Alignment of TQM in the Higher Education context

Purpose - To adjust the concept of Total Quality Management to and make it fit for use in Higher Education Institutes. Design/methodology/approach – The article describes the results of a design science research. Based on experiences in Egypt and the Netherlands the characteristics of Higher education are defined as well as the specifics of educational processes. These lead to a translation of TQM in educational terms. Findings – The experiences result in a model that can be used as framework to implement TQM in Higher Education Institutes Research limitations/implications - The experiences that form the base for the design are limited to two countries, with two different cultures. There is no evidence concerning the use of the model in every country in the world. Originality/value - It is known that there have been many initiatives to implement TQM in Higher Education. The combination with Quality Management in Teaching and Learning models (Transformative Model , An Engagement Model of Program Quality , University of Learning Model, A Model for a Responsive University) is scarce, as well as application in two such different countries.


Introduction
Total Quality Management and its European equivalent the European Foundation for Quality Management Excellence Model started in Western countries almost 50 years ago and generated great interest in most firms in the beginning. Grant et al. (1994), Dalrymple & Drew (2000) and Young et al. (2006) emphasise that TQM means a paradigm shift. One of the most distinguishing factors of TQM companies mentioned is the centrality of the human or 'soft' factor in the way to continuous improvement.
TQM had its ups and downs (Hermel,1997). Interest declined in the end of the eighties and revived in the beginning of the nineties of last century. At the moment TQM is still practice, often next to new methods like lean management and Six Sigma.
Although research on Total Quality Management reports mixed results, the main tendency is that TQM is said to work, that it actually improves the quality of the business. "Continuous improvement and problem prevention significantly enhance job satisfaction and organizational commitment" (Karia and Assaari, 2006). "Where teamwork was perceived as a dominant TQM practice, improvements in job satisfaction levels were significant" (Ooi et al., 2007).TQM has been successfully implemented in different contexts. In manufacturing as well as in services (see e.g. the literature review of Sureshchandar et al, 2001). In Western countries as well as in emerging countries (Martin and Weill, 2000) (Wiele et al, 2000). These factors can be summarized in the need for Commitment. There should be emotional involvement to the implementation (Wiele et al, 2000) or -in a broader sense-a quality Culture (Fuchs 1993  The argument sought here is to define the total quality management model that can be applicable in the higher education context.

Adjustment to the educational context
An 'ideal educational system' should incorporate the following 'learning insights': (1) Learning is about transforming the student is into a flexible thinker , (2) Learning occurs all the time; all situations are therefore a learning opportunity, However, the problem lies in the very fact that at the organization level, a typical university in the many countries is not yet ready to respond to the above-mentioned requirements. Their pattern of approach seems to be characterized by the following: (6) Academic programs tend not be student-centred, (7) Lack of systemic thinking, consistent leadership for change and continuing approach for improvement.
As a result, curriculum and instructions are not clearly conducive for producing learning gains, as characterized by a debilitating fragmentation of learning experiences.
Instructional paradigms which feature only individual work undermine the positive results on the effectiveness of collaborative learning. There is minimal feedback on performance. In addition to its focus on the continuous improvement principle, TQM also focuses on the principle of customer satisfaction. Although some academics are uncomfortable with the idea of students as customers, few would argue that we listen enough to our students, and fewer still would assert that we cannot improve our programs and services by seeking evaluations from our students.
That is why the enthusiasm of the academics to TQM has never been very high.
Therefore the only logical conclusion one can arrive at in relation to a model for quality management in higher education is that it would have to be more holistic to flexibly address service and pedagogical aspects uniquely.
The need for distinct approaches to the service and teaching areas of higher education proposed is based on their distinctiveness of emphasis. In the service areas student is clearly the customer and is the focus of all processes. In the teaching and research function students play the key role of a participant and the focus is on the attribute of their learning, as determined by: In spite of the structural difference in the scope of the two models, there is a substantial commonality of requirements in the implementation phase. First of all, their focus on students albeit to differing levels of subtlety. Secondly, at the operational level, collaboration is a key requirement in both the models although the fields of interaction may vary to a large extent. Both the models also require a visible commitment and support from the senior management to effectively continue to flourish. Thus, by and large, the pattern of interaction and governance required for both the approaches is the same. Al-Mazrooa et al. (2010) state that "While each model cited in the previous section has its own unique perspective on educational quality in a university, it is necessary to examine them more closely to see if they can be described by a generic model for quality management".
Having laid out an exploration of both the above-mentioned models, we designed a comprehensive quality model that is characterized by:

(5) Learning Outcomes
The learning outcomes are subject to Performance criteria that are specific measurable statements identifying the performance(s) required to meet the outcome, confirmable through evidence (e.g in the form of the quality of the thesis). 10. External relationships including social engagement with communities. 11. Achieving the stated outcomes of the learning process and reaching out to the community through effective relationship and participation will help,among other things in boosting the organizational ranking(employer ranking) that consider measures of research excellence and/or influence and social engagement, student choices, eventual success and others.

(6) Evaluation and continuous improvement
12. Assess and evaluate: collection, analysis and interpretation of evidence. 13. Feedback for continuous improvement.

Conclusion
The framework developed can be used as a guideline for self assessment. On each of the 6 components within the culture, context and commitment a Deming cycle can be applied. It will be familiar to the academic and evoke less resistance than the manufacturing terminology like "processes", "customers" and "suppliers". Experiences with similar adjustments (Schaik et al. 1998

Student Experience
In-class Teaching & Learning and Out-ofclass activities

Student learning
External relationships Employer ranking External context analysis Performance criteria

Evaluation & Continuous Improvement
Research Course development