Implementing TQM in higher education institutions: a strategic management approach.

Soni, Ramesh G. ; Chaubey, Manmohan D. ; Ryan, John C. 等

INTRODUCTION

In recent years, "Total Quality Management" (TQM) has received much attention all over the world. It is claimed that the TQM approach has and will change the way business is conducted (Gilks, 1990), and is often compared to the revolutionary developments such as introduction of factory, assembly line, etc. (Elmuti and Kathawala, 1996). Challenged by global competition, U.S. companies, both in the service and manufacturing sector, are embracing TQM. TQM is also making inroads in government; because of a presidential Executive Order several federal agencies have adopted TQM (Burstein and Sedlak, 1988). However, higher education institutions--universities and colleges--have been slow in adopting this approach (Artzt, 1993). In this paper, we present a model for implementing the TQM in higher education institutions.

TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT

The concept of quality is not new to the humankind; we have always, subconsciously or consciously, carried out actions to ensure quality so "that a product meets a desired or specific standards" (Lundquist, 1998). However, the definition and the scope of quality have continuously evolved over time. From the 1920s through the 1950s, this concept was driven by developments in the field of Statistical Quality Control that had a great impact upon shop floor management. During this period, however, quality control was viewed as an exclusive responsibility of the quality control department. In the late 1950s quality began to be recognized as an organization-wide responsibility. Feigenbaum (1956) coined the term "Total Quality Control" to describe this phenomenon. Subsequently, as pointed out by Rehder and Ralston (1984), the term "control" was replaced by "management" to overcome the negative connotation associated with the word "control." And, thus, the term "total quality management" came into existence.

Today, total quality management (TQM) is viewed variously as a philosophy, which emphasizes that quality is responsibility of everyone in an organization; as a process for managing change; as a strategy to improve organizational competitiveness and effectiveness; as a value system that emphasizes striving for quality in product or services; and an approach to doing business that covers the whole organization. TQM has been also described as a management "unification" process (Stuelpnagel, 1989) that emphasizes teamwork and employee empowerment. Employees at all levels are organized and motivated with knowledge and responsibility for managing and improving organizational processes. Thus, TQM is far more than simply statistical quality control and quality assurance. It is concerned with "changing the fundamental beliefs, values and culture of a company, harnessing the enthusiasm and participation of everyone," (Atkinson and Naden, 1989) with the ultimate goal of doing the job right first time (Tang and Zairi, 1998).

As a customer driven strategy, TQM focuses upon the organization's desire to satisfy customer expectations (Marchese, 1993). With the blessings of and commitment from the top management, this strategic approach to TQM encourages and motivates employees to participate in continuous improvement of the product, service, and operations (Willis and Taylor, 1999). Statistical process control (SPC) and Quality Circles (QC) are integral parts of the TQM philosophy. The use of SPC in TQM emphasizes that the management focus upon the processes, and not just the output. The use of QC empowers the employees through participation in managing and improving organizational processes.

The principles of TQM, as discussed above, have been clearly summarized by Hendricks and Triplett (1989) as follows:

TQM is a strategic, holistic, ongoing approach to organizational improvement.

It demands management leadership in establishing total quality as a way of life.

It is driven by a clear vision for the future and a blueprint for action.

It focuses on the client, both internal and external.

It requires clear definition of client expectations and meeting them, 100 percent of the time.

It requires human resource excellence in training, communication, cooperation, feedback and reward sharing.

It requires continuous measurement of client satisfaction.

It demands responsible citizenship and respect for the public good.

POTENTIAL BENEFITS OF TQM TO HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS

Most institutions of higher education in the U.S. are facing numerous challenges and competition--shrinking budgets; dropping enrollments; fierce competition among institutions to attract students; competition from major companies that are educating their employees internally; competition from world class institutions in Japan, Europe and other countries (Bemowski, 1991). There are also pressures for increased accountability and outcome assessment. Adoption of TQM will help institutions of higher education maintain their competitiveness, eliminate inefficiencies in the organization, help focus on the market needs, achieve high performance in all areas, and satisfy the needs of all stakeholders (Edwards, 1993). In order to produce quality leaders for tomorrow, an institution of higher education can no longer afford to teach "one set of values [TQM] and adopting a different set for itself" (Matthews, 1993).

TQM EXPERIENCES IN HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS

As mentioned earlier, institutions of higher education have been slow in adopting the concept of TQM. However, many institutions have implemented TQM, at least in some parts of their organization. Bingham (1993), Vazzana, et al (1997) and Schonberger (1995) have described adjusting TQM from its industrial birthplace to the halls of academe. The following are just a few examples of the many institutions of higher education that have adopted TQM to improve their operations. Oregon State University has adopted the TQM concepts for managing its physical-plant office, which experienced a 25 percent reduction in completion time for remodeling projects. Lamar University in Beaumont, Texas used a team approach to TQM implementation and showed improvement in getting potential students to apply for admission earlier and improvements in staff development (Montano and Utter, 1999). The School of Business at Edinboro University of Pennsylvania has adopted TQM and improved class scheduling, hiring and employee morale (McMillen, 1991). The Ohio State University used a nine-phase program for TQM implementation (Coate, 1990). At Babson College, TQM was integrated in curriculum and used as a way to run the institution (Engelkemeyer, 1993). Auburn University has used TQM to restructure programs and services in its student affairs division (Muse and Burkhalter, 1998).

Several universities, colleges and junior colleges have used quality circles to increase their effectiveness in areas of residential life (Keller, 1987), student learning support (Wilkinson, 1986), work life management of college employees (Shibata, 1984), college administration (Moretz, 1983; Ladwig, 1985; Ruff, 1984; and Romine, 1981), library facilities (Sell and Mortola, 1985), and student services (Deegan, 1984). Most of the reported experiences with the quality circle implementation in higher education have been positive. However, there is some evidence that the success of quality circle programs may be jeopardized by problems, such as inadequate training, problematic group membership, exclusion of supervisors, etc. (Simmons and Kahn, 1990).

Both sides of the issue are being aired. Not everyone thinks that TQM belongs on campus. TQM may be useful in support and administrative areas, but classroom norms seem to violate the assumptions of TQM, (Jauch and Orwig, 1997); some question the value of TQM in higher education, (Fisher, 1993); and others identify some critical barriers to the utilization of TQM in academia (Lam and Zhao, 1998); and yet another suggests that the basic postulates of quality within TQM are incompatible with the philosophy of academe (Berisiman, 1995).

The above examples illustrate that TQM is being used in colleges and universities. However, most of the early TQM applications have been in the support or administrative areas, not in the classroom. This is changing. Many recent applications of TQM in higher education have focused on the central academic functions such as academic program delivery (Watson and Hallett, 1995), faculty evaluation (Altman and Pratt, 1997), in the classroom (Mehrenz, Weinroth and Israeli, 1997), and a quest for a new breed of educators (Demichiell, 1997). What is missing in the current efforts is a systemic model for the implementation of TQM for the university as a whole.

APPROACHES TO STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION

The key task in implementing TQM is to unite the total organization behind this strategy. The organization then designs its operations to the requirements for successful execution of strategy. Successful implementation of strategy, therefore, requires creating a "fit" among the internal processes and subsystems of the institution (Strickland and Thompson, 1999). The literature in the field of strategic management provides many approaches to strategy implementation. However, it must be remembered that there is no one best way for implementing strategy. The specific action agenda needed for strategy implementation will vary from organization to organization.

Strickland and Thompson (1999) summarize the key implementation tasks as consisting of the following eight key elements: (1) exercising strategic leadership, (2) building an organization capable of successfully executing the strategy, (3) establishing a strategy-supportive budget, (4) installing appropriate administrative support systems, (5) designing and installing rewards and incentives linked to performance objectives of TQM, (6) shaping an organizational culture to fit the TQM philosophy, (7) Allocating ample resources to strategy critical activities, (8) Instituting best practices and pushing for continuous improvement. The "goodness of fit" among the eight elements would determine the success of the TQM strategy. Another framework for examining the fit among the critical areas is provided by the McKinsey's 7-S framework (Waterman, 1984). These seven areas are strategy, organization structure, shared values, skills, systems, staff, and management style.

Brodwin and Bourgeois (1984) have described five basic approaches to strategy implementation. Their approaches are based upon the roles and methods used by the president in implementing strategy. The approaches are:

 The Commander Approach: The president concentrates exclusively
 on the strategy formulation and then passes it along to others
 to implement it.

 The Organizational Change Approach: The president after developing
 the strategy puts it into effect by reorganizing the institution's
 organization structure, instituting incentives, or by hiring
 staff.

 The Collaborative Approach: The president involves the top managers
 in the planning process itself to ensure acceptance of the
 resultant plan.

 The Cultural Approach: The president involves not only the top but
 also the middle and lower level managers in the planning process.
 The implementation is facilitated by developing an organizational
 culture supportive of the plan.

 The Crescive Approach: The president addresses the twin issue of
 strategy formulation and implementation simultaneously. S/he
 through statements and actions, guides the managers into coming
 forward as champions of sound strategies.

The commander and the organizational change approaches are the traditional ways of implementing strategies. The strategy formulators and implementers are separated from each other. There is little sharing of information between the two groups and results in too many unintended and dysfunctional outcomes. The collaborative approach involves the top management team in the process and thus increases commitment and lowers resistance from top management. However, this approach still separates the thinkers from the "doers" and is likely to result in a negotiated compromise. Although, the organizational change approach can be used to implement relatively more difficult strategies in a wider variety of organizations, these three approaches, according to Brodwin and Bourgeois (1984), can be effective only in small institutions operating in a relatively stable environment.

The cultural approach is an extension of the collaborative approach but it provides for participation by more levels of managers and, therefore, fosters greater institutional commitment to the TQM. It still maintains the distinction between the planners and the implementers and does not tap into the creative abilities of employees. However, a strong institutional culture may breed conformity and thus can hinder creativity in the long run.

The crescive approach is essentially a bottom-up approach where the president loosens his/her control over the strategy making process and instead sets the employees' premises--the notion of what will constitute strategic actions, and acts as a judge of plans formulated at the lower level. This approach provides for the broadest participation and eliminates the difference between the planners and the implementers. The president can facilitate the crescive approach by (1) keeping the organization open for new and potentially discrepant information, (2) articulating a general strategy of superordinate goals to guide the organization, (3) by shaping the premises by which strategic options are selected at all levels, and (4) shaping the institution through day-to-day decision in the "logical incrementalism" fashion and not in one radical step. The cultural and the crescive approaches are particularly suitable for use in large and complex organizations.

SOME CHARACTERISTICS OF HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS

Higher education institutions are complex organizations with a strong sense of tradition and a distinct culture. According to Vroom (1984) institutions of higher Education are also characterized by vagueness in their educational mission statement and a tendency toward anarchy in the internal governing structure. The organizational structure is generally bifurcated between academic and administrative components. One of the strong values of the academic component is the "academic freedom" where it may not tolerate any interference from outside sources. The pressure of factors such as tenure creates a unique situation at higher education institutions.

Higher education institutions have many stakeholders who must be involved in the TQM process. Apart from administrators, faculty, staff, and students, the institutions also need to account for the interests of students' parents, government agencies, benefactors, alumni, the community, and accreditation agencies. Each of these stakeholders makes demands upon the institution and the TQM must bring these stakeholders into the TQM process to maximize "client satisfaction."

IMPLEMENTING TQM AT HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS

The choice of a method for TQM implementation will depend upon situational factors such as size of the institution, complexity of programs, institutional culture, and the style of the management. In view of the complex characteristics of higher education institutions as discussed above, the implementation approach should be based upon high participation. The crescive or the cultural approach as described by Brodwin and Bourgeois (1984) meets these requirements. In the cultural approach the president assumes the role of a coach and focuses upon defining and developing the new culture of the institution. In the crescive approach, as discussed earlier, the president's role is changed to that of a premise setter and a judge. Given the uniqueness of culture, the TQM process would have to be managed in a way that it does not trample the "sacred cows"--such as academic freedom--of the organization.

We propose an eleven-step model for implementing TQM in larger institutions of higher education.

The president adopts quality as the core of institutional value system and communicates this value, and works to develop commitment to it throughout the institution.

The president promotes the value through frequent symbolic and substantive actions.

Educate administrators and academic deans in TQM and customer orientation, in team/participative management.

Identify customers needs and set performance objectives.

Train and designate "internal resource persons" who provide technical assistance to the rest of the institution.

Train faculty, staff, and employees in appropriate statistical techniques, process analysis, decisionmaking, and customer orientation.

Form quality teams to seek continual improvement in the process and identify individual quality champions.

Define/delegate authority throughout the institution.

Develop performance measurement systems to continuously monitor the progress of the institution; the measurement should focus on the stakeholders' needs satisfaction.

Institute incentives and reward systems and relate them to TQM objectives.

Work continuously to reduce the resistance to change.

This model fits very well with the model developed by Tennor and DeToro (1992), which combines the teachings of quality gurus--Deming, Juran, Crosby, and Feigenbaum. The TQM implementation, as presented by Tenner and DeToro, is built on three fundamental principles of total quality (customer focus, process improvement, total involvement) and six supporting elements (leadership, education and training, support structure, communication, reward and recognition, and measurement). The compatibility of our TQM implementation model for higher education and the general TQM implementation model presented by Tennor and DeToro (1992) is illustrated in the following figure.

TQM

Step 1: The president adopts quality
as the core of institutional value
system and communicates this
value, and works to develop
commitment to it throughout the
institution.

 QUALITY PRINCIPLES

 Customer Focus Process Improvement Total Involvement

 Step 4: Identify Step 7: Form quality Step 8: Define/delegate
customer needs and teams to seek continual authority throughout
 set performance improvement in the process the institution.
 objectives. and identify individual
 quality champions.

 SUPPORTING ELEMENTS

Leadership Step 2: The president promotes the value
 through frequent symbolic and substantive
 actions.

 Step 3: Educate administrators and academic
 deans in TQM and customer orientation, in
 team/participative management.

Education and Training Step 3: Educate administrators and academic
 deans in TQM and customer orientation, in
 team/participative management.

 Step 6: Train faculty, staff, and employees
 in appropriate statistical techniques,
 process analysis, decision-making, and
 customer orientation.

Support Structure Step 5: Train and designate "internal
 resource persons" who provide technical
 assistance to the rest of the institution.

Communication Step 8: Define/delegate authority throughout
 the institution.

 Step 11: Work continuously to reduce the
 resistance to change.

Reward and Recognition Step 10: Institute incentives and reward
 systems and relate them to TQM objectives.

Measurement Step 9: Develop performance measurement
 systems to monitor continuously the progress
 of the institution; the measurement should
 focus on the stakeholders' needs
 satisfaction.

In implementing TQM as an integrating mechanism in educational institutions, the president has to first adopt and disseminate the TQM vision throughout the institution. In its strategic leadership role the president should "sell" the concept of TQM through symbolic and substantive actions and educate other administrators including academic deans, the faculty, staff, and other employees in TQM concepts and techniques. The emphasis here is to build institution-wide commitment to a culture that values quality and customer orientation. The education may be provided through the development of internal resource persons, or by hiring external resources. These programs should, preferably, be held at an off-campus location to minimize distractions. The TQM education program may be followed by a retreat for the president and the top administrators where they focus on building a consensus on and commitment for the new way of doing things.

Successful implementation of TQM will require creating and nurturing a system of common goals and objectives, values, beliefs, and attitudes--a common vision--in the institution. The institutional objectives are geared toward maximizing client satisfaction. The major task of the TQM leaders and champions in different departments and divisions will be to foster a supportive organizational climate. The president of the institution would have to take a leadership role and the primary responsibility for creating and communicating organizational standards that supports and nurtures the TQM philosophy.

The new organization structure for TQM is team based and should meet several criteria. It must be responsive to the needs of the clients and provide for employee involvement at all levels. It should provide for open communication and coordination among various organizational units and distribute authority needed to manage each organizational unit. The institution should examine its approaches to staffing with a view to build and nurture the skills, competence, managerial talent and technical know-how needed to manage organizational processes. The administrative support system should establish TQM facilitating policies and procedures. The support system should provide strategy-critical information on a timely basis (Thompson and Strickland, 1999).

As mentioned earlier, higher education institutions have many stakeholders or clients. The objective of TQM is maximum client satisfaction; the institution should develop links with all client groups and provide mechanisms for frequent interactions to assess their needs. The client needs assessment data would provide basis for setting up institutional goals and objectives. In order to build commitment to the new values of the organization, clear work objectives should be identified. Next, the incentives and reward structure should be modified to link with performance targets. The institution also needs to design and establish appropriate evaluation and control system to monitor client-satisfaction, quality improvement, and goal attainment.

The proposed model for implementing TQM will require changes and adjustments all over the organization. According to Lewin (1951), any situation is characterized by a state of equilibrium between forces constantly pushing against one another. One set of these forces is pressure for change and the opposing forces are resistance to change. To facilitate change the organization should first disturb this equilibrium in favor of the pressures for change. The Crescive approach offers several advantages that reduce the resisting forces: the change process is incremental, and not radical; the employee participation is maximized; the change is initiated and implemented by the employee; and the top management control is minimized. However, the president should be ever vigilant about identifying the forces of resistance and create conditions to overcome those forces.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

In this paper, proposes an eleven-step model for implementing TQM in institutions of higher education. The unique characteristics of such institutions require an approach that is different from those used in businesses and industry. The proposed model is based on the theories of strategic management. It is developed around the Crescive approach of strategy implementation as proposed by Brodwin and Bourgeois (1984). It casts the institution president in the role of a proponent and champion of TQM in the organization, and involves the rest of the organization in devising and implementing the TQM philosophy. The authors believe that TQM can greatly improve the effectiveness of higher education institutions and that the proposed model can help a successful implementation of TQM.

REFERENCES

Andrews, H. A., J. Erwin & J. Barr (1995). Faculty evaluation: number one quality control in TQM. Journal of Staff, Program, and Organization Development, 13 (4), 291-295.

Artzt, E. L. (1993). Advancing TQM. Executive Excellence, 10 (5), 5-6.

Bemowski, K. (1991). Restoring the pillars of higher education, Quality Progress. 24 (10), 37-42.

Bensimon, E. M. (1995). TQM in the academy: A rebellious reading, Harvard Educational Review. 65 (4), 593-612.

Brodwin, D. R. & L. J. Bourgeois (1984). Five steps to strategic action. California Management Review. 26, (3).

Certo, S. C. and J. P. Peter (1995). Strategic Management: Concepts and Application, Richard D. Irwin, Inc.

Coate, E. L. (1990). TQM on campus: Implementing total quality management in a university setting. Business Officer, 24 (5), 26-35.

Deegan, W. L. (1984). Alternatives for revitalizing student services programs. Community and Junior College Journal, 54 (8), 14-17.

Demichielli, R. & W. Ryba. (1997). Real heroes need less control: Dawn of a new breed of educator. Journal of Education for Business, 72 (5), 261-267.

Edwards, D. (1991). Total quality management in higher education. Management Services, 35 (12), 18-20.

Elmuti, D.& Y. Kathawala (1996). Are total quality management programmes in higher education worth the effort? International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, 13 (6), 29-45.

Engelkemeyer, S. W. (1993). TQM in higher education: The Babson College journey. The Center for Quality Management Journal, 2 (1), 28-33.

Feigenbaum, A. V. (1956). Total quality control. Harvard Business Review, 34 (6), 93-101.

Fisher, J. L. (1993). TQM: A warning for higher education. Educational Record, 74 (2), 15-20.

Gibson, T. C. (1987). The total quality management resource. Quality Progress, Nov: 62-66.

Gilks, J. F. (1990). Total quality: Wave of the future. Canadian Business Review, Spring: 17-20.

Hendricks, C. F. & A. Triplett (1989). TQM: Strategy for '90s management. Personnel Administrator, 34 (12), 42-48.

Jauch, L. R. & R. A. Orwig (1997). A violation of assumptions: Why TQM won't work in the ivory tower. Journal of Quality Management, 2 (2), 279-292.

Kaplan, R. S. (1997). The topic of quality in business school education and research. Selections, Autumn: 13-21.

Keller, R. J. (1987). Quality circle applications to residence life. NASPA-Journal, 25 (2), 98-102.

Ladwig, D. (1985). All in the family: an alternative approach to applied research. Community and Junior College Journal, 56 (1), 34-36.

Lewin, K. (1951). Field Theory in Social Science. Harper and Row: New York.

Lundquist, R. (1998). Quality improvements of teaching and learning in higher education: A comparison with developments in industrial settings. Total Quality Management, 3 (1), 51-63.

Marchese, T. (1992). Getting a handle on TQM. Change, 24 (3), 4-5.

Matthews, W. E. (1993). The missing element in higher education. Journal for Quality & Participation, 16 (1), 102-108.

McMillen, L. (1991). To boost quality and cut costs, Oregon State U. Adopts a Customer-Oriented Approach to Campus Services. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 37 (21, Feb 6), A27-28.

Mehrez, A., G. J. Weinroth and A. Israeli, (1997). Implementing quality one class at a time. Quality Progress, 30 (5), 93-97.

Montano, C. B. and C. H. Utter (1999). Total quality management in higher education: an application of quality improvement in a university. Quality Progress, 32 (8), 52-60.

Moretz, L. H. (1983). Quality circles: Involvement, problem-solving, and recognition. Innovation Abstracts, 5 (12).

Muse, W. V. & B. B. Burkhalter (1998). Restructuring brings quality improvements to Auburn University. Total Quality Management, 9 (4/5), 177-183.

Rehder, R. & F. Ralston (1984). Total quality management: A Revolutionary Management Philosophy. S.A.M. Advanced Management Journal, Summer, 24-33.

Romine, L. (1981). Quality circles that enhance productivity. Community and Junior College Journal, 52, (3), 30-31.

Ruff, D. (1984). Laying the groundwork for the effective implementation of quality circles in a community college. Paper presented at the Annual Forum of the Association for Institutional Research Fort Worth, TX, May 6-9.

Schonberger, R. J. (1995). TQM: What's in it for Academics? Business Horizons, 38(1), 67-71.

Sell, D. and M. E. Mortola (1985). Quality circles and library management, Community & Junior College Libraries, 3: Spring, 79-92.

Shibata, K. (1984). Mission of quality. Community and Junior College Journal, 55 (2), 27-29.

Stuelpnagel, T. R. (1988). Total quality management in business--and academia. Business Forum, Fall/Winter, 4-9.

Tang, K.H. and Zairi, M.(1998). Benchmarking quality implementation in a service context. Total Quality Management, 9 (8), 669-680.

Tenner, A. R. and DeToro, I. J. (1992). Total Quality Management: Three Steps to Continuous Improvement. Addison Wesley.

Thompson, A. A. and Strickland, A. J. (1999). Strategic Management: Concepts and Cases. Irwin/McGraw-Hill.

Vazzana, G. S, J. K. Winter & K. K. Waner (1997). Can TQM fill a gap in higher education? Journal of Education for Business, 72 (5), 313-317.

Vonderembse, M. A. & G. P. White (1991). Operations Management: Concepts, Method, and Strategies, West Publishing Company.

Vroom, V. H. (1984). Leaders and leadership in academe, in J. L. Bess (ed.) College and University Organization: Insights from the Behavioral Sciences. New York University Press: 129-48.

Waterman, R. H. (1982). The seven elements of strategic fit. Journal of Business Strategy, 2 (3), 68-72.

Watson, D. E., R. F. Hallett & N. T. Diamond (1995). Promoting a collegial approach in a multidisciplinary environment for a total quality improvement, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 20 (1), 77-89.

Wilkinson, T. (1989). Empowering employees for a new century. Paper prepared for the Annual Convention of the American Association of Community and Junior Colleges. Washington, DC, March 29-April 1.

Willis, T. H. and A. J. Taylor, (1999). total quality management and higher education: the employers' perspective. Total Quality Management, 10(7), 997-1007.

Ramesh G. Soni, Indiana University of Pennsylvania

Manmohan D. Chaubey, Indiana University of Pennsylvania

John C. Ryan, Indiana University of Pennsylvania