes involved.
Another important issue which many HE institutions have been facing is not to realise
students as customers, and institution’s basic need is to serve them. This is surprising
given the fact that to be effective, organisations should be customer driven. Harvey and
Knight (1996) argues that the emphasis on quality in industry lies predominantly with
the customer, whereas in higher education there is a continued debate regarding who the
customer actually is Woodall et al. (2014) claims that students are increasingly
demonstrating customer-like behaviour and are now demanding even more “value”from
institutions. There is evidence in the literature where researchers claimed students as
customers of higher education service (Elbeck and Vander Schee, 2015; Mark, 2012;
Sherry et al., 2004; McCollough and Gremler, 1999). With advocates declaring students as
customers of the higher education services, critics expressed discomfort in absorbing the
customer concept into higher education and claimed that it degrades the educator-
student relationship (Eagle and Brennan, 2007). But when it comes to the teaching and
learning process students tend to be considered actors in the process, since the result of it
will depend on their willingness to learn. Further, Svensson and Wood (2007) argue that
customers maintain the relative strength between rights and obligations throughout the
relationship cycle, which is not the case with students. Hence there has been a clear
debate throughout the literature whether to consider students as customers for higher
education services or not (Barrett, 1996; Vuori, 2013; Durkin et al., 2012).
The next critical need for quality is lack of a standard system for measuring success
of HE institutions. The intangible nature of the educational process and product makes
measurement vastly different from measuring the output of a manufacturing process
where physical properties and well-established measurement procedures exist
(Does et al., 2002). Roffe (1998) suggests that while there are a small number of
performance indicators in industry, these are more numerous and complex in higher
education and are therefore more difficult to assess (Figure 1).
1094
IJPPM
65,8

Other challenges faced by HE institutions are related to the nature of the industry itself,
which is more complex compared to manufacturing. Unlike other industry’s production
and consumption of products or services, teaching and learning are different, and
cannot be split apart into two halves: teaching on the one hand and learning on the
other (Edler, 2003). It has to be noted that unlike products or service, education cannot
be bought by merely spending money. In fact, if knowledge is the metric for higher
education, then it cannot be quantified with money equivalent as business. Hence HE
institutions have a higher responsibility compared to other industries to prepare
students for life and not merely for income. According to the global overview of Sathya
Sai Education (2007), education is not for mere living; it is for life, a fuller life, a more
meaningful, and a more worthwhile life. This evolving thought process in universities
reinforces the need to instil quality excellence for HE institutions. The requirement to
provide advanced education has become a more strategic issue for colleges and
universities (Duderstadt, 1999).
The above discussion clarifies that it is highly important and essential for higher
education across the globe, to focus on quality perspectives to embark on the quality
excellence journey. There are several higher education institutions which have adopted
various quality constructs, discussed in the sections below.
4. TQM for higher education providers
TQM is a management approach that originated in the 1950s and has progressively
become more admired since the early 1980s. A few of the key concepts according to this
management philosophy were compiled by Houston (1988), with his experience at the
US Navy Personnel Research and Development Center. Accordingly, the key features
are: quality is defined by customers; top management has responsibility for quality
improvement; level of quality increases as the processes improve; and quality
improvement is a continuous journey (Houston, 1988). According to the Chartered
Quality institute, TQM is a management approach centred on quality, based on
the participation of an organisation’s people and aiming at long-term success
Need for innovation
Quality Excellence
in Higher Education system
Need for
process improvement
Practical learning
for students
Customer satisfaction
Need for a
measurement system
Need to safeguard
investments
Budget crunches
Higher standards
Key performance
indicators Global and
national forces
Complexity
in the system
Preparing students
for a meaningful life
Figure 1.
Factors driving the
need for quality in
higher education
1095
Constructs
of quality in
HE services

(ISO 8402:1994). This is achieved through customer satisfaction and benefits all
members of the organisation and society (www.thecqi.org/Knowledge-Hub/Resources/
Factsheets/Total-quality-management/). From an organisations perspective, TQM is a
company culture characterised by increased customer satisfaction through continuous
improvements (CIs), in which all employees actively participate (Dahlgaard et al., 1998).
While TQM has been applied in the manufacturing area for a long time, service
application of TQM is relatively less. Some authors found that effective implementation
of TQM has improved financial and operational performance in service organisations
impacting the customer satisfaction and overall company performance (Hendricks and
Singhal, 2001; Shah and Ward, 2003).
Implementation of TQM principles is also applicable to higher education (Owlia and
Aspinwall, 1997). History shows instances where attempts were made in colleges and
universities for TQM implementation. The early application of TQM practice in higher
education could be attributed to the Wolverhampton University, UK. However,
Narasimhan (1997) claims that the first application of TQM in US higher education was
at Fox Valley Technical College, USA. As a result of this, the college has become more
efficient in areas such as placement of graduates, employer satisfaction with contracted
training programmes, acceptance of college credits at receiving institutions and
improvement in its learning environment. Lozier and Teeter (1996) cited the use of TQM
methods in an introductory statistics class at the Samford University in the USA that
resulted in higher student satisfaction. Many other institutions began to implement TQM
in 1990s, including the University of Wisconsin-Madison, North Dakota University
System, Delaware Community College and the Oregon State University (Seymour, 1992).
Karapetrovic and Willborn (1999) defined quality excellence in education as the ability of
student’s knowledge to satisfy stated requirements –those requirements being set by
employers, accrediting bodies, professional societies, etc. The focus on understanding
customer requirements being the pre-requisite of any quality programme, Pitman et al.
(1996) stressed the importance of addressing the needs of all customer groups for higher
education sector. Owlia and Aspinwall (1997) surveyed 124 people involved in
educational quality efforts in the USA, Europe, India and Australia. The results identified
students as the primary customer, followed by employers, society, faculty and families in
descending order of relative importance. However, there was no clarity of how to
understand or measure the requirements from various customer groups using TQM
principles in HEI. Recent literature shows evidence of many successful implementations
of TQM practices in higher education. If TQM is appropriately managed, it supports the
institutions in achieving quality excellence, but the TQM construct has witnessed many
shortcomings in HEI.
Shortcomings of TQM
A survey was conducted among Boston area higher education institutions which have
implemented TQM and marketed their programmes with lot of investment early in the
1990s (Sims and Sims, 1995). By 1994, five of the ten institutions had stopped, and were
not implementing their TQM projects. Many other higher education institutions have
excelled at announcing TQM programmes, but were incapable of implementing them
fully or reaping significant benefits. Many education professionals believe that TQM
directed at academics could cause huge resistance to change. They note that higher
education is a very humanistic area where autonomy and academic freedom are highly
valued, where specialized faculties passionately protect their turf (Satterlee, 1996). James
Tannock (1991) says that a TQM programme cannot be successful in the Education
1096
IJPPM
65,8

sector, without bringing a cultural change to the organisation. In this regard, it is
important to identify a small number of key performance indicators and metrics, which
allow quality problems to be identified, alongside cultural attributes in universities.
These indicators must be planned so as to address critical questions concerning customer
satisfaction. Some of these could be the curriculum design, student satisfaction level,
teacher’s ability and skills, pass percentage of students in examinations, university
infrastructure assessment, etc. Though TQM was successful in improving the level of
processes for the HEI, it was not clearly defined who the customer is, and how to capture
the voice of the customer. According to Kanji et al. (1999), the customers of HEI are
divided into different groups of actors that accept the education process. This includes
existing and potential students, employees, employers, government and industry. Owing
to their different characteristics, they bring to bear certain demands that affect the
behaviour of the education system (Kanji et al., 1999). Later in 1996, reports from Japan
show both that the country was encountering economic difficulties and that TQM had
little relevance to the situation (Koch and Fisher, 1998). Even though a relatively high use
of TQM was reported by administrative, support and academic departments of
universities, only a small number of institutions (17 per cent in 1995 and 15 per cent in
1998) employed a complete TQM model (Vazzana et al., 2000). Several other issues lead to
the shortfall of TQM for the higher education sector. These include the missed
opportunity of measuring the TQM applications, lack of a specialised toolkit, and many
TQM concepts such as employee involvement are difficult to be systematically measured
(Bayraktar et al., 2008). Harari (1997) states that, only about one-fifth, of the TQM
programmes in the USA and Europe have achieved significant or even tangible
improvements in quality, productivity, competitiveness or financial results. In fact, Ewell
(1993) suggested that the rise in TQM efforts in the 1990s was driven by the difficult
financial situation in higher education in those years, rather than by any genuine effort to
improve the educational services.
5. The Kaizen philosophy for higher education providers
Following the era of TQM, was the Kaizen movement or CI. Institutions started
realising the importance of quality as not a tool nor a process, but a journey towards CI.
This concept of CI comes from the Japanese term Kaizen that was initially developed
and spread by Masaaki Imai (Imai, 1989) who is known as the father of CI. According to
Chang (2005), the CI cycle consists of establishing customer requirements, meeting the
requirements, measuring success and continuing to check customers’requirements to
find areas in which improvements can be made. Manos (2007) defined CI as a series of
subtle and gradual improvements that are made over time. In the Toyota Way
Fieldbook, Liker and Meier discuss the Kaizen blitz and Kaizen burst approaches to CI.
A kaizen blitz, or rapid improvement, is a focussed activity on a particular process or
activity. The basic concept is to identify and quickly remove waste. Kaizen burst is a
specific kaizen event on a particular process in the value stream (Liker and Meier, 2006).
A better use of theory and practice lectures may be achieved through a proper
organisation and presentation of theoretical and practical subjects in universities. In this
regard, Kaizen techniques which have been often associated with manufacturing and
engineering would help. An interesting aspect of the Kaizen process is that it utilises
various tools and methods tomake the problems visible at the source (Zimmerman, 1991).
Studies reveal that one of these techniques, known as 5S, is used to establish and
maintain quality environment, and it can be very useful in the field of education. Most 5S
practitioners consider this technique valuable not just for improving their physical
1097
Constructs
of quality in
HE services

environment but for improving their thinking processes as well. CI studies gave
importance to the aspects of leadership, specifically in higher education institutions,
realising its importance in the success in their quality programmes. Since educational
institutions serve socializing purposes in society, they ought to practise total quality
leadership so that students may acquire the sort of competence that is needed at present
in society at large (Stensaasen, 1995). The CI movement which emphasised small CIs also
witnessed several studies that discussed the application of quality management
principles applied by the higher education providers (Bailey and Bennett, 1996; Coate,
1999). CI in traditional classroom-style business school education is of increasing
importance given the many recent calls to improve graduate business school education
(Karapetrovic et al., 1999; Donaldson, 2002; Etzioni, 2002; Mintzberg et al., 2002). A few
studies also reveal that reputed accreditation bodies for universities emphasise Kaizen
culture, as one of the attributes of evaluating the university. Accreditation of degree
programmes in business or management by AACSB International (The Association to
Advance Collegiate Schools of Business) is intended to: “[…] assure quality and promote
excellence and continuous improvement for graduate education […]”(AACSB, 2004).
Emiliani (2005) described the Kaizen approach taken at Rensselaer Polytechnic
Institute, NY. The results reveal that eight small improvements were successfully
implemented in a short span of 30 days. The study concluded that Kaizen workout
sessions eliminated ambiguity in syllabus related to class participation and assignments,
eliminated variation in the syllabus such as format, course description, course, etc., and
eliminated duplicate teaching materials, such as case studies or journal articles used in
two courses. The application of Kaizen in many such higher education institutions is
evident from the literature. However, very sparse literature is available about the success
stories, and sustenance factors of kaizen in HEI.
Shortcomings of Kaizen movement
The Literature provides stories of CI initiatives and their failure in higher education
institutions, with little written about truly defined and sustained success. Fundamental
issues such as the nature of the curriculum and the allocation of faculty time have been
extremely resistant to CI campaigns, not the least because faculty usually cast a
jaundiced eye on any development that threatens to loosen their grip over course and
degree requirements, or their ability to allocate their own time (Koch and Fisher, 1998).
Previous research suggested that even a perfectly implemented Kaizen system would
not ensure prosperity long term (Macleod and Baxter, 2001). There were several
deficiencies which the Kaizen programmes faced especially in the higher education
system. Non-involvement of students to build the culture of CI was the prominent
reason. It is important for the students to realise that they are customers as well as
suppliers of the educational system. Hence, students cannot leave total responsibility
for their education to the teachers. They have equal responsibility in order to fulfil the
CI commitment (Dahlgaard et al., 1995). Another important drawback which the CI
programmes faced are lack of a structured project management approach, which had a
cascading effect on the overall quality excellence of the institution. Another major
deficiency of the Kaizen events was the lack of on-the-job training. Following the
necessary education, it becomes essential for both employees and students of
the universities to begin on-the-job training. The best form of training is to use the
techniques on the problems they can identify, and want to solve. In order to implement
on-the-job training, a learning plan should be adopted (Kanji and Wallace, 1994). A brief
review of the literature of higher education reveals that the major problems faced by
1098
IJPPM
65,8

universities today as a challenge towards CI on a sustainable basis, relate to curriculum
improvement, experiential learning, sponsorship, allotment of faculty time, teaching
practise vs research, faculty status, tenure, student access, distance learning and the
use of technology, pricing of higher education, etc. (Koch and Fisher, 1998).
6. Six Sigma for higher education institutions
Several other quality methodologies exist in market for imbibing quality excellence in
organisations; however, nothing compares the effectiveness of Six Sigma when it
comes to improving operational efficiency and productivity (Welch and Welch, 2007).
Six Sigma is an emerging approach to quality assurance and quality management.
Six Sigma emphasises on continuous quality improvements to improve process
efficiencies aiming to exceed the customer expectations (Sokovic et al., 2006).
Six Sigma is a business strategy that seeks to identify and eliminate causes of errors
or defects or failures in business processes by focussing on outputs that are critical to
customers (Snee, 1999). The important feature of Six Sigma is that it is a data-driven
process improvement methodology, used to achieve stable and predictable process
results. Six Sigma not only focusses on reducing process variation and defects,
but also encourages creating a process thinking mindset in the organisation
(Vijaya Sunder and Antony, 2015). The problem solving approach of Six Sigma
suggests the define-measure-analyse-improve-control (DMAIC) and the design for
Six Sigma methods as the two most common methodologies to implement Six Sigma.
However, Edgeman and Dugan (2008) say that the main objectives of these two
techniques are quite different.
The application of Six Sigma DMAIC methodology to improve quality in
engineering education has been successful in improving the quality consciousness with
students and the management of institution (Prasad et al., 2012). Several other authors
have examined the role of Six Sigma to support the decision-making in science and
engineering programmes at universities. Burtner (2004) recommended using the
Six Sigma methodology at the Mercer University School of Engineering to provide
university administrators with the data they needed to make effective changes in
programming and policy. In the early stages of deployment, four projects were
identified as potential Six Sigma projects at the Mercer University School of
Engineering and these projects addressed issues ranging from retention and success of
students in mathematics classes, reduction in the amount of time taken by students
to graduate from an engineering programme, and success stories of women as
engineering students. Jenicke et al. (2008) suggested that a framework is needed to
successfully implement Six Sigma in academic environment. They propose such a
framework in terms of implementation level, Six Sigma methodology and key
performance indicators. They also provide examples of strategic objectives and
performance indicators by levels of implementation for the DMAIC process. Several
other publications were identified in the literature where researchers expressed various
perspectives of Six Sigma implementation for higher education institutions. Johnson
(2006) described using Six Sigma to design university housing. Kumi and Morrow
(2006) elaborated the application of Six Sigma to improve service at university libraries.
A few authors sensed the importance of college professor’s role to imbibe process
thinking skills within students for successful implementation of Six Sigma. Ho et al.
(2006) recommend Six Sigma methodology for the higher education institutions as it
demonstrates an excellent platform for infusing statistical education into higher
education curriculum.
1099
Constructs
of quality in
HE services

Shortcomings of Six Sigma
Few studies in higher education highlight the difficulties of implementing Six Sigma in
an University environment. The challenges include the difficulty in defining the right
customers for a university, the nature of the product, and the difficulty of measuring
quality and reward systems for employees (Holmes et al., 2005). Considering that the
customer focus is important, even at universities offering higher education, the
customers have to be defined. Maguad and Krone (2012) claim that students
are the primary customers, while the faculty, departments, non-teaching,
administrative staff also form part of the customer community at colleges. They
claim that while students are primary customers for higher education, they differ from
typical business customers in a number of ways. For example, colleges or universities
often admit students based on certain academic standards and requirements. Business
usually does not do that, as business does not prevent prospective customers
purchasing their products or services (Maguad and Krone, 2012). Another challenge of
implementing a Six Sigma programme in the higher education sector is its statistical
toolkit which does not make all students comfortable to apply in projects without
structured education at least at green belt level (Vijaya Sunder, 2014). Students from
science or humanities background will definitely need more exposure to apply the Six
Sigma toolkit unlike statistics or management students.
7. Lean for higher education institutions
Lean manufacturing originated as a philosophy of continuously simplifying processes and
eliminating waste (Tatikonda, 2007). Lean encourages incremental improvement of an
activity to eliminate waste, variation and over-burden (called muda, mura and muri in
Japanese) and create more value (Ohno, 1988; Womack and Jones, 1996). In fact, Lean
implementation has led to better bottom-line performance including total cycle time
reductions, better customer service levels and higher profit margins (Towill, 2007). The
Lean methodology adopted the earlier quality concepts to make this easier for the front
line of the organisation to understand and apply quality excellence on the operations floor.
For example, Lean has a general process of implementation similar to the Shewhart cycle
of plan-do-study-act. Literature shows instances where various authors published several
other Lean models of working. Tapping et al. (2002) divided the implementation of Lean
into three stages –understand the demand, improve flow and level-load the process. The
Womack and Jones model, which is most widely used in Lean implementations, has five
Lean principles (Womack and Jones, 2003; Tischler, 2006):
(1) value –asking what customers value and want;
(2) the value stream –map the value added and non-value added activities;
(3) flow –do the work in such a way that it flows through the process smoothly;
(4) pull –produce only what customers ask for, when they need it; and
(5) perfection –keep improving.
Lean and the higher education sector have affinity to each other right from the early
days. In fact the approach to improving performance (doing more) while using the
minimum amount of precious resources (with less) has been nicknamed Lean by
researchers at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) for its ability to do just
that. The application of Lean principles in higher education has led to significant
improvements. The benefits include lead time reduction, increase in throughput, low
1100
IJPPM
65,8

infrastructure cost, increase student satisfaction, etc. (Parasmal, 2009). The primary
objective of Lean implementation is to eliminate waste, and Jens Jorn Dahlgaard in
2000, for the first time defined the eight wastes in the context of higher education
(Dahlgaard and Ostergaard, 2000; Barroso et al., 2010):
(1) uncoordinated teaching, coaching and testing, with the consequence that
students do not pass exams;
(2) graduate students, who do not have the ability to get a job and do not have
lifelong learning capabilities;
(3) scheduling courses for which the students have not yet got the appropriate
qualifications to pass;
(4) courses that do not contribute to the customer value concepts;
(5) bad planning and mistakes in teaching, coaching and testing so that students,
teachers and the supportive staff have to move from one place to another or
from time to another without any purpose, or have to repair damage and
mistakes they are not responsible for;
(6) bad planning so that materials and facilities needed for teaching, coaching and
testing are not appropriate in terms of time, cost and quality;
(7) teachers and students in downstream activities are waiting because upstream
activities at the supportive staff level have not been delivered in time and vice-
versa; and
(8) design of courses and supportive activities, which do not meet the needs of the
customers inside and outside the higher educational institution
Further, few authors have argued that there are four general categories of waste in higher
education institutions. People waste –refers to the category of waste that occurs when
universities fail to capitalise fully on the knowledge skills and abilities of employers and
workgroups. Process waste –refers to the cluster of wastes that occur due to shortcomings
in the design or implementation of university processes. Information waste –refers to the
category of waste that occurs when the information that is available is deficient for
supporting the university the processes. Asset waste –refers to the waste that occurs when
the university does not use its resources (human and material) in effective way.
Many higher education institutions have adopted a Lean initiative to improve the
efficiency of processes by scientifically eliminating waste and non-value added
activities. In 2008, Cardiff University hosted the first Lean thinking in Universities
event. In November 2010 the University of St Andrews hosted the second in the series,
as over fifty Lean thinkers from across UK and further afield gathered to address the
challenges faced by the higher education sector. According to the University of
St Andrews, three different ways could be adopted in a Lean application –project work,
training and one-one work (www.st-andrews.ac.uk/liu/). Research shows that
institutions such as the Coventry University, University of Portsmouth (England),
Central Connecticut State University, Bowling Green State University, MIT, Oklahoma
State University (USA), etc. (Antony, 2014) have adopted Lean.
Shortcomings of Lean
Although Lean was successful compared to other quality practices in the higher
education sector, it too have shortcomings. According to the American Society for
1101
Constructs
of quality in
HE services

Quality, starting a Lean initiative at a university can be a daunting task because one
cannot turn to the traditional methods that have been explained in books (Salewski
and Klein, 2013). Students generally feel that Lean is more about common sense than
something which they already know. This non scientific nature of Lean makes
students reluctant to show greater interest in participating in Lean programmes at
universities. In a 1979 Harvard Business Review article, reprinted in 2008 with the title
Choosing Strategies for Change, Kotter and Schlesinger (2008) argue that there is
nothing more difficult and doubtful of success than to initiate a new order of things.
This is definitely true in the context of Lean for higher education as there is no single
proof found in the literature reviewed which says that Lean was a success in
universities in the first eight weeks of implementation. This is definitely a
shortcoming, as the Lean philosophy claims that it is known to generate rapid
improvements. Another challenge which many colleges faced while implementing
Lean for the first time is the lack of clarity on which version of Lean to follow. This is
because Lean after originating from Toyota has taken several shapes and evolved
into many versions of practise. Pettersen (2009) supports this notion, stating that
Lean is a translated version of the Toyota Production System and Lean has been
translated into many different versions. Another important shortcoming of Lean is its
nature of producing many small improvements, instead of one big breakthrough for
excellence. This does not gel with the requirement of creating breakthrough
improvement at many situations. Just like Six Sigma, if Lean were to be looked as a
toolkit rather than philosophy or mindset for improvement, it leads to failure. Several
such attempts by higher education institutions were discussed by Liker and Hoseus
(2009) leading to failure of Lean.
8. LSS for higher education institutions
LSS is the latest in a progression of quality movements that were motivated by
the teachings of a number of industry leaders, most notably W. Edwards Deming
(Maleyeff et al., 2012). More than looking at quality from tools-techniques perspective,
LSS is recognised an organisation strategy and a leadership gizmo for imbibing
the quality culture. The advantage of LSS methodology over other quality
approaches is that LSS puts the Six Sigma methods and tools in the service of a
critical goal, and at the same time uses Lean principles to reduce cycle times in the
processes, that chiefly drive customer satisfaction (Immelt, 2006). The integration of
Lean and Six Sigma aims to target every type of opportunity for improvement within
an organisation. If Lean is implemented without Six Sigma, then there is a lack of
tools to leverage improvement to its full potential. Conversely, if Six Sigma is adopted
without Lean thinking, then there would be a cache of tools for the improvement team
to use, but no strategy or structure to drive forward their application to a system.
Although Lean and Six Sigma (to a certain extent) evolved independently, there are a
number of encouraging articles discussing the use of an amalgamated approach
(Pepper and Spedding, 2010).
Applying LSS principles to improve the higher education system and student
instruction is an approach which allows students to gain more knowledge through
experience during the learning process (Cooper, 2009; Patil et al., 2006). However,
applying LSS in HEI is different from that of manufacturing or other services. It is more
important for the education institution to express its maturity as an organisation before
LSS implementation. Implementing LSS programmes in HEI needs a strong drive from
the cultural aspect of the university. According to Antony, the following are the
1102
IJPPM
65,8

prominent readiness factors which HEI should imbibe for successful LSS deployment
(Antony, 2014):
•Leadership and vision –university leaders should set a clear vision for
establishing the desired quality excellence culture. The whole idea of visionary
leadership is to enable the stakeholders to shift from their current working
practices to Best-in-Class practice.
•Management commitment and resources –the uncompromising and constant
support from the senior management team and the allocation of resources
(time, money, etc.) for executing projects is an essential factor prior to kick off the
quality excellence initiative in HEI context.
•Linking LSS to university’s strategy –one of the challenges for the sustainability
of LSS initiative is the selection of the right projects which are aligned with
strategic objectives of the university. LSS is best deployed into an organisation’s
strategy when it is the how to deploy of the strategy. Various types of metrics
could be then assigned to define success and measure the progress.
•Customer focus –one of the fundamental purposes of HE is to provide the
students with skills and knowledge that will enable the future employer to better
succeed in a knowledge economy. In a HE setting, typical customers may include
students, staff members, alumni members, parents who pay tuition fees for their
children, industry and government who provides funding, etc. This list clearly
shows the complexity of the customer concept in the context of HE setting.
•Selecting the right people –LSS is about selecting and training the right people
to execute the projects at all levels across the HEI. Research shows that
companies who have been successful with LSS as a business process
improvement methodology select their most talented people to fill the key
positions such as black belts, green belts, etc. so that the quality excellence
mindset could be established right from leadership level to down the ladder.
The biggest misconception of Six Sigma which also was its shortcoming was
considering Six Sigma as a statistical toolkit. LSS has overcome this with a customised
toolkit amalgamating both Lean and Six Sigma, which are simple and effective in
application. Antony et al. (2012), suggested a set of LSS tools which could be handy in
LSS project management in HE institutions. They include process mapping/value
stream mapping, cause-effect analysis, visual management techniques, Pareto analysis,
project charter, SIPOC diagram and rapid improvement workshops. Mukondeleli et al.
(2012) claims that, as a methodology, LSS is no different for HE industry than for the
other industries. This could follow DMAIC flow for project management.
Though the application of LSS is at its initial stages in HE industry (Vijaya Sunder,
2016a), a few universities have already started implementing and reaping the benefits.
One of initiatives of the chancellor of the Valdosta State University, Georgia was to start
the 2008 fiscal year with the implementation of LSS for Higher Education. This process
has involved migrating proven techniques for LSS from a business setting to an
educational setting. Valdosta State University has championed the chancellor’scauseby
conducting a number of campus LSS projects (www.valdosta.edu/administration/
six-sigma/). Heriott Watt University, UK conducted the third international conference of
LSS focussing on HE industry in June 2015. The proceedings claim that the conference
aimed to highlight that LSS has a critical role to play in developing HE institution
1103
Constructs
of quality in
HE services

processes by improving efficiency and creating a student-centric approach for greater
student retention (www.sml.hw.ac.uk/departments/business-management/third-
international-conference-lean-six-sigma.htm). Gordon State College has recently
introduced a LSS programme to its planning process, implementing a language for
change to be understood not only across the campus, but across the different institutions
of the University System of Georgia. Gordon State College aims to adopt LSS on a scale
appropriate to the size and sector, emphasising quality, transparency, and real usefulness.
It aims to serve as a model for LSS implementation among colleges of such size and
mission (http://6sigma.gordonstate.edu/).
Simons (2013) argues that there are several benefits of implementing LSS for higher
education, compared to that of other quality constructs discussed. The benefits include –
easily meeting the accreditation requirements, providing a template for structured
problem solving, promoting total involvement, establishing a measurement system,
making processes visible, gathering the voice of the customer, helping to identify the
hidden costs, etc. Another great advantage of LSS over other quality practices is its
complimentary nature of facilitating change management. The niche skills professions
called “Six Sigma Belts”strategically handle the resistance to change and hence the
change acceleration process becomes smooth with LSS. Thus from the above discussion,
it is evident that LSS approach clearly overcomes the drawbacks of other quality
excellence concepts for the HEI. The power of this amalgamated methodology not only
helps create a powerful measurement system for the HE institutions, but also serves in
providing the structured approach for quality excellence. LSS programmes are known
for developing team dynamics which promote practical learning in higher education
institutions, thus encouraging more sustainable and robust results to overcome the
challenges faced by the HE industry at the current juncture.
9. Conclusion and discussion for future research
From the literature review it is very evident that the HEI having realised the
importance of quality excellence has adopted various quality practices, however, it has
not yet reaped complete benefits due to shortcomings. LSS in its introductory phase of
deployment in the HE industry has provided a clear opportunity for researchers to
ponder upon the subject. There are several aspects of LSS for HE industry which could
be identified for future research. When LSS evolved from manufacturing to services,
ample amount of research happened on the lines of customising the LSS methodology
for services, since the service industry is so different from that of manufacturing. Now
looking at the HEI, the literature shows instances that are diverse and complex
compared to manufacturing or other services. Hence there is an opportunity for
research to show how to customise the LSS methodology for the HE sector. Another
important aspect which could attract researchers’interest is the success factors and
failure modes of LSS for higher education. This is because of the huge investment
involved in deploying LSS, and an education provider definitely cannot afford to lose
the potential gains if the programme fails. Hence it becomes essential to understand the
success and failure attributes of LSS in the HE industry. It was evident from the
literature that many HE organisations failed in their own quality practices because of
lack of clarity in defining and understanding customers. Though the LSS toolkit
proposes specific tools to capture the Voice of the customer, it is still a grey area of who
exactly could fall under the customer categorisation for higher education. Dedicated
research on this area could gather more interesting findings. Another important area
for research on this subject could be to develop a LSS quality excellence model for the
1104
IJPPM
65,8

HE industry. Literature has not shown any such models existing for the HE industry,
and definitely such a development would add value to academicians and practitioners.
Such a model become important for HE industry as all the stakeholders of the HE
industry may not have the knowledge about the structured problem solving or quality
excellence, and history shows evidences of such LSS models existing for
manufacturing as well as services. As the review of the literature indicates practical
learning is a key focus area for higher education institutions to impart in the life of
students during their stay in universities, it is essential to explore opportunities how
LSS can instill such a integrated approach to higher education. There was less
literature found about the key metrics for the HE industry. Case study-based research
could be conducted to identify the opportunities for LSS projects and key performance
indicators of HE industry. Another important area for study is how LSS can improve
the infrastructure and administrative processes of universities, alongside focussing on
improving the curriculum and students knowledge level about the respective subject in
higher education courses. More opportunities for researchers about the subject could
include –how to handle resistance to LSS programmes in HE industry, how to manage
stakeholders while implementing LSS at HE industry, etc. The author suggests that
researchers should not limit the exploration to the opportunities discussed in this
section. There are several other grey areas to explore for this upcoming subject of
interest –Lean Six Sigma for Higher Education.
References
AACSB (2004), “Accreditation Standards”, AACSB International, St Louis, MO, available at:
www.aacsb.edu/accreditation/standards.asp (accessed 10 October 2015).
Antony, J. (2014), “Readiness factors for the Lean Six Sigma journey in the higher education
sector”,International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 63 No. 2,
pp. 257-264.
Antony, J., Krishan, N., Cullen, D. and Kumar, M. (2012), “Lean Six Sigma for higher education
institutions (HEIs): challenges, barriers, success factors, tools/techniques”,International
Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 61 No. 8, pp. 940-948.
Bailey, D. and Bennett, J.V. (1996), “The realistic model of higher education”,Quality Progress,
Vol. 29 No. 11, pp. 77-79.
Bandyopadhyay, J.K. and Lichtman, R. (2007), “Six Sigma approach to quality and productivity
improvement in an institution for higher education in the United States”,International
Journal of Management, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 802-824.
Barrett, L.R. (1996), “On students as customers –some warnings from America”,Higher Education
Review, Vol. 28 No. 3, p. 70.
Barroso, I.P., Santos, S.M. and Carravilla, M.A. (2010), “Beyond classroom boundaries: how higher
education institutions apply Lean”,1st Brazilian Symposium on Services Science,Brazilia,
17 November.
Bayraktar, E., Tatoglu, E. and Zaim, S. (2008), “An instrument for measuring the critical factors of
TQM in Turkish higher education”,Total Quality Management & Business Excellence,
Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 551-574.
Bebedelis, G. (2008), Aristotle on Virtue and ETHICS: A Parallelism with Sathya Sai Baba’s
Teachings, European Sathya Sai Educare Institute, Copenhagen.
Bhalla, R. (2012), “Study on Indian higher education”,International Refereed Research Journal,
Vol. III Nos 4(2), pp. 24-31.
1105
Constructs
of quality in
HE services

Bloom, D.E., Hartley, M. and Rosovsky, H. (2007), “Beyond private gain: the public benefits of
higher education”, in James, J.F. Forest & Director Philip G. Altbach (Eds), International
Handbook of Higher Education, Springer Publications, pp. 293-308.
Brookes, M. and Beckett, N. (2009), “Quality management in higher education: a review of
international issues and practice”,International Journal of Quality and Standards,
Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 1-4.
Burtner, J. (2004), “The adaptation of Six Sigma methodology to the engineering education
enterprise”,Proceedings of the ASEE Southeast Section Conference,4-6 April, available at:
http://cee.citadel.edu/asee-se/proceedings/ASEE2004/ASEE2004SE.htm
Bynner, J., Dolton, P., Feinstein, L., Makepeace, G., Malmberg, L. and Woods, L. (2003), “Revisiting
the benefits of higher education”, a report by the Bedford Group for Lifecourse and
Statistical Studies, Institute of Education, Bristol.
Chang, H.H. (2005), “The influence of continuous improvement and performance factors in total
quality organization”,Total Quality Management, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 413-437.
Chevalier, A. (2014), “Does higher education quality matter in the UK”,Research in Labor
Economics, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 257-292.
Coate, E. (1999), “Implementing total quality management in a university”,Strategies for Quality
Improvement, 2nd ed., Dryden, New York, NY, pp. 591-628, doi: 10.1002/ir.37019917105.
Cooper, J. (2009), “The integration of a Lean manufacturing competency-based training course
into university curriculum”,Online Journal of Workforce Education and Development,
Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 1-12.
Crosby, P.B. (1979), Quality is Free, Mc Graw Hill, New York, NY.
Dahlgaard, J.J. and Ostergaard, P. (2000), “TQM and Lean thinking in higher education”, Sinergie,
Rapporti di ricerca N.9, ASQ Quality Press, Luglio.
Dahlgaard, J.J., Kristensen, K. and Kanji, G.K. (1995), “Total quality management and education”,
Total Quality Management, Vol. 6 No. 5, pp. 445-456.
Dahlgaard, J.J., Kristensen, K. and Kanji, G.K. (1998), Fundamentals of TQM, Carfax, London.
Does, R.J.M.M., Van den Heuvel, E.R., De Mast, J. and Bisgaard, S. (2002), “Comparing non-
manufacturing with traditional applications of Six Sigma ”,Quality Engineering, Vol. 15
No. 1, pp. 177-182.
Donaldson, L. (2002), “Damned by our own theories: contradictions between theories and
management education”,Academy of Management Learning and Education, Vol. 1 No. 1,
pp. 96-106.
Duderstadt, J. (1999), “The future of higher education –new roles for the 21st century University”,
The Issues in Science and Technology Online, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 1-6.
Durkin, M., McKenna, S. and Cummins, D. (2012), “Emotional connections in higher education
marketing”,International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 153-161.
Eagle, L. and Brennan, R. (2007), “Are students customers? TQM and marketing perspectives”,
Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 44-60.
Edgeman, R.L. and Dugan, J.P. (2008), “Six Sigma from products to pollution to people”,Total
Quality Management, Vol. 19 Nos 1-2, pp. 1-9.
Edler, F.H.W. (2003), “How accreditation agencies in higher education are pushing total quality
management: a faculty review of the Academic Quality Improvement Program (AQIP)”,
Unpublished paper, November, p. 2006.
Elbeck, M. and Vander Schee, B.A. (2015), “MBA students as customers: the Kano method and
collegiate website excitement factors”, in Robinson, L. (Ed.), Marketing Dynamism &
Sustainability: Things Change, Things Stay the Same…, Springer International Publishing,
Houston, TX, pp. 299-299.
1106
IJPPM
65,8

Emiliani, M.L. (2005), “Using kaizen to improve graduate business school degree programs”,
Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 37-52.
Etzioni, A. (2002), “When it comes to ethics, B-schools get an F”,The Washington Post, 4 August, p. B4.
Ewell, P.T. (1993), “Total quality and academic practice: the idea we’ve been waiting for?”,
Change, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 49-55.
Gandhi, M.M. (2015), “Total quality management in higher education in INDIA”,International
Journal of Organizational Behaviour & Management Perspectives, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 1200-1211.
Harari, O. (1997), “Ten reasons why TQM doesn’t work”,Management Review, Vol. 86 No. 1,
pp. 38-44.
Harmon, G. (2015), “Australia as an higher education exporter”,International Higher Education,
Vol. 42 No. 1.
Harvey, I. and Knight, P. (1996), Transforming Higher Education, Society for Research into Higher
Education & Open University Press, Buckingham and London.
Hendricks, K.B. and Singhal, V.R. (2001), “The long-run stock price performance of firms with
effective TQM programs”,Management Science, Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 359-68.
Ho, S.L., Xie, M. and Goh, T.N. (2006), “Adopting Six Sigma in higher education: some issues and
challenges”,International Journal of Six Sigma and Competitive Advantage, Vol. 2 No. 4,
pp. 335-352.
Holmes, M.C., Kumar, A. and Jenicke, L.O. (2005), “Improving the effectiveness of the
academic delivery process utilizing Six Sigma”,Issues in Information Systems, Vol. 2 No. 1,
pp. 353-359.
Houston, A. (1988), “Administration and management”, in Dockstader, S.L. (Ed.), A Total Quality
Management Process Improvement Model, Navy Personnel Research and Development
Center, San Diego, CA, pp. vii-viii.
Hussain, I., McNally, S. and Telhaj, S. (2009), University Quality and Graduate Wages in the UK?
London School of Economics, CEP and Mimeo, London.
Imai, M. (1989), “Kaizen. La clave de la ventaja competitiva japonesa”, Companıa Editorial
Continental, S.A. (Imai, M. (1988). Kaizen: the key to Japan’s competitive success) (Spanish).
Immelt, J.R. (2006), “Growth as a process”,Harvard Business Review, June, pp. 60-70.
Jenicke, L.O., Kumar, A. and Holmes, M.C. (2008), “A Framework for applying Six Sigma
improvement methodology in an academic environment”,The TQM Journal, Vol. 20 No. 5,
pp. 453-562.
Jiang, K. (2015), “Undergraduate teaching evaluation in China: progress and debate”,
International Higher Education, Vol. 58 No. 1.
Johnson, J.A. (2006), “Designing new housing at the University of Miami: a dmadv/dfss case
study”,Quality Engineering, Vol. 18 No. 3, p. 299.
Juran, J.M. (1986), “The quality triology: a universal approach to managing for quality”,Quality
Progress, Vol. 19 No. 8, pp. 19-24.
Kanji, G.K. and Wallace, W. (1994), “Learning to learn”,Proceedings of the 4th ICOTS Conference,
Marrakesh,25-30 July.
Kanji, G.K., Malek, A. and Tambi, B.A. (1999), “Total quality management in UK higher education
institutions”,Total Quality Management, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 129-153.
Karapetrovic, S. and Willborn, W. (1999), “Holonic model for a quality system in academia”,
International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 45-48.
Karapetrovic, S., Rajamani, D. and Willborn, W. (1999), “University, Inc.”,Quality Progress,
Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 87-95.
1107
Constructs
of quality in
HE services

Koch, J.V. and Fisher, J.L. (1998), “Higher education and total quality management”,Total Quality
Management, Vol. 9 No. 8, pp. 659-668.
Koch, J.V. and Fisher, J.L. (1998), “TQM and Higher education”,Total Quality Management, Vol. 9
No. 8, pp. 659 -668.
Kotter, J.P. and Schlesinger, L.A. (2008), “Choosing strategies for change”,Harvard Business
Review, Vol. 86 No. 8, pp. 130-139.
Krishnaiah, P.R. and Rao, C.R. (1988), Handbook of Statistics, Vol. 7, Springer, London, pp. 1-6.
Kumi, S. and Morrow, J. (2006), “Improving self service the Six Sigma way at Newcastle
University library”,Electronic Library and Information Systems, Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 123 -136.
Leonard, F.S. and Sasser, W.E. (1982), “The incline of quality”,Harvard Business Review, Vol. 60
No. 5, pp. 163-171.
Liker, J. and Meier, D. (2006), The Toyota Way Fieldbook, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Liker, J.K. and Hoseus, M. (2009), “Human resource development in Toyota culture”,International
Journal of Human Resources Development and Management, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 34-50.
Litten, L.H. (1980), “Marketing higher education: benefits and risks for the American academic
system”,The Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 40-59.
Lozier, G.G. and Teeter, D.J. (1996), “Quality improvement pursuits in American higher
education”,Total Quality Management, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 189-202.
McCollough, M.A. and Gremler, D.D. (1999), “Guaranteeing student satisfaction: an exercise in
treating students as customers”,Journal of Marketing Education, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 118-130.
Macleod, A. and Baxter, L. (2001), “The contribution of business excellence models in restoring
failed improvement initiatives”,European Management Journal, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 392-403.
Maguad, B.A. and Krone, R.M. (2012), Managing for Quality in Higher Education –A Systems
Perspective, Ventus Publishing, Los Angeles, CA.
Maleyeff, J., Arnheiter, E.A. and Venkateswaran, V. (2012), “The continuing evolution of Lean Six
Sigma”,The TQM Journal, Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 542-555.
Manos, A. (2007), “The benefits of kaizen and kaizen events”,Quality Progress, Vol. 40 No. 2,
pp. 47-48.
Mark, E. (2012), “Student satisfaction: examining the role of students as customers”,Dean’s
Graduate Student Research Conference,February.
Mintzberg, H., Simons, R. and Basu, K. (2002), “Beyond selfishness”,Sloan Management Review,
Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 67-74.
Mukondeleli, G.K., Jan, H.C. and Bernard, J.W. (2012), Proceedings of the 2012,International
Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management,Istanbul,3-6 July.
Narasimhan, K. (1997), “Organisational climate at the University of Braunton in 1996”,Total
Quality Management, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 233-237.
National Studies of Education Statistics (NCES) (2007), “The nation’s report card: Reading 2007”,
The US Department of Education, Washington, DC.
Ohno, T. (1988), Toyota Production System, Productivity Press, Portland, OR.
Owlia, M.S. and Aspinwall, E.M. (1997), “TQM in higher education –a review”,International
Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 14 No. 5, pp. 527-543.
Parasmal, Y. (2009), Application of Lean Thinking in Higher Education, Strategum Consulting.
Patil, V.H., Kamlapur, S.M. and Dhore, M.L. (2006), “Six Sigma in education: to achieve overall
excellence in the field of education”,Proceedings –Third International Conference on
Information Technology: New Generations, ITNG 2006, pp. 2-5.
1108
IJPPM
65,8

Pepper, M.P.J. and Spedding, T.A. (2010), “The evolution of Lean Six Sigma”,International
Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 138-155.
Perna, L.W. (2003), “The private benefits of higher education: an examination of the earnings
premium”,Research in Higher Education, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 451-472.
Pettersen, J. (2009), “Defining Lean production: some conceptual and practical issues”,TQM
Journal, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 127-142.
Pitman, G., Motwani, J., Kumar, A. and Cheng, H.C. (1996), “QFD application in an educational
setting: a pilot field study”,International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management,
Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 99-108.
Prasad, K.D., Subbaiah, K.V. and Padmavathi, G. (2012), “Application of Six Sigma methodology
in an engineering educational institution”,International Journal of Emerging Science, Vol. 2
No. 2, pp. 222-237.
Roffe, I.M. (1998), “Conceptual problems of continuous quality improvement and innovation in
higher education”,Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 74-82.
SaiBaba, S. (2008), “Educare leads to unity of thought, word, and deed”, Sathya Sai Speaks, Sri
Sathya Sai Sadhana Trust, pp. 83-88.
Salewski, A. and Klein, V. (2013), “How to launch Lean in a university”, ASQ, available at: www.
abdn.ac.uk/staffnet/documents/how-to-launch-lean-in-a-university.pdf (accessed 10
October 2015).
Sathya Sai Education (2007), available at: www.sathyasai.org/education/globaloverview/
Chapter10_30Jun07.htm#edliving
Satterlee, B. (1996), “Continuous improvement and quality implications for higher education”,
ERIC Number: ED399845, available at: http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED399845
Seth, N., Deshmukh, S.G. and Vrat, P. (2005), “Service quality models: a review”,International
Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 22 No. 9, pp. 913-949.
Seymour, S. (1992), On Q. Causing Quality in Higher Education, MacMillan, New York, NY.
Shah, R. and Ward, P.T. (2003), “Lean manufacturing: context, practice bundles, and
performance”,Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 129-149.
Sherry, C., Bhat, R., Beaver, B. and Ling, A. (2004), “Students as customers: the expectations and
perceptions of local and international students”,HERDSA Conference,Auckland,July.
Simons, N. (2013), “The business case for Lean Six Sigma in higher education”,ASQ Higher
Education Brief, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 1-6.
Sims, S.J. and Sims, R.R. (1995), Total Quality Management in Higher Education: Is it Working?
Why Or Why Not? Greenwood Publishing Group, Wesport, London, January.
Snee, R.D. (1999), “Why should statisticians pay attention to Six Sigma?”,Quality Progress,
Vol. 32 No. 9, pp. 100-103.
Snowden, C. (2014), Higher Education in Focus, the Impact of Universities on the UK Economy,
Published by Universities UK Facilities Unit, LDN, London, April.
Sokovic, M., Pavletic, D. and Krulcic, E. (2006), “Six Sigma process improvements in automotive
parts production”,Journal of Achievements in Materials and Manufacturing Engineering,
Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 96-102.
Stensaasen, S. (1995), “The application of Deming’s theory of total quality management to achieve
continuous improvements in education”,Total Quality Management, Vol. 6 No. 5, pp. 579-592.
Svensson, G. and Wood, G. (2007), “Are university students really customers? When illusion may
lead to delusion for all!”,International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 21 No. 1,
pp. 17-28.
1109
Constructs
of quality in
HE services

Tannock, J.D. (1991), “Industrial quality standards and total quality management in higher
education”,European Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 353-360.
Tapping, D., Shuker, T. and Luyster, T. (2002), Value Stream Management, Productivity Press,
New York, NY.
Tatikonda, L. (2007), “Applying Lean principles to design teach, and assess courses”,
Management Accounting Quarterly, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 27-38.
Tischler, L. (2006), “Bringing Lean to the office”,Quality Progress, Vol. 39 No. 7, pp. 32-41.
Towill, D.R. (2007), “Exploiting the DNA of the Toyota production system”,International Journal
of Production Research, Vol. 45 No. 16, pp. 3619-3637.
Vazzana, G., Elfrink, J. and Bachmann, D.P. (2000), “A longitudinal study of total quality
management processes in business colleges”,Journal of Education for Business, Vol. 76
No. 2, pp. 69-75.
Vijaya Sunder, M. (2014), “Quality excellence in higher education system through Six Sigma:
student team engagement model”,International Journal of Six Sigma and Competitive
Advantage, Vol. 8 Nos 3/4, pp. 247-256.
Vijaya Sunder, M. (2016a), “Lean Six Sigma in higher education institutions”,International
Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 159-178.
Vijaya Sunder, M. and Antony, J. (2015), “Six-sigma for improving top-box customer satisfaction
score for a banking call centre”,Production Planning & Control –Management of
Operations, Vol. 26 No. 16, pp. 1291-1305.
Vroeijenstijn, T.I. (1990), “Autonomy and assurance of quality: two sides of one coin”,Higher
Education Research and Development, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 21-38.
Vuori, J. (2013), “Are students customers in finnish higher education?”,Tertiary Education and
Management, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 176-187.
Welch, J. and Welch, S. (2007), Winning, HarperCollins Canada Limited, CA.
Williams, J. (2014), “A critical exploration of changing definitions of public good in relation to
higher education”,Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 619-630.
Womack, J. and Jones, D. (1996), Lean Thinking, Simon & Schuster, New York, NY.
Womack, J.P. and Jones, D.T. (2003), Lean Thinking: Banish The New Value Stream for Handling
Applications Waste and Create Wealth in Your Corporation, 2nd ed., Free Press,
New York, NY.
World Conference on Higher Education (1998), available at: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/00
11/001163/116345e.pdf
Woodall, T., Hiller, A. and Resnick, S. (2014), “Making sense of higher education: students as
consumers and the value of the university experience”,Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 39
No. 1, pp. 48-67.
Zimmerman, W.J. (1991), “Kaizen: the search for quality”,The Journal of Continuing Higher
Education, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 117-125.
Further reading
Altbach, P.G., Reisberg, L. and Rumbley, L.E. (2009), “Trends in global higher education: tracking
an academic revolution”,UNESCO 2009 World Conference Report on Higher Education,
Paris,5-8 July.
Baig, S.A., Abrar, M., Ali, A. and Ahmad, M. (2015), “Implementation of TQM on higher education
in Pakistan”,Quality & Quantity, Vol. 49 No. 1, pp. 51-56.
Deming, W.E. (1993), The New Economics: For Industry, Government & Education, MIT.
1110
IJPPM
65,8

Ellis, R. (2013), Quality Assurance for University Teaching, Open University Press, Mc Graw Hill,
February.
Gallear, D., Aldaweesh, M. and Al-Karaghouli, W. (2012), “The relationship between total quality
management implementation and leadership in the Saudi higher education: a review and
conceptual framework”, ISBN: 978-1-908549-03-7, London.
Kanigolla, D., Cudney, E.A., Corns, S. and Samaranayake, V.A. (2014), “Enhancing engineering
education using project-based learning for Lean and Six Sigma”,International Journal of
Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 45-61.
Kemenade, v.E. (2012), “Soft skills for TQM in higher education standards”,ASQ Higher
Education Brief, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 1-12.
Liker, J.K. and Hoseus, M. (2008), Toyota Culture –The Heart and Soul of the Toyota Way,
McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Mele, C. and Colurcio, M. (2006), “The evolving path of TQM: towards business excellence and
stakeholder value”,International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 23
No. 5, pp. 464-489.
Okes, D. and Russell, T.W. (2001), The Certified Quality Manager Handbook, 2nd ed., ASQ Quality
Press, p. 118.
Roy, S.K. and Roy, S. (2015), “Total quality management (TQM) in higher education in India”,
MANTHAN: Journal of Commerce and Management, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 21-32.
Vijaya Sunder, M. (2016b), “Lean Six Sigma project management –a stakeholder management
perspective”,The TQM Journal, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 132-150.
About the author
Vijaya Sunder M. is the Head of Business Process Excellence at The World Bank, India. He is a
Strategic Management Consultant and LSS Master Black Belt with experience in leading cross-
functional programmes for process improvements and operational effectiveness. Vijaya Sunder is
a Six Sigma Master Black Belt (from Indian Statistical Institute) and Lean facilitator. He has led
and mentored various reengineering and process improvement programmes that helped improve
service quality, customer experience, employee satisfaction, eliminate process defects, increase
productivity and reduce costs across service organisations. He is a LSS Trainer –trained more
than 1,000 people in LSS Yellow, Green and Black Belts till date. He also is certified in Business
Process Modelling and Six Thinking Hats. He is a distinction holder in Master of Business
Administration from the Sri Sathya Sai Institute of Higher Learning (Puttaparthi), and Gold
Medallist in Bachelor of Engineering from the Anna University, India. He is a Keynote Speaker
and has publications in several international journals on topics relating to quality. Alongside
corporate job, Vijaya Sunder practices teaching for MBA students in subjects including
Six Sigma, total quality management, etc., as a Visiting Faculty at the Business Schools.
He is currently pursuing his Doctoral Research for PhD from the Indian Institute of Technology-
Madras, India. Vijaya Sunder M. can be contacted at: mvijayasunder@gmail.com
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
1111
Constructs
of quality in
HE services