Implementation of Total Quality
Management in Higher Education A
conceptual framework
Mr. Jerald Ozee Fernandes1*, Dr. Balgopal Singh2
1 PhD Scholar, Banasthali Vidyapith, Rajasthan
2 Associate Professor, Banasthali Vidyapith, Rajasthan
Abstract
Purpose – TQM in Higher Education has demonstrated remarkable effectiveness in driving
substantial improvements across various dimensions of educational institutions. There is a significant
opportunity to gain valuable insight into the global competitiveness of academic institutions through a
study of QAPs (Quality Assurance Practices) in Higher Education Institutions (HEIs). The research
assesses the impacts of QAPs on higher education and their outcomes facilitated by the HEIs to
prepare students for employability.
Design/methodology/approach – The study employs an exploratory research approach. QAPs from
various assessment, accreditation, and ranking bodies were assessed, and variables were gathered
for the study. After adopting the common-sense method, eight independent variables were identified
that potentially influence the success of TQM and student employability in HEIs. The study's eight
independent variables are governance leadership, student support progression, research consultancy
extension, curriculum aspects, teaching, learning & evaluation, innovative practices, infrastructure
learning resources, and collaboration, with two dependent variables, TQM effectiveness, and student
employability, finalized.
Findings – The findings reveal that the QAPs of HEIs, such as Governance Leadership, Student
Support Progression, Research Consultancy Extension, Curriculum Aspects, Teaching Learning
Evaluation, Innovative Practices, Infrastructure Learning Resources, and Collaboration, influence
TQM Effectiveness. The study also supports that student employability is an outcome of the TQM
effectiveness influenced by the QAPs of HEIs, representing a paradigm of educational excellence and
advancing knowledge, societal contribution, and building an employable global workforce.
Practical Implications – The article explores the dimensions of QAPs of higher education
assessment, accreditation, and ranking bodies from India and a few global regulators. The study
reveals that the HEIs are committed to upholding academic standards and ensuring the delivery of
high-quality education. The HEIs often cater to a diverse student population by adapting to local
regulations and policies. The study emphasizes the need for continuous assessment and
improvement strategies to meet the evolving needs of students and other stakeholders globally. The
research findings can help HEIs produce the intended results while meeting and exceeding the
expectations of their stakeholders. It can also assist institutions to improve their reputations.
Originality/value – This is possibly a one-of-a-kind study that used a methodology to evaluate the
QAPs of assessing, accrediting, and ranking agencies of HEIs. The findings may assist higher
education institutions in maintaining their global competitiveness.
Keywords – TQM, Higher Education, Quality Assurance, Quality Accreditation, QAP
1. INTRODUCTION
An individual's pursuit of quality serves as the foundation for success, and success frequently
indicates the presence of quality. Quality is a multifaceted term essential for individuals, organizations,
and undertakings. Al-Tarawneh and Mubaslat (2011) describe quality as excellence, efficacy (Hasan
et al., 2021), superiority (Anttila & Jussila, 2017), service, or process. When prioritizing quality, it is
critical to highlight it in all aspects of work. By prioritizing quality throughout, you position yourself for
success. High-quality products or services are more likely to satisfy customers, provide positive
feedback, and promote loyalty, increasing market share, profitability, and growth (Winn & Green,
1998; Bayraktar et al., 2008).
Quality assurance (QA) and quality enhancement (QE) are popular ideas in higher education
institutions. Quality issues are essential, as evidenced by the interest of various international
organizations worldwide. It is not a new concept; it has been used for ages by multiple cultures
(Elassy, 2015). The "quality is conformity to standards" approach (Houston, 2007) is commonly used
in public services and is based on manufacturing quality control. It is measured to ensure that a
product fits the criteria. Most policymakers in higher education accepted the "Quality as Fitness for
Purpose" (Juran, 2010) approach, believing that quality was primarily concerned with the product or
service it provided. However, numerous scholars have questioned it.
Transparency and accountability have become increasingly vital due to globalization in higher
education, establishing a quality culture that meets diverse needs globally (Smidt, 2015). Higher
education quality is defined by numerous factors, including excellence, value, consistency, and
matching expectations. Despite this, no single quality assurance system can address all aspects of
quality; hence, it is vital to select which quality categories are examined (Harvey, 1993). Self-
assessment can help an organization or institution enhance its overall quality performance by
identifying areas of strength and growth (Wilger, 1997).
Some nations' accreditation experience may appear new, considering the number of countries that
have developed quality assurance procedures for higher education, and many are currently
establishing quality assurance plans. However, it must be evaluated from the perspective of India's
existing quality regulations for higher education, many of which were inherited from the British past
(Stella, 2006). NAAC, NBA, and NIRF are some of India's assessment, accreditation, and ranking
bodies for HEIs, whereas QA is for the UK, MQA is for Malaysia, and KHDA is for UAE/Dubai, etc.
The next part highlights the literature by discussing the principles of quality, quality management and
TQM, quality evaluation, and HEI assurance.
2. BACKGROUND AND LITERATURE REVIEW
The primary goal of this chapter is to explore the various quality-related literature available in the
public domain offered by several scholars to comprehend better the philosophy of TQM, which serves
as the foundation for implementing the system. According to Seymour (1992), students care more
about "Quality" than the size of their institution's capabilities or the research credentials of their
lecturers. Quality can be defined as "satisfying the consumer's needs both now and in the future
(Deming, 1986)." Juran (1988) refers to it as fitness for usage. Roberts (1993) defines this as
"continually serving customers better and more economically while focusing on eliminating all waste
materials." Creating policies to meet customer expectations is critical for hiring staff, allocating
resources, prioritizing, and providing services. As a strategic aspect, the quality approach has
introduced institutions to a new way of envisioning quality, involving the institution's senior decision-
makers in improving performance.
Organizations use quality planning to guarantee that their products, services, and processes meet or
exceed consumer expectations (Ali et al., 2010). This process includes defining quality objectives,
establishing measures for monitoring quality, and developing strategies to accomplish them. Quality
planning allows organizations to proactively address potential issues, minimize defects, reduce costs,
and ultimately provide products and services that consistently meet the desired quality levels,
increasing customer satisfaction and organizational success (Angelov et al., 2008).
Quality inspectors or controllers normally carry out quality control. Quality control procedures such as
inspection (Broday, 2022) and testing are commonly employed in manufacturing and education to
ensure standards are met. Juran's famous lines 'There is gold in the mine!' appeared in the first
edition of the Quality Control Handbook, released in the 1950s. Perhaps most importantly, he created
the term "fitness for use or purpose" (Houston, 2007). As a result of this principle, a product or service
may meet its standards yet not serve its intended purpose. The specification may be troublesome or
fail to satisfy the customer's needs (Angelov et al. 2008). In most cases, meeting specifications is a
necessary quality requirement, but it is insufficient. Juran argues that excellence must be designed
rather than emerging naturally.
A quality assurance system ensures that a good or service continually complies with a standard or
specification (Sallis, 1995). Quality assurance requires meeting all objectives and regulations. Quality
management is a collaborative activity among partners (Elassy, 2015). Quality assurance in higher
education institutions aims to ensure that teaching and learning continue to meet the institution's
objectives today and in the future. Green (1998) defines quality as ensuring that education and
learning are appropriate for their intended purpose.
Total Quality Management (TQM) philosophy stresses work processes and people with the primary
goal of increasing customer satisfaction and organizational success. It entails properly integrating
work processes and allowing for continual improvement at all departmental levels to meet or surpass
client expectations (Lockwood et al., 1996). The TQM philosophy fosters a quality culture in which all
employees seek to delight their customers, and the organization's structure allows them to do so.
TQM principles were initially employed to evaluate aircraft and satellite performance; nevertheless,
these methodologies were eventually adopted by educational and instructional institutions (Winn &
Green, 1998). However, TQM must also be used in curriculum design, the everyday educational
process, and the creation of pedagogical resources (Sallis, 1993). The TQM philosophy emphasizes
"higher quality at lower costs" (Becket, 2008). It is a concept and method for assisting institutions in
managing change and developing a strategy to deal with changing external challenges.
Following World War II, Deming and Juran established the Total Quality Management concept in
Japan. Crosby, Feigenbaum, Ishikawa, and others devised approaches for increasing organizational
performance. Each of these pioneers helped to build a systematic TQM technique, as shown in Table
1 (Neyestani, 2017).
Table 1: TQM Pioneers
Year
Pioneer
Quality Principle
1986
Edward Deming
14 Principles in Quality, 7 Deadly Sins, and Diseases / PDCA
1991
A. V. Feigenbaum
Quality is the customer's perception, not what a company thinks it
is
1985
Kaoru Ishikawa
Statistical Approach in Quality Control and Fish-bone
1979
Philip B. Crosby
Make it right the first time (One Basic TQM)
1998
Joseph M. Juran
Cost of Quality, SPC Quality, and Juran's quality triangle (Trilogy)
Total Quality Management in Higher Education:
The new academic environment requires students and teachers to collaborate, plan, and deliver
education together, which differs from the traditional practice of teachers conveying knowledge solely
to pupils. Students' active engagement in classes allows them to acquire knowledge and motivates
them to embrace the quality of lifelong learning (Abdus, Samad, K; Thiyagarajan, 2015). HEIs must
first understand their students' requirements to create and offer outstanding higher education. To be
future-ready, students require quality education, employability skills, an acceptable academic
atmosphere, cutting-edge infrastructure, extra-curricular activities, etc. Higher education institutions
must continuously improve their services to meet stakeholders' expectations and interests (Đonlagić &
Fazlić, 2015).
Higher education's primary activities are teaching and research, so this appears to be a severe
deficiency. Quality management in higher education must take into account a variety of factors. It is
critical to confront and overcome these issues to increase higher education institutions'
competitiveness and ensure their survival and expansion of services (Bhatia & Dash, 2010). As a
result, educational institutions must examine and plan the effective implementation of Total Quality
Management (TQM) to assess and enhance quality standards, allowing them to progress and excel.
Quality and accreditation in higher education:
Accreditation is essential in higher education because it promotes quality standards, accountability,
and ongoing progress within educational institutions (Sharma 2014). External accrediting agencies
undertake accreditation, which evaluates academic programs, faculty qualifications, infrastructure,
and overall institutional performance. It enables students and families to make informed decisions
about the level of education they will receive. Accreditation also allows institutions to compare
themselves to established standards and best practices, encouraging a culture of self-reflection and
progress (Cooper & Schindler, 2014). Furthermore, accreditation is essential for gaining a worldwide
reputation and allowing credit transfers between institutions. It is a quality assurance that instills trust
and confidence in employers, policymakers, and society.
Quality and accreditation are closely related ideas that promote excellence in various fields, including
education, healthcare, and industry (Ziegel, Swift, Ross, & Omachonu, 1999). Quality is described as
continuously producing products, services, or procedures that meet or exceed customer expectations
(Lim, 1999) while following established standards. Accreditation, on the other hand, is a formal
acknowledgment procedure in which external bodies review and confirm the quality and compliance
of an organization, institution, or program against established standards.
Assessment, accreditation, and ranking bodies – overview:
Assessment and accreditation agencies in higher education are critical to assuring quality and
standards across institutions and programs. They assess many areas of educational institutions, such
as curriculum, faculty qualifications, resources, and student outcomes. The study focuses on a few
agencies, including NAAC, NBA, and NIRF from India, the QAA from the United Kingdom, MQA from
Malaysia, and KHDA from the United Arab Emirates.
National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC), India
The National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC) is an autonomous agency formed by
India's University Grants Commission (UGC) to review and certify the country's higher education
institutions. The NAAC accreditation procedure assesses several components of an educational
institution using certain criteria (NAAC Handbook (Revised) - November 2017, pages 17-18). NAAC's
technique for assessment and accreditation is fairly similar to that of international QA agencies. They
include self-evaluation by the institution's IQAC (Internal Quality Assurance Cell) and an external
NAAC assessment.
NAAC's assessment criteria include Curriculum Aspects, Teaching, Learning & Evaluation, Research,
Innovation & Extension, Infrastructure and Learning Resources, Student Support & Progression, and
Governance & Leadership. Each criterion has a few Key Indicators (KIs). They are defined as metrics
that elicit responses from institutions, such as academic flexibility, curriculum enrichment, feedback
systems, teaching-learning processes, teacher profiles & quality, research publications and awards,
information technology infrastructure, alumni engagement, faculty empowerment strategies, and so
on.
The National Board of Accreditation (NBA), India
The National Board of Accreditation (NBA) is an autonomous entity in India that functions under the
auspices of the All-India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), which is in charge of accrediting
technical education programs throughout the country. The NBA was founded in 1994 to examine and
certify technical education programs provided by higher education institutions. NBA's vision is to be
an international standard accrediting agency by ensuring the highest level of credibility in the
assurance of quality and relevance of professional education, as well as to meet the expectations of
its stakeholders - corporations, academicians, educational institutions, industry, regulators,
government, students, and parents (National Board of Accreditation, 2019).
The NBA's assessment criteria include curriculum and learning process, faculty traits and
contributions, vision, mission, program educational objectives, infrastructure, and student quality
performance. Their sub-criteria are vision and mission statements, PEOs (Program Educational
Objectives) of the programs applied for accreditation, governing structure - a sample of MoM and
action taken reports to be attached, faculty development policies - there must be a well-defined faculty
development policy for better quality in program delivery to meet higher standards, grievance
redressal mechanism - for conflict management, anti-ragging committee, sexual harassment -
assessment of student learning by semester final examinations, term exams, practical/laboratory
exams, internal assessment, case studies, project tasks, seminars, presentations, analysis of reports,
group discussions, etc., curriculum - the process that redesigns the curriculum based on gap analysis
done through program outcomes must be recorded, learning process - the criteria of learning process
are the processes followed to improve the quality of teaching and learning.
The National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF), India
The National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF), a Government of India program introduced in
2015, ranks higher education institutions nationwide using predefined characteristics and criteria. The
NIRF seeks to foster openness, accountability, and healthy competition among institutions while
giving useful information to students, parents, and other stakeholders. This organized framework
provides the approach for rating and ranking universities and institutions across India, and it was
developed following thorough research by the MHRD expert group.
The ranking methodology contains specific criteria for teaching and learning resources, research and
professional practice, graduation outcomes, outreach and diversity, and perception. (NIRF, 2018).
The NIRF assessment criteria include teaching, learning & resources, graduation outcomes, research
and professional practice, outreach and inclusivity, and peer perception.
Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education, UK (QAA):
QAA conducts transnational education (TNE) reviews on behalf of UK universities and in the interest
of UK higher education. These reviews are to ensure that the quality of education delivered by UK
universities overseas in IBCs (International Branch Campuses) is safeguarded and meets the
established academic quality and standards (Brown, 2004).
The review objectives on student learning experience are listed below:
Policy and procedures for student admissions, including the responsibilities of the partner
institution; student support, including arrangement for induction and access to UK-based staff;
student engagement, including student representation and feedback mechanisms and IBCs,
staff appointment, induction and development, availability of learning material for students,
including virtual learning environment
Information on staffing models and key roles
Procedures and contingency plans for terminating the agreement with an IBC partner.
The Malaysian Quality Agency (MQA):
The Malaysian Quality Agency (MQA) was created in November 2007 under the Malaysian
Qualifications Agency Act 2007. MQA's primary duty is to implement the Malaysian Quality
Framework (MQF) as the foundation for higher education quality assurance and as a reference point
for Malaysian qualification standards and criteria (Mokhtar, Rahman, Othman, and Ali, 2014).
MQA evaluates higher education providers based on the following criteria: vision, mission,
educational goals and learning outcomes, curriculum design and delivery, student assessment,
student selection and support services, academic staff, educational resources, program monitoring
and review, leadership, governance, and administration, and continuous quality improvement.
Knowledge and Human Resource Development Authority (KHDA), UAE
The Knowledge and Human Development Authority (KHDA) is a government agency in Dubai, United
Arab Emirates, in charge of the growth, direction, and quality of Dubai's private education. It regulates
and accredits higher education institutions in the emirate. KHDA examines and accredits higher
education institutions based on a variety of factors, including faculty qualifications, facilities, academic
programs, student support services, and overall quality requirements. Institutions seeking KHDA
accreditation go through a thorough examination procedure to guarantee they meet the standards
(Warren H.. Fox, KHDA, 2011).
KHDA accreditation is vital for higher education institutions in Dubai since it ensures quality and
conformity to specified criteria. It also improves the institution's reputation and trustworthiness, making
it more appealing to prospective students and employers. KHDA-accredited institutions are known for
providing high-quality education and are better positioned to recruit students from both local and
foreign backgrounds. Accreditation by KHDA is a notable milestone for higher education institutions in
Dubai, indicating their dedication to excellence and quality of education.
Conceptual higher education quality model:
TQM in Higher Education, specifically within the QAPs framework, has proven to be extremely
effective in driving significant improvements across multiple dimensions of educational institutions,
improving student learning outcomes and satisfaction, and positively impacting institutional reputation
and global competitiveness. HEIs use TQM to improve educational procedures, student results, and
institutional reputation. This procedure has resulted in greater recognition and rankings for their
accrediting processes. Some of the QAPs are detailed below.
1. Governance and Leadership: It represents effective communication of vision to staff and
students, fosters engagement at all levels, allocates resources for research and development
activities, emphasizes academic excellence, pursues continuous improvement practices for
teaching quality enhancement, and prioritizes internal quality assurance systems.
2. Student Support and Progression: Improvement in providing a comprehensive student
prospectus, monitoring student progression, and utilization of student feedback for quality
enhancement.
3. Research, Consultancy, & Extension: The institution should encourage faculty engagement in
research and consultancy endeavors, foster a culture of continuous learning among educators,
and provide essential funding for research and development.
4. Teaching, Learning, & Evaluation: The institution emphasizes students' well-being through
adequate extra-curricular facilities and maintains a secure and conducive learning environment.
It also conducts satisfaction surveys to enhance the effectiveness of teaching and learning.
5. Innovative Practices: The institute showcases flexibility in its academic-related activities,
supports innovation in quality improvement, promotes value-based education, and applies
quality management concepts across all academic-related activities.
6. Infrastructure & Learning Resources: The institution commits itself to providing state-of-the-
art infrastructure to foster a high-quality teaching and learning environment and to have a
structured procedure for tracking students' development.
7. Curriculum Aspects: It represents the institution's approach, including its commitment to
academic flexibility, sustainability, transparency, alignment, evaluation by knowledgeable
faculty, and relevance and practicality in its educational offerings.
8. Collaborations: The institution demonstrates industry exposure for students through
internships and training programs, offers an international exchange program, and supports
faculty members in expanding their industrial networks and establishing international
reputations.
9. TQM Effectiveness: The institution's multifaceted strategies for enhancing student learning
outcomes and overall excellence. These strategies include optimizing teaching methods and
course content, encouraging engagement with local industries, and sharing success stories
through various communication platforms and events.
10. Student Employability: It represents the institution's engagement with various stakeholders,
and the institution's focus on academic activities to enhance employability skills underscores its
commitment to preparing students industry-ready.
METHODOLOGY
The article's primary objective is to conduct a study on quality assurance practices (QAPs) of HEIs.
The study's basis is a literature review of quality, quality management, and total quality management
in higher education institutions in HEIs. Further literature was reviewed on the assessment,
accreditation, and ranking of India, and a few selected nations for their QAPs of HEIs are the
epicenter of the study. The quality assessment and ranking practices of India, UK, Malaysia, and UAE
were studied, and various literature was published in reputed journals delved into quality and TQM in
higher education. The selection of countries apart from India is based on their global recognition for
academic excellence (Warren H. Fox, KHDA, 2011).
From the literature review, variables that are aligned with the measurement criteria of assessment,
accreditation, and ranking bodies were identified. The common-sense method dropped a few
uncommon variables mainly due to their similarity. After filtration, ten dimensions were chosen
examined in the final study: Governance and Leadership (GL), Student Support and Progression
(SSP), Research, Consultancy, and Extension (RCE), Teaching, Learning, and Evaluation (TLE),
Innovative Practices (IP), Infrastructure and Learning Resources (ILR), Curriculum Aspects (CA),
Collaborations (COLB), TQM Effectiveness (EFF) and Student Employability (SO).
FINDINGS
A comparative study of QAPs in higher education is an excellent opportunity to obtain useful
information into academic institutions' global expansion. The study highlights the necessity of context-
specific techniques to boost academic achievement, such as international collaboration, cross-cultural
learning experiences, research and citations, and so on, while retaining educational quality.
The following factors derived from the literature review are tabled below:
Factor
Factor Labels
1
Governance Leadership
2
Student Support Progression
3
Research Consultancy Extension
4
Curriculum Aspects
5
Teaching Learning Evaluation
6
Innovative Practices
7
Infrastructure Learning Resources
8
Collaboration
9
TQM Effectiveness
10
Student Employability
The eight criteria, GL, SSP, RCE, CA, TLE, IP, ILR, and COLB, influence the effectiveness of TQM
(EFF) implementation. The quality of education excelled through the effectiveness of TQM practices
expected to deliver desired outcomes for the stakeholders through student employability (SO) by
building the students' industry-ready through outcomes such as graduate skills, abilities,
competencies, and employability (Dwaikat, 2020).
This comprehensive study delves into the distinctive characteristics of HEIs in India and a few
selected nations across many dimensions, highlighting the unique strategies, approaches, and
priorities of their higher education system. A summary of observations is detailed below;
1. The study emphasizes the importance of higher education institutions' governance and
leadership excellence. The institutions are known for their strong leadership, strategic
planning, and open decision-making processes. This leadership style aligns with the
overarching goal of building a dynamic and progressive educational ecosystem that promotes
innovation, inclusivity, and long-term growth. Strong governance principles improve
institutions' ability to meet academic and strategic goals while being accountable and
transparent. According to the studies, leadership has an important role in developing a vision
for quality and boosting institutional effectiveness through TQM implementation (Sayeda,
Rajendran, & Lokachari, 2010).
2. The study confirms the provision of a comprehensive student prospectus, monitoring of
student progression, and utilization of student feedback for quality enhancement (Manchanda,
2020).
3. The stakeholders acknowledge their commitment to embracing modern pedagogical methods,
interdisciplinary collaboration, and cutting-edge research. This process underscores the
institutions' role as drivers of innovation, preparing students to navigate a rapidly changing
world and contribute to advancements in various disciplines (Osborn, Alkezweeny, &
Kecskes, 2015). However, it also indicates the need for attention in Research Consultancy &
Extension and Citations.
4. The study also indicates that HEIs need to give prominence to Curriculum Aspects. This
recognition highlights the institutions' proactive curriculum design, development, and delivery
approach. The alignment of curricula with industry demands, emerging trends, and
interdisciplinary perspectives reflects their commitment to providing relevant and future-
focused education (Hasan, Mallik, & Tsou, 2021).
5. The research reveals that HEIs must perform well concerning Teaching, Learning, &
Evaluation. The HEIs commend faculty commitment to high-quality pedagogy, learner-
centered approaches, and rigorous evaluation practices (Brown, 2004). This perception
reinforces the institutions' dedication to cultivating effective learning environments that equip
students with the skills, knowledge, and critical thinking abilities required to excel in diverse
fields.
6. The study reveals the institutions' dedication to maintaining stringent quality standards and
fostering an environment conducive to exceptional academic experiences. This recognition
echoes the institutions' commitment to continual improvement, effective assessment
mechanisms, and a focus on providing holistic educational outcomes. The study reveals that
HEIs acknowledge the ability to conduct cutting-edge research (NAAC, 2020), provide
valuable consultancy services for innovation, and extend their expertise to benefit industries
and communities.
7. The study indicates that HEIs must provide suitable Infrastructure & Learning Resources
(Sujit Kumar Garai & Abhijit Chakraborty, 2016). This recognition signifies the institutions'
dedication to providing state-of-the-art facilities, advanced technologies, and supportive
environments that enhance the learning experience and facilitate academic achievement.
8. The study reveals that Collaboration is a significant strength of HEIs (Avissar, Alkaher, & Gan,
2018). Stakeholders emphasize partnerships within and outside their institutions, fostering an
environment where interdisciplinary cooperation and knowledge exchange thrive. This
approach speaks to their commitment to creating a broader educational ecosystem beyond
their campuses.
9. All dimensions of QAPs are significantly associated with TQM effectiveness, suggesting that
this model can be applied to improve the effectiveness of TQM in the higher education sector
in India.
10. The stakeholders perceive that the HEIs must emphasize equipping graduates with the
necessary skills and competencies to transition seamlessly into the professional world. This
outcome highlights a comprehensive approach to education that aligns with industry needs
(Hughey, 2000) and ensures that graduates are prepared to contribute meaningfully to their
chosen fields.
The HEIs are models of excellence in Research Consultancy & Extension, Teaching, Learning &
Evaluation, and Curriculum Aspects, with a strong emphasis on knowledge generation, transformative
learning experience hubs, and creative curriculum design incubators. Their diverse supremacy in
Governance and Leadership, Innovative Practices, Infrastructure and Learning Resources, and
Collaboration exemplifies educational greatness, contributing to the advancement of knowledge,
society, and the global workforce. The findings may not necessarily support a causal relationship
between QAPs, TQM effectiveness, and student employability. However, these findings suggest that
there is a relationship.
DISCUSSION
QAPs encourage a culture of quality and continual development in HEIs (Dwaikat, NY, 2021). This
culture is similar to the TQM principles, which encourage continual improvement in all aspects of
institutional performance (Ahire et al., 1996). QAPs use data analysis and feedback mechanisms to
motivate improvement efforts (Reichert et al., 2009). Similarly, TQM stresses the use of data in
decision-making processes to identify areas for improvement and monitor performance (Oakland,
2003). QAPs and TQM emphasize the necessity of including stakeholders in quality improvement
activities (Yang 2015). The active participation of stakeholders, such as students, staff, and other
relevant stakeholders improve TQM effectiveness by encouraging collaboration and commitment to
quality improvement activities (Jung et al., 2016). QAPs and TQM encourage process optimization to
reduce waste and increase productivity (Dale et al., 1998). Institutions can better meet stakeholder
expectations by simplifying operations and increasing efficiency (Deming, 1986).
QAPs ensure that educational programs are consistent with industry standards and market demands
(Gollapalli and Rao, 2013). This alignment increases student employability by providing graduates
with the skills and knowledge that industries require (Harvey et al., 1997). QAPs allow for the regular
examination and updating of curricula to integrate evolving trends and industry practices (Rao et al.,
2018). Relevant and up-to-date curricula improve student employability by preparing graduates for the
demands of the job market (Klein-Collins & Werquin, 2013). QAPs advocate for incorporating
experiential learning opportunities into the curriculum, such as internships and industrial projects
(Boud & Solomon, 2001). These chances provide students with practical experience and abilities that
employers desire, increasing their employability (Smith et al., 2009).
In addition to technical competencies, QAPs stress the development of soft skills such as
communication and teamwork (Harvey et al. 1997). Strong soft skills improve student employability by
allowing graduates to effectively cooperate, communicate, and adapt to a variety of job situations
(Robles, 2012). QAPs promote institutions to collaborate with employers and industry stakeholders
(Priya 2020). These collaborations foster internships, mentorship, and recruitment opportunities,
giving students better access to job chances and industry insights (Brown & Hesketh, 2004).
The Higher Education Quality Model:
Figure 1: The Higher Education Quality Model:
The Higher Education Quality Model is a framework for evaluating and improving the quality of higher
education institutions and programs. This model offers an organized approach to evaluating several
aspects of quality in higher education. It provides a framework for institutions to examine their
strengths and shortcomings along these dimensions and find possibilities for improvement. Higher
education institutions can better address the changing demands of students, industry, and society by
implementing a systematic approach to quality improvement. In addition, the approach can help
policymakers and accrediting agencies promote quality and excellence in higher education.
Total Quality Management (TQM) and Quality Assurance Processes (QAPs) are approaches for
increasing quality in businesses, particularly those in higher education. The deployment and
integration of QAPs can improve TQM effectiveness by aligning their goals with those of local and
international assessment, accreditation, and ranking agencies. Overall, the importance of Total
Quality Management in higher education institutions can be considerably increased by thoughtfully
integrating and aligning Quality Assurance Practices. When used together, TQM and QAPs can help
institutions accomplish their quality goals, increase organizational performance, and better serve their
students and stakeholders.
The effectiveness of TQM in higher education institutions can positively impact student employability
by ensuring curriculum alignment with industry needs, improving the quality of teaching and learning
experiences, involving employers in curriculum design and feedback processes, providing work-
integrated learning opportunities, and providing comprehensive career services and support.
Prioritizing TQM principles allows institutions to better educate their graduates for success in the
competitive labor market while also contributing to their long-term career development and
progression.
CONCLUSION
Implementing quality assurance practices (QAPs) in Indian higher education institutions has various
advantages, including improved educational standards, increased institutional effectiveness, and
better student outcomes. Some advantages include higher academic standards, a better learning
experience, increased employability, a continuous improvement culture, accountability and
transparency, global recognition, quality workforce development, and socioeconomic development.
Overall, applying quality assurance techniques in Indian higher education institutions from a TQM
viewpoint helps to continuously improve educational quality, institutional excellence, and societal well-
being.
Quality assurance practices (QAPs) in higher education institutions have evolved to handle a variety
of difficulties and assure continual educational quality improvement. The study covers a variety of
QAPs for Higher Education Institutions (HEIs), including governance & leadership, innovative
practices, infrastructure & learning resources, collaboration, research consultancy & extension,
teaching, learning, & evaluation, and curriculum aspects that contribute to TQM effectiveness and
student employability. Some HEIs may have fully embraced TQM principles and integrated them into
their organizational culture, whereas others may still be in the early stages of implementation. This
study investigated QAP perceptions and HEI efficacy across several dimensions, giving insight on
their different strengths and contributions to the educational landscape, particularly in terms of
preparing industry-ready students for employment.
Conflict Of Interest: None
REFERENCES
1. Al-Tarawneh, D. H. A., & Mubaslat, M. (2011). The Implementation of Total Quality
Management (TQM) In the Higher Educational Sector in Jordan. International Journal of
Industrial Marketing, 1(2), 1. https://doi.org/10.5296/ijim.v1i1.771
2. Hasan, M. Z., Mallik, A., & Tsou, J. C. (2021). Learning method design for engineering
students to be prepared for Industry 4.0: a Kaizen approach. Higher Education, Skills and
Work-Based Learning, 11(1), 182–198. https://doi.org/10.1108/HESWBL-07-2019-0098
3. Anttila, J., & Jussila, K. (2017). Understanding quality – conceptualization of the fundamental
concepts of quality. International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, 9(3–4), 251–268.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJQSS-03-2017-0020
4. Winn, R. C., & Green, R. S. (1998). Applying total quality management to the educational
process. International Journal of Engineering Education, 14(1), 24–29
5. Bayraktar, E., Tatoglu, E., & Zaim, S. (2008). An instrument for measuring the critical factors
of TQM in Turkish higher education. Total Quality Management and Business Excellence,
19(6), 551–574. https://doi.org/10.1080/14783360802023921
6. Bayraktar, E., Tatoglu, E., & Zaim, S. (2008). An instrument for measuring the critical factors
of TQM in Turkish higher education. Total Quality Management and Business Excellence,
19(6), 551–574. https://doi.org/10.1080/14783360802023921
7. Elassy, N. (2015). The concepts of quality, quality assurance, and quality enhancement.
Quality Assurance in Education, 23(3), 250–261. https://doi.org/10.1108/QAE-11-2012-0046
8. Houston, D. (2007). TQM and higher education: A critical systems perspective on fitness for
purpose. Quality in Higher Education, 13(1), 3–17.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13538320701272672
9. Joseph M. Juran; Joseph A. De Feo. (2010), Juran's Quality Handbook: The Complete Guide
to Performance Excellence, Sixth Edition (McGraw-Hill)
10. Smidt, H. (2015). European quality assurance—A European higher education area success
story [overview paper]. In A. Curaj, L. Matei, R. Pricopie, J. Salmi, & P. Scott (Eds.), The
European higher education http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20877-0_40 area: Between
critical reflections and future policies.
11. Sallis, E. (1995). Total Quality Management in Education. Total Quality Management
Business Excellence (Vol. 6). https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203417010
12. Wilger, A. (1997). Quality assurance in higher education: A literature review. Stanford, CA:
National Center for Postsecondary Improvement.
13. Harvey, L., & Green, D. (1993). Defining Quality. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher
Education, 18(1), 9-34.)
14. Hagenfeldt, K., & Lowry, S. (1997). Evaluation of undergraduate medical education - Why and
how? Annals of Medicine, 29(5), 357–358. https://doi.org/10.3109/07853899708999361
15. Ahire, S. L., Golhar, D. Y., & Waller, M. A. (1996). Development and validation of TQM
implementation constructs. Decision Sciences, 27(1), 23-56.
16. Reichert, S., Tauch, C., & Wunderlich, T. (2009). Trends in learning structures in European
higher education III. Final report. European University Association.
17. Oakland, J. S. (2003). TQM: Text with cases. Butterworth-Heinemann.
18. Yang, J. (2015). The role of quality management practices in university performance in Korea:
The mediating effect of quality culture. Tertiary Education and Management, 21(3), 213-229.
19. Jung, T., Lee, H., Yoon, H., & McLean, G. N. (2016). Moderating effects of quality
management on customer orientation, employee commitment, and performance in the hotel
industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 52, 62-71.
20. Dale, B. G., Wiele, T. V. D., & Williams, R. (1998). Managerial behavior in small firms: A
comparative study of the quality practices of Belgian, British and Dutch firms. International
Journal of Production Economics, 56, 115-129.
21. Stella, A. 2006. "Quality Assurance of Cross-border Higher Education." Quality in Higher
Education 12 (3): 257–76. doi:10. 1080/13538320601072859
22. Seymour, D. (1992). On Q: Causing Quality in Higher Education. New York, NY: Macm
23. Deming, W. E. (1986) Out of the Crisis: Quality, Productivity, and Competitive Position
Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
24. Juran, M., and Godfrey, A. (1998). Juran's quality handbook (5th ed.). Washington, DC:
McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
25. Roberts, H.V. (1993). Using Personal Checklists to Facilitate TQM. Quality Progress, 51-56
26. Ali, N. A., Mahat, F., & Zairi, M. (2010). Testing the criticality of HR-TQM factors in the
Malaysian higher education context. Total Quality Management and Business Excellence,
21(11), 1177–1188
27. Angelov, S., Kunal, K., & McGregor, A. (2008). Sorting and selection with random costs.
Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial
Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics) (Vol. 4957 LNCS).
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-78773-0_5
28. Broday, E. E. (2022). The evolution of quality: from inspection to quality 4.0. International
Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, 14(3), 368–382. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJQSS-09-
2021-0121
29. Lockwood, A., Baker, M., Ghillyer, A., (1996) Quality Management in Hospitality, London,
Cassell.
30. Sallis, E. (1993). Total Quality Management in Education, (36), 1–17.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203417010
31. Becket, N. (2008). Quality Management Practice in Higher Education - What Quality Are We
Enhancing? The Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism, 7(1), 40–54.
https://doi.org/10.3794/johlste.71.174
32. Neyestani, B. (2017), Principles and Contributions of Total Quality Management (TQM).
Gurus on Business Quality Improvement
33. Abdus, Samad, K; Thiyagarajan, R. (2015). Tqm in Higher Education – a Conceptual Model
To Achieve Excellence in Management Education. International Journal of Management, 6(1),
634–645
34. Đonlagić, S., & Fazlić, S. (2015). Quality assessment in higher education using the
SERVQUALQ model. Portal of Croatian scientific and professional journals (Vol. 32).
https://doi.org/10.1002/adv.21293
35. Bhatia, K., & Dash, M. K. (2010). National Knowledge Commission - a step towards India's
higher education reforms on India's higher education. International Research Journal of
Finance and Economics, 53(July 2019), 46–58
36. Sharma, M. J. (2018). Total Quality Management in Teacher Education Institutions.
International Journal for Research in Applied Science and Engineering Technology, 6(4),
2354–2357. https://doi.org/10.22214/ijraset.2018.4401
37. Cooper, D. R., & Schindler, P. S. (2014). Business Research Methods 12th edition. Business
Research Methods
38. Ziegel, E. R., Swift, J. A., Ross, J. E., & Omachonu, V. K. (1999). Principles of Total Quality.
Technometrics (Vol. 41). https://doi.org/10.2307/1271376
39. Lim, D. (1999). Quality assurance in higher education in developing countries. Assessment
and Evaluation in Higher Education (Vol. 24). https://doi.org/10.1080/0260293990240402
40. Gandhi, M. M. (2013). International Initiatives in Assessment of Quality and Accreditation in
Higher Education. International Journal of Educational Planning & Administration, 3(2), 121–
138
41. NAAC for Quality and Excellence in Higher Education. (2017). NAAC for Quality and
Excellence in Higher Education 12, 1–160.
42. Government Of India. (1992). National Education Policy 1986 Modified in 1992. Retrieved
from http://www.mhrd.gov.in/documents_reports?field_documents_reports_category_tid=19
43. Indian Institute of Science, B. (2020). NIRF Data Capturing System. Bangalore. Retrieved
from https://www.iisc.ac.in/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/NIRF_IISc_IR-O-U-
0220_Final_Submitted_Data.pdf
44. Mokhtar, R., Rahman, A. A., Othman, S. H., & Ali, N. (2014). Malaysian Academic Quality
Assurance System in the context of issues, challenges, and best practices, (August), 12–15.
45. Warren H.. Fox, KHDA, G. of D. (2011). Warren H . Fox Chief of Higher Education Knowledge
and Human Development Authority ( KHDA ) Government of Dubai, 40–43.
46. Dwaikat, N.Y. (2021), "A comprehensive model for assessing the quality in higher education
institutions", The TQM Journal, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 841-855.
47. Sayeda, B., Rajendran, C., & Lokachari, P. S. (2010). An empirical study of total quality
management in engineering educational institutions of India: Perspective of management.
Benchmarking, 17(5), 728–767. https://doi.org/10.1108/14635771011076461
48. Manchanda, R. (2020). Quality issues and challenges : a study of the Quality Issues and
Challenges : A Study of the Private Education Institutes in Singapore.
49. Osborn, D., Alkezweeny, J., & Kecskes, K. (2015). Beyond the University: An Initiative for
Continuing Engagement among Alumni. Metropolitan Universities, 26(3), 171–187.
50. Brown, A., & Hesketh, A. (2004). The mismanagement of talent: Employability and jobs in the
knowledge economy. Oxford University Press.
51. Sujit Kumar Garai & Abhijit Chakraborty. (2016). Requirement of Internal Quality Assurance
for Higher Education. International Journal of Business and General Management (IJBGM),
5(4), 19–24. Retrieved from
http://www.iaset.us/view_archives.php?year=2016&id=32&jtype=2&page=2
52. Avissar, I., Alkaher, I., & Gan, D. (2018). The role of distributed leadership in mainstreaming
environmental sustainability into campus life in an Israeli teaching college: A case study.
International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 19(3), 518–546.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-07-2017-0105.
53. Hughey, A. W. (2000). Application of the Deming Philosophy to Higher Education. Industry
and Higher Education, 14(1), 40–44. https://doi.org/10.5367/000000000101294841
54. Gollapalli, M. D., & Rao, A. S. (2013). Quality in higher education: A review. International
Journal of Science and Research, 2(6), 422-425.
55. Harvey, L., Moon, S., & Geall, V. (1997). Graduates' work: Organisational change and
students' attributes. Birmingham, UK: Centre for Research into Quality, University of Central
England.
56. Rao, V. R., Laha, S., Sharma, R. K., & Dalal, S. (2018). Quality management system: Role in
enhancing quality in higher education. Education for Chemical Engineers, 23, 57-67.
57. Klein-Collins, R., & Werquin, P. (2013). The impact of the Bologna process in Europe and
beyond Second report on the state of implementation 2012. Council of Europe.
58. Boud, D., & Solomon, N. (2006). Work-based learning, graduate attributes, and lifelong
learning. In Graduate attributes, learning and employability (pp. 207-220). Dordrecht: Springer
Netherlands.
59. Smith, C., Ferns, S., & Russell, M. (2009). Rethinking work-integrated learning with
mandatory online reflective activities. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 10(1),
27-39.
60. Robles, M. M. (2012). Executive perceptions of the top 10 soft skills needed in today's
workplace. Business Communication Quarterly, 75(4), 453-465.
61. Priya, A. (2020). Developing Higher Education through University-Industry Linkage : A Faculty
Perception Economics Developing Higher Education through University-Industry Linkage : A
Faculty Perception Purakala, (12), 1–10.
