Systematic Quality Improvement of the Study Programme: Quality Function Deployment
Abstract
Quality Function Deployment (QFD) is a well-known quality improvement and assessment methodology that can be applied in different fields, including higher education. The principle of continuous improvement refers to the study process and also relates to the initial analysis of the content of the study program and the systematic improvement process. The research aims to analyse and assess the Quality Function Deployment methodology application for the study program improvement, particularly focusing on the program quality assessment.Research methodology and results provide an opportunity to determine the high-priority skills, professional requirements and the significance of those study program components that create students’ opinions about the importance of learning outcomes according to the professional competence they need and expect. The research results show how QFD methodology can be used to assess and improve study programmes in higher education institutions and indicate the benefits of the methodology application.
Keywords: |
quality function deployment; quality improvement; study program quality; competences and learning outcomes
|
Full Text: |
References
Abdullah, F. (2005). HEdPERF versus SERVPERF: The quest for ideal measuring instrument of service quality in higher education sector. Quality Assurance in Education, 13(4), 305–328.
Abdullah, F. (2006a). Measuring service quality in higher education: three instruments compared. International Journal of Research and Method in Education, 29(1), 71–89.
Abdullah, F. (2006b). Measuring service quality in higher education: HEdPERF versus SERVPERF. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 24, 31-47.
Abdullah, F. (2006c). The development of HEdPERF: a new measuring instrument of service quality for the higher education sector. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 30, 569–581.
Auzina-Emsina, A., & Ozolina, V. (2013). Export, Industrial Productivity and International Competitiveness: A Case of Latvia. Economics and Business, 24, 14–20. https://doi.org/10.7250/eb.2013.002
Aytac, A. and Deniz, V. (2005). Quality function deployment in education: a curriculum review. Quality and Quantity, 39, 507–514.
Băcilă, M.-F., Pop, M.C., Scridon, M.A. and Ciornea, R. (2014). Development of an instrument for measuring student satisfaction in business educational institutions. Contemporary Priorities in Business Education, XVI(37), 841–856.
Banahene, S., Kraa, J.J. and Kasu, P.A. (2018). Impact of HEdPERF on students’ satisfaction and academic performance in Ghanaian Universities; Mediating role of attitude towards learning. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 6, 96–119.
Bier, I. and Cornesky, R. (2001). Using QFD to construct a higher education curriculum”, Quality Progress, 64–68.
Bloomberg, L. P. (2008), Return on capital for Hewlett Packard 12/31/90 to 09/30/08. Retrieved from Bloomberg database.
Brochado, A. (2009). Comparing alternative instruments to measure service quality in higher education. Quality Assurance in Education, 17(2), 174–190.
Central Statistics Office of the Republic of Botswana. (2008). Gross domestic product per capita 06/01/1994 to 06/01/2008 [statistics]. Retrieved from CEIC Data database.
Chapleo, C. and Sims, C. (2017). Stakeholder analysis in higher education: a case study of the University of Portsmouth. Perspectives: Policy and Practice in Higher Education, 14(1), 12–20.
Chaplin, E. D. and Akao, Y. (2003). Translate Know-What into Know-How. Quality Progress, December, 56–61.
Cheng, Y. C. and Tam, W. M. (1997). Multi-models of quality in education. Quality Assurance in Education, 5(1), 22–34.
Colvin, G. (2008, July 21). Information worth billions. Fortune, 158(2), 73–79. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com
Commission on Growth and Development. (2008). The Growth Report: Strategies for Sustained Growth and Inclusive Development. World Bank. Retrieved from http://www.ycsg.yale.edu/center/forms/growthReport.pdf
Degtjarjova, I., Lapina, I. and Freidenfelds, D. (2018). Student as stakeholder: “voice of customer” in higher education quality development. Маркетинг і менеджмент інновацій, 2, 388–398.
Deming, D., & Dynarski, S. (2008). The lengthening of childhood (NBER Working Paper 14124). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w14124
Dlouha, J., Barton, A., Huisingh, D. & Adomssent, M. (2013). Learning for Sustainable Development in Regional Networks. Journal of Cleaner Production, 49, 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.01.041
Dubickis, M. & Gaile-Sarkane, E. (2021). Factors Influencing Technology Transfer in Companies at Emerging Economies. Science, Technology and Society, 26(2), 242–271. https://doi.org/10.1177/09717218211005615
Ermer, D. S. (1995). Using QFD becomes an educational experience for students and faculty. Quality Progress, 131–136.
Firdaus, A. (2006). The development of HEdPERF: a new measuring instrument of service quality for the higher education sector. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 30(6), 569–581.
Frank, R. H., & Bernanke, B. (2007). Principles of macro-economic (3rd ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
Garvin, D. (1984). What does product quality really mean? Sloan Management Review, 26(1), 25–43.
Gupta, P. and Srivastava, R. (2011). Customer satisfaction for designing attractive qualities of healthcare service in India using Kano model and Quality function deployment. International Journal of Mechanical Engineering, 1(2), 101–107.
Homburg, C., Artz, M., & Wieseke, J. (2012), „Marketing Performance Measurement Systems: Does Comprehensiveness Really Improve Performance?” Journal of Marketing, 76(3), 56–77. https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.09.0487
Hwarng, H. B. and Teo, C. (2001). Translating customers’ voices into operations requirements: a QFD application in higher education. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 18(2), 195–225.
ISO 9000:2015, Quality management systems – Fundamentals and vocabulary.
ISO 21001:2018, Educational organizations – Management systems for educational organizations – Requirements with guidance for use.
Jones, C.I. (2010). Macroeconomics. Economics Crisis Update. New York, London, MA: W.W. Norton&Company.
Jones, P., Trier, C. J., & Richards, J. P. (2008). Embedding Education for Sustainable Development in higher education: A case study examining common challenges and opportunities for undergraduate programmes. International Journal of Educational Research, 47(6), 341–350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2008.11.001
Lapina, I, Roga, R. and Müürsepp, P. (2016). Quality of higher education: International students’ satisfaction and learning experience. International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, 8(3), 263–278.
Latvia’s government. New currency, new leader. (2014, Jan. 11). The Economist, p. 35.
Marić, I. (2013). Stakeholder analysis of higher education institutions. Interdisciplinary Description of Complex Systems, 11(2), 217–226.
Mizikaci, F. (2006). A systems approach to program evaluation model for quality in higher education. Quality Assurance in Education, 14(1), 37–53.
Motwani, J. and Mazur, G. (2001). TQM in higher education institutions. A review and case application. in Jiju, A., Preece, D. Understanding & implementing quality: frameworks, techniques & cases, Florence, KY, USA, Routlege, 123–142.
Mygind, N. (1999). Privatization, Governance and Restructuring of Enterprises in the Baltics. OECD. Retrieved July 21, 2017, from http://www.oecd.org/corporate/ca/corporategovernanceprinciples/1931548.pdf
Nikoloski, D., Mancheski, G., Angeleski, M. and Kushi, E. (2011). The assessment of students’ satisfaction in the South-Eastern European countries: an alternative approach for evaluating the quality of higher education. TEM Journal, 2(3), 265–272.
Ozolina-Ozola, I. & Gaile-Sarkane, E. (2017). Job Change in Latvia: The Role of Labor Market Conditions and Employees' Socio-Demographic Characteristics. Procedia Computer Science, 104, 197–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2017.01.106
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L. L. (1991). Refinement and reassessment of the SERVQUAL scale. Journal of Retailing, 67(4), 420–449.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L. (1988). SERVQUAL: a multiple item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of services quality. Journal of Retailing, 64(1), 12–40.
Rosen, C., Case, J., & Staubus, M. (2005). Equity: Why Employee Ownership is Good for Business, 32–34, Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Sanford, J. L. (2005). How useful is QFD? Quality Progress, 51–59.
Silva, D., Moraes, G., Makiya, I. K. and Cesar, F. (2017). Measurement of perceived service quality in higher education institutions: A review of HEdPERF scale use. Quality Assurance in Education, 25(4), 415–439.
Singh, V., Grover, S. and Kumar, A. (2008). Evaluation of quality in an educational institute: a quality function deployment approach. Educational Research and Review, 3(4), 162–168.
Tsinidou M., Gerogiannis V. and Fitsilis P. (2010). Evaluation of the factors that determine quality in higher education: An empirical study. Quality Assurance in Education, 18(3), 227–244.
DOI: 10.7250/scee.2022.004
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2022 Irina Degtjarjova, Inga Lapiņa, Daira Aramina, Jolanta Janauska, Jānis Pildavs, Jānis Mazais
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.