What Can We Do with Industrial Quality Assurance Models in ......Leadership Funding Internal allocation Personnel policy Personnel Educational support Quantity Quality 2ary education

'07-11-16 (c) DFW | CHEPS DRAFT, DO NOT QUOTE1

What Can We Do withIndustrial Quality AssuranceModels in Higher Education?

Presentation to2nd QA Forum

2007-11-16, RomeDon F. Westerheijden

(c) DFW | CHEPS DRAFT, DO NOT QUOTE'07-11-162

Why Focus on Industrial QualityAssurance Models?

Aim: to show use and limitation of industrialquality assurance models in application tohigher education

Are we special?Does that have consequences for qualityassurance inside higher education institutions?


Contents

1. Is Higher Education Special?2. Industrial Models and Higher Education3. Limitations on Using Standard Models4. Conclusions


What Makes Higher Education Special?

Three main issues:Professional production technologyUnclear who is the customer/clientTransformation argument

Note: Higher education institutions are multi-productfirms, but I focus on education function, not onresearch

How is this different from ‘standard’ models?

1

2

3

4


Main Characteristics of Industrial QAModels (1) TQM

Broad movement, rather than one modelSimple, common-sense principle:PDCA-cycle = open system approach

Both were developed in the 1950s

Helped make turnaround to student learning asfocus (‘customer orientation’)

‘delight the customer’: same as traditional‘excellence’?

Short-term vs. long-term!

1

2

3

4


Main Characteristics of Industrial QAModels (1) TQM

Highlight in ‘soft’ TQMInvolvementContinuous quality improvement

Highlight in ‘hard’ TQMStatistical process control + toolsLegitimacy problem: professors design tools, theydo not use them

1

2

3

4

7

PlanPlanWhat are you trying to do?

DoDoHow are you doing it?

CheckCheckHow do you know

it works?

ActActHow do you change

to improve?

1

2

3

4


Cause and Effect Diagram(‘Fishbone’)

StudentLearning1

2

3

4


Main Characteristics of Industrial QAModels (2) EFQM

Highlight: map of all functions in an organizationWhat are we doing?What needs improvement?

1

2

3

4


© EFQM. The EFQM Excellence Model is a registered trademark of the European Foundation for Quality Management.

EFQM Map

1

2

3

4


Conditions Process Results

Continuation-%1st, 2nd … year

Graduation-%Time to degreeDrop out-%

Satisfaction students

Satisfaction personnel

Curriculumimplementation

Entrants

Leadership

Funding

Internal allocation

Personnel policy

Personnel

Educationalsupport

QuantityQuality

2ary education Society

Q.A.processes

Curriculumplanning + design

Courserepeaters-%

Satisfactionemployers

Satisfactionalumni

Government

Policy climate

Assessment


Main Characteristics of Industrial QAModels (3) ISO9000-series

ISO 9000 – Fundamentals and VocabularyISO 9001 – RequirementsISO 9004 – Guidelines for improvement

Highlight: description of processesStandardisation through compliance todescriptions

Standardisation avoids errors of neglect

1

2

3

4


Focus on Certification …

1

2

3

4


… and its paraphernalia

1

2

3

4

Copied from various websites, 2007


… and its paraphernalia

1

2

3

4

Pictures Don F. Westerheijden, 2006-2007


Main Characteristics of Industrial QAModels (4) ServQual

Service QualityInstrument: RATERHighlight: Empathy

Do your staff provide caring, individualised attentionto customers, is it easy to access staff, services andinformation?Is your communication with customers clear,appropriate and timely?Do you provide services that are appropriate to theindividual needs of the customer?Do your staff demonstrate they understand thecustomer's needs and situation?

1

2

3

4


Limitations on Using Standard Models:Are they Complete for HE?

Quality management framework EFQM ISO 9001 ISO 9004

Quality management system 0 XX XX

Policy and strategy XX 0 0

Learning outcomes X 0 X

Design of curriculum X 0 X

Design of education processes X X X

Design of student examination 0 X X

Implementation quality X X X

Resource management XX X X

Quality information system XX X 0

Commitment of leaders XX XX XX

Synergistic collaboration XX X XX

Satisfaction of stakeholders XX X XX

Demands (need research) XX 0 XX

External influences 0 0 X

Governing processes XX XX XX

Support processes XX X XX

Organisational outcomes XX XX XX

1

2

3

4


Limitations on Using Standard Models(1) Professional Production Process

We don’t know how learning is produced(‘opaque’), but …… from producer’s side it is a professional‘production technology’

Embodied in the teachers, not (so much) instandardised machines, processesNot 100% true:

MassificationStandardised modules e.g. in distance education,online courses

1

2

3

4


Limitations on Using Standard Models(2) Unclear Who is Customer

Difference: who benefits – who paysWho pays: mostly government

With increasing contributions from studentsStudents may get sponsors: parents / employersOnly source in private higher education in somecountries

Students become more ‘consumerist’ when feesrise? (UK, NL)

See also post-experience higher education: executivesare more demanding than young studentsConversely: No fees, no interest in quality?

1

2

3

4


Limitations on Using Standard Models(2) Unclear Who is Customer

Who benefits:Micro (module): studentMeso (programme):

graduate (same person as student, but in differentperspective)Employer

Macro (HE system): regional / national society andeconomy

Who represents common weal? Regional or nationalgovernments, but they have two hats,also being major employers of graduates

1

2

3

4


Limitations on Using Standard Models(3) Transformation Argument

Higher education aims to change students,including their utility functionsQuality assurance models assume fixedpreferences

Transformation argument applies at least up toundergraduate education,not to post-experience short courses

What about Masters’, Ph.D. education?

1

2

3

4


Conclusions(1) Learning and QA

Learning process remains ‘opaque’, and onlypartly dependent on teachingAll quality assurance models can help map,protocol etc. processes around teaching &learningBut not the ‘creative moment’ of teaching, letalone learning

Standard models may be applicable to ‘standard’services within higher education institutions, e.g.student counselling, library, IT-services

1

2

3

4


Conclusions(2) External QA

Professional discourse, i.e. peer review, may getclosest to the core of the work in higher educationThis may be in the spirit of ‘soft’ TQM‘Peer review’ in QA practice in higher education isoften hampered from being a free, intercollegial,discourse

Standards and indicators are needed for publicaccountabilityAccreditation decisions throw large shadows:interviewees and interviewers are aware of potentialserious consequences of what they are saying

1

2

3

4


Conclusions(3) Does QA Help Quality?

QA Does not produce quality

Higher education has become too ‘massified’ forinformal quality assurance

Broader ‘use’ of higher education graduatesEducating a larger proportion of the population

First-generation students (less cultural capital)More diverse student bodyUniversities are large organisations

Tougher accountability demands on whole public sector:transparency or lack of trust?

1

2

3

4


Conclusions(3) Does QA Help Quality?

Quality assurance ‘is here to stay’Cause and effect question:

QA model → quality of learningor

Interest in student learning → QA

External QA mostly is not conducive toexcellence: too control-oriented

Much internal QA follows external QA

1

2

3

4


Conclusions(4) Final Words

My message to quality assurance officers inhigher education institutions:

Be aware of the specific production process forwhich you are designing quality assuranceschemesBe aware of the social context in which it operates(which problem are you trying to solve throughquality assurance?)Use (elements from) standard models for theirstrengths, but don’t become models’ slaves

1

2

3

4

Documents

What Can We Do with Industrial Quality Assurance Models in ......Leadership Funding Internal allocation Personnel policy Personnel Educational support Quantity Quality 2ary education