You are on page 1of 23

Chapter II

METHODOLOGY

This chapter presents the research design used in the study, the locale of

the study, unit of analysis, participants and respondents, research instrument,

data gathering process and measurement or treatment of the data. This study

was conducted during the first semester of school year 2017-2018 at Notre

Dame University and the main respondents were the key informant personnel. In

order to clearly weigh the preparedness level of the University, a generic

questionnaire was created and distributed to the respondents.

Research Design

For this study, the research utilized qualitative research designs. This

method permitted a flexible and iterative approach of the research subject. A

questionnaire was developed and an interview was conducted with the key

personnel of the University, afterwards to the head of the Accountancy

department in order to validate results gathered from the questionnaire.

Locale of the Study

The study was conducted at Notre Dame University, located at Notre

Dame Avenue, Cotabato City during the first semester of school year 2017-2018.
Unit of Analysis/ Participants/ Respondents

The respondents of the study were the key persons of Notre Dame

University. The respondents were chosen using sampling. The head of the

department was also interviewed for the validation of results.

Research Instrument

The research instrument used in the study is a questionnaire which

covered the different requirements for the certification. Questionnaires were sent

to some of the administration officials including a validity test to ensure that the

questions are clear and understandable. Afterwards, a scheduled interview sheet

was prepared for validation purposes.

Data Gathering Process

The adviser signed the questionnaire, and a letter was addressed to the

concerned administrators regarding the conduct of the survey. The respondents

answered on how ready the department is in terms of the stated requirements.

The key informant personnel served as respondents and this study which

measured the preparedness of the University in applying for ISO 9001:2015

Certification. The letter was given to the respondents and attached to it was the

survey questionnaire. The questionnaire was personally delivered and retrieved

by the researchers. After the tabulation of the questionnaire data, an interview


was scheduled with the head of the Accountancy department. This was made in

order to assess the validity of the results from the questionnaires and give further

clarification to the preparedness of the department.

Measurement/Treatment of Data

All data from the research instrument were decoded into quantifiable

measures to address the research problem. The results were tabulated using

Microsoft Excel; practice and documentation were then calculated. These

indicated whether NDUs Accountancy Department is prepared relative to the

different requirements needed for ISO Certification.

The data gathered from the interview was used as a comparative tool in

order to check if the interpretations were indeed correct as to the current status

of the documents and quality management planning.


Chapter III

RESULTS

This chapter contains the data gathered from the interview conducted. The

results accumulated from the interview with the key informant personnel of Notre

Dame University were evaluated. The results were quantified, presented into

tabular form and textual discussion.

The respondents answered the given free response questions, and the

result shown in Table 3.1 that most of the key personnel agrees to the

requirements in relation to ISO certification.

Table 3.1 Tally of Results

n=9
Questions YES NO MAYBE
1. Availability of Quality Manual 7 2
2. Existence of Quality Policy 7 2 1
3. Availability of Resources 7 1
4. Allotment of Funds for ISO 8 1
5. Caters to Interested Parties' Needs 8 1
6. Assessment of Employees' Performance 8 1
7. Existence of Offices to cater ISO
Requirements 9
8. Strategic Plans for ISO Accreditation 5 4
TOTAL 59 8 5 72
Overall Rate 81.94% 11.11% 6.94% 100%
Table 3 shows the results of how prepared is Notre Dame University

regarding ISO accreditation. Almost all of the requirements for filing for ISO

certification such as the questions above are readily available in almost all

sectors of the University. On the other hand, it shows that there are some

departments in the University which are still unprepared for ISO. There are two

respondents of different departments that disagreed that theres a quality manual

for the University, although 7 out of the 9 respondents agreed that there is. In

addition, there are also two respondents thinks that the University has no

existing quality policy while most of them believed that there is. While the rest of

the questions mostly have yes, meaning most respondents agreed that those

requirements are existing and available. On the other hand, some of the

respondents believed that Notre Dame is prepared to cater ISO but it needs

more improvements, which shows as the lowest rate in the table.

The following tables and interpretations are the results of the survey

conducted by the previous researchers for their study about Notre Dame

University Preparedness for ISO 9001:2015 Certification.

Table 3.2 Section 4 - Context of the Organization

Administrators Faculty
The university is capable of Mean Standard Interpretation Mean Standard Interpretation
Deviation Deviation
Determining the internal and external issues 3.87 0.63 Slightly 3.94 0.75 Slightly
that are relevant to its purpose and strategic Prepared Prepared
direction.
Monitoring and reviewing these issues 3.57 0.66 Slightly 3.82 0.81 Slightly
(internal and external) on its ability to impact to Prepared Prepared
the Quality Management System and its
intended results.
Determining the requirements of relevant 3.61 0.66 Slightly 3.76 0.75 Slightly
parties. (e.g. a person or organization that can Prepared Prepared
affect, be affected by, or perceive themselves
to be affected by a decision or activity.)
Determining the processes needed for the 3.43 0.59 Fairly 3.82 0.95 Slightly
quality management system and their Prepared Prepared
application throughout the organization
process pertaining to all requirements of ISO
9001:2015 standards
Determining the sequence and interaction of 3.52 0.67 Slightly 3.88 0.70 Slightly
the processes of the quality management Prepared Prepared
system.
Determining criteria and the methods needed 3.48 0.73 Fairly 3.82 0.81 Slightly
to ensure that both the operation and control Prepared Prepared
of these processes are effective.
Ensuring that all the resources and information 3.39 0.66 Fairly 3.88 1.11 Slightly
required for operation and monitoring of the Prepared Prepared
processes are available from time to time.
Having planned arrangements for monitoring 3.30 0.56 Fairly 3.82 0.95 Slightly
measurement, wherever applicable, and Prepared Prepared
analysis of the processes.
Implementing the planned arrangements along 3.22 0.52 Fairly 3.82 0.81 Slightly
with their control mechanism for the Prepared Prepared
achievement of planned results and for
continual improvement of the processes.
Mean of Means 3.49 Fairly 3.84 Slightly
Prepared Prepared

Table 3.2 presents the answers of both administrators and faculty

regarding the context of the organization. For the administrators, the activity with

the highest mean is determining the internal and external issues that are relevant

to its purpose and strategic direction with a mean of 3.87 and the activity with the

lowest mean is implementing the planned arrangements along with their control

mechanism for the achievement of planned results and for continual

improvement of the processes with a mean of 3.22. For the faculty, the activity

with the highest mean is the same with the administrators with a mean of 3.94

and the activity with the lowest mean is determining the requirements of relevant

parties with a mean of 3.76. The overall assessment of the administrators in the

section 4 of the standard is Fairly Prepared with an average mean of 3.49 while

the facultys is Slightly Prepared with an average mean of 3.84.


Table 3.3 Leadership
Administrators Faculty
Is the top management committed to lead Mean Standard Interpretation Mean Standard Interpretation
and aim for development and implementation? Deviation Deviation
If Yes, can it perform the following?
Communicate to the organization about the 4.13 0.63 Slightly 4.24 0.66 Slightly
importance of maintaining high quality of Prepared Prepared
instructional process.
Satisfy the requirements of students and the 3.74 0.75 Slightly 4.24 0.66 Slightly
employing organizations is communicated to Prepared Prepared
the employees from time to time through
circulars, notices, meetings etc.
Establish and display a quality policy at 3.39 0.99 Fairly 4.24 0.75 Slightly
prominent locations in the University and Prepared Prepared
everyone has been made to understand the
intent of the quality policy and the commitment
contained in it.
Establish Quality objectives along with their 3.61 0.78 Slightly 4.29 0.69 Slightly
means and measures. Prepared Prepared
Conduct management reviews at planned 3.61 0.99 Slightly 4.24 0.66 Slightly
intervals to ensure the continuing suitability, Prepared Prepared
adequacy and effectiveness of the quality
management system.
Resources are made available as and when 3.39 0.78 Fairly 4.00 0.71 Slightly
required for carrying out activities. Prepared Prepared
Is the top management able to come up with
a quality policy which
Is appropriate to the context of the 3.70 0.70 Slightly 4.06 0.66 Slightly
organization? Prepared Prepared
Includes a commitment to comply with 3.74 0.75 Slightly 4.00 0.79 Slightly
requirements and continually improve the Prepared Prepared
effectiveness of the quality management
system?
Provides a framework for establishing and 3.39 0.89 Fairly 4.06 0.66 Slightly
reviewing quality objectives? Prepared Prepared
Can be communicated, understood and 3.48 0.79 Fairly 3.88 0.99 Slightly
applied throughout the organization? Prepared Prepared
Can be reviewed for continuing stability? 3.61 0.66 Slightly 4.00 1.06 Slightly
Prepared Prepared
Is documented and accessible to all interested 3.30 0.97 Fairly 3.94 0.83 Slightly
parties? Prepared Prepared
Is the top management able to assign a
member of the organization responsible for
Making sure that the Quality Management 3.35 0.98 Fairly 4.18 0.73 Slightly
System meets IS) 9001:2015s requirements? Prepared Prepared
Making sure that the processes produce 3.26 0.69 Fairly 4.18 0.73 Slightly
effective outputs? Prepared Prepared
Reporting on the Quality Management System 3.30 0.88 Fairly 4.12 0.86 Slightly
and improvement opportunities to top Prepared Prepared
management?
Driving a customer focus throughout the 3.13 0.87 Fairly 4.06 0.90 Slightly
company? Prepared Prepared
Ensuring Quality Management System stays 3.17 0.83 Fairly 4.00 0.79 Slightly
effective when changes occur? Prepared Prepared
Mean of Means 3.49 Fairly 4.10 Slightly
Prepared Prepared

Table 3.3 shows the answers of both administrators and faculty regarding

leadership. For the administrators, the activity with the highest mean is

communicate to the organization about the importance of maintaining high quality


of instructional processes with a mean of 4.13 and the activity with the lowest

mean is driving a customer focus throughout the company with a mean of 3.13.

For the faculty, the activity with the highest mean is establish quality objectives

along with their means and measures with a mean of 4.29 and the activity with

the lowest mean is quality policy can be communicated, understood and applied

throughout the organization with a mean of 3.88. The overall assessment of the

administrators in the section 5 of the standard is Fairly Prepared with an average

mean of 3.49 while the facultys is Slightly Prepared with an average mean of

4.10.

Table 3.4 Planning


Administrators Faculty
Is the organization able to come address risks Mean Standard Interpretation Mean Standard Interpretation
and opportunities that are: Deviation Deviation
Planned and carefully defined as to what will 3.22 0.90 Fairly 3.94 0.68 Slightly
happen, who are involved, when it will be done Prepared Prepared
and what resources to be used?
Integrated to the Quality Management System 2.96 0.77 Fairly 3.94 0.93 Slightly
processes? Prepared Prepared
Proportional? (most significant risks matched 2.96 0.77 Fairly 3.75 0.93 Slightly
against most significant actions) Prepared Prepared
Checked for effectiveness? 2.91 0.85 Fairly 3.75 0.93 Slightly
Prepared Prepared
Is the top management able to come up
with quality objectives that
Are established at relevant functions and 3.74 0.81 Slightly 4.00 1.00 Slightly
levels within the organization? Prepared Prepared
Are measurable and consistent with quality 3.39 0.89 Fairly 4.12 0.93 Slightly
policy? Prepared Prepared
Mean of Means 3.20 Fairly 3.92 Slightly
Prepared Prepared

Table 3.4 shows the answers of both administrators and faculty regarding

planning. For the administrators, the activity with the highest mean is quality

objectives are established at relevant functions and levels within the organization

with a mean of 3.74 and the activity with the lowest mean is address risks and

opportunities that are checked for effectiveness with a mean of 2.91. For the faculty,
the activity with the highest mean is quality objectives that are measurable and

consistent with quality policy with a mean of 3.39 and the activity with the lowest

mean is address risks and opportunities that are proportional and checked for

effectiveness with a mean of 3.75. The overall assessment of the administrators in

the section 6 of the standard is Fairly Prepared with an average mean of 3.20 while

the facultys is Slightly Prepared with an average mean of 3.92.

Table 3.5 Support


Administrators Faculty
Can the sector determine and provide the Mean Standard Interpretation Mean Standard Interpretation
resources needed to Deviation Deviation
Implement and maintain quality management 3.26 0.69 Fairly 4.00 0.87 Slightly
system and continually improve its Prepared Prepared
effectiveness?
Enhance stakeholder satisfaction by meeting 3.39 0.58 Fairly 3.76 1.03 Slightly
stakeholder requirements? Prepared Prepared
The organization can
Define and document this knowledge. 3.43 0.84 Fairly 4.06 0.97 Slightly
Prepared Prepared
Make the documents accessible to employees. 3.39 0.99 Fairly 4.06 0.97 Slightly
Prepared Prepared
The organization
Determines the necessary competence for 3.48 0.66 Fairly 4.06 0.75 Slightly
personnel performing work affecting conformity Prepared Prepared
to service requirements
Provides training or take other actions to 3.43 0.73 Fairly 4.06 0.83 Slightly
achieve necessary competence Prepared Prepared
Evaluates the effectiveness of actions taken 3.52 0.69 Slightly 4.00 0.79 Slightly
Prepared Prepared
Ensures that the personnel are aware of the 3.74 0.67 Slightly 4.06 0.75 Slightly
relevance and importance of and how they Prepared Prepared
contribute to the achievements of quality
objectives
Maintains appropriate records of education, 3.48 0.74 Fairly 4.18 0.81 Slightly
training, skills and experience Prepared Prepared
The organization creates and ensures that 3.78 0.80 Slightly 4.12 0.60 Slightly
appropriate communication processes are Prepared Prepared
established within the organization.
Our sector has the capacity to produce
documents on
Statement of quality policy and quality 3.45 0.80 Fairly 4.13 0.72 Slightly
objectives (refer to page 3) Prepared Prepared
A quality manual (optional) 3.18 0.80 Fairly 4.13 0.62 Slightly
Prepared Prepared
Documented procedures and records required 3.13 0.81 Fairly 4.00 0.82 Slightly
by the International Standard Prepared Prepared
Records, determined by the organization to be 3.35 0.71 Fairly 4.06 0.83 Slightly
necessary to ensure the effective planning, Prepared Prepared
operation and control of its process.
Our sector is capable of
Stipulating uniform document coding/numbering 3.30 0.82 Fairly 3.94 0.75 Slightly
system and to ensure correct identification, Prepared Prepared
access, reference, withdrawal and updating of
documents.
Establishing master list, identifying the 3.30 0.82 Fairly 4.06 0.75 Slightly
current/revision status of documents. Prepared Prepared
Ensuring ready availability of the latest versions 3.22 0.85 Fairly 4.06 0.83 Slightly
of the document at the identified use points Prepared Prepared
through a circulation list and withdrawals and
issue procedure.
Prescribing a standard procedure for removal 3.17 0.58 Fairly 4.00 0.79 Slightly
and disposal of invalid/obsolete documents as Prepared Prepared
well as identification for retention of any of the
obsolete/redundant documents for further
reference/requirement.
Releasing of revised documents to authorized 3.22 0.60 Fairly 4.00 0.79 Slightly
holders as per change control procedures. Prepared Prepared
Reviewing and updating documents as 3.30 0.70 Fairly 4.00 0.87 Slightly
necessary and re-approving. Prepared Prepared
Reviewing of the changes to the document/data 3.39 0.66 Fairly 4.00 0.87 Slightly
by the same functionary/organization that Prepared Prepared
framed and proved the original documents.
Updating the master list upon withdrawal of the 3.39 0.58 Fairly 4.00 0.94 Slightly
obsolete documents and insertion of Prepared Prepared
revised/changed data.
Maintaining the background information upon 3.22 0.80 Fairly 4.12 0.78 Slightly
which the document is changed is maintained. Prepared Prepared
The nature of changes is shown in the
document or on the amendment record sheet.
Identifying documents of external origin for the 3.17 0.78 Fairly 4.18 0.81 Slightly
planning and operation of the Quality Prepared Prepared
Management System and control of their
distribution.
Preventing the obsolete documents from 3.35 0.71 Fairly 3.94 0.83 Slightly
unintended use by removing them from the Prepared Prepared
point of use.
Preparing records that are legible, readily 3.43 0.79 Fairly 4.06 0.83 Slightly
identifiable and retrievable. Prepared Prepared
Mean of Means 3.36 Fairly 4.04 Slightly
Prepared Prepared

Table 3.5 presents the answers of both administrators and faculty

regarding support. For the administrators, the activity with the highest mean is

the organization creates and ensures that appropriate communication processes

are established within the organization with a mean of 3.78 and the activity with

the lowest mean is documented procedures and records required by the

international standard with a mean of 3.13. For the faculty, the activity with the

highest mean is identifying documents of external origin for the planning and

operation of the Quality Management System and control of their distribution with

a mean of 4.18 and the activity with the lowest mean is enhance stakeholder
satisfaction by meeting stakeholder requirement with a mean of 3.76. The overall

assessment of the administrators in the section 7 of the standard is Fairly

Prepared with an average mean of 3.36 while the facultys is Slightly Prepared

with an average mean of 4.04.

Table 3.6 Operation


Administrator Faculty
Can the organization determine and implement Mean Standard Interpretation Mean Standard Interpretation
effective arrangements for communicating with Deviation Deviation
customers in relation to
Service Information? 3.35 0.88 Fairly 3.88 0.78 Slightly
Prepared Prepared
Inquiries, orders and changes? 3.26 0.81 Fairly 4.00 0.94 Slightly
Prepared Prepared
Stakeholder feedback, including stakeholder 3.22 0.60 Fairly 3.82 0.95 Slightly
complaints? Prepared Prepared
Controlling customer property? 3.26 0.62 Fairly 3.88 0.86 Slightly
Prepared Prepared
Establishing contingency actions? 3.13 0.63 Fairly 3.82 0.95 Slightly
Prepared Prepared
Can the sector determine
The quality objectives and requirements for the 3.48 0.73 Fairly 3.94 0.83 Slightly
service? Prepared Prepared
The need to establish processes and documents, 3.43 0.79 Fairly 4.00 0.87 Slightly
and to provide resources specific to the service? Prepared Prepared
The required verification, validation, monitoring, 3.35 0.65 Fairly 3.88 0.86 Slightly
measurement, inspection and test activities Prepared Prepared
specific to the service and the criteria for service
acceptance?
The records needed to provide evidence that the 3.35 0.78 Fairly 3.94 0.83 Slightly
realization processes and resulting service meet Prepared Prepared
requirements?
The inputs of service requirements are determined
and records that are maintained include
Functional and performance requirements? 3.43 0.66 Fairly 3.94 0.83 Slightly
Prepared Prepared
Applicable statutory and regulatory 3.48 0.67 Fairly 4.18 0.88 Slightly
requirements? Prepared Prepared
Where applicable, information derived from 3.35 0.71 Fairly 3.94 0.83 Slightly
previous similar designs? Prepared Prepared
Other requirements essential for design and 3.22 0.80 Fairly 3.94 0.90 Slightly
development? Prepared Prepared
Does the design and development output
Meet the input requirements for design and 3.30 0.63 Fairly 3.94 0.83 Slightly
development? Prepared Prepared
Provide appropriate information for enrolling, 3.23 0.62 Fairly 4.06 0.75 Slightly
purchasing, hiring operations and service Prepared Prepared
provision?
Contain or reference service acceptance criteria? 3.22 0.74 Fairly 4.00 0.79 Slightly
Prepared Prepared
Specify the characteristics of the service that are 3.22 0.74 Fairly 4.00 0.87 Slightly
essential for its safe and proper use? Prepared Prepared
Validation of Processes for Service Provision
Can the sector establish arrangements for
processes for service provision include
the following:
The ability of information that describes the 3.35 0.83 Fairly 4.06 0.83 Slightly
characteristics of the service? Prepared Prepared
The availability of work instructions, as 3.48 0.79 Fairly 4.12 0.70 Slightly
necessary? Prepared Prepared
The use of suitable equipment, technology, 3.35 0.65 Fairly 4.12 0.78 Slightly
devices, and the like? Prepared Prepared
The availability and use of monitoring and 3.26 0.81 Fairly 3.88 0.86 Slightly
measuring equipment, technology, devices, and Prepared Prepared
the like?
The implementation of monitoring and 3.39 0.58 Fairly 4.12 0.86 Slightly
measurement? Prepared Prepared
The implementation of service, delivery and post- 3.30 0.76 Fairly 3.94 0.83 Slightly
delivery activities? Prepared Prepared
Does the school establish arrangements for
processes for service provision
include the following:
Defined criteria for review and approval of the 3.52 0.85 Slightly 3.82 0.95 Slightly
processes? Prepared Prepared
Approval of qualification of personnel? 3.61 0.66 Slightly 4.12 0.70 Slightly
Prepared Prepared
Use of specific methods and procedures? 3.48 0.67 Fairly 4.24 0.83 Slightly
Prepared Prepared
Requirements for control of records? 3.43 0.73 Fairly 4.18 0.81 Slightly
Prepared Prepared
Revalidation? 3.35 0.83 Fairly 4.12 1.05 Slightly
Prepared Prepared
Does the unit/ sector head identify the service 3.27 0.70 Fairly 3.94 0.90 Slightly
status with respect to monitoring and Prepared Prepared
measurement requirements throughout the
service realization?
Mean of Means 3.35 Fairly 3.99 Slightly
Prepared Prepared

Table 3.6 shows the answers of both administrators and faculty regarding

operation. For the administrators, the activity with the highest mean is approval of

qualification of personnel with a mean of 3.61 and the activity with the lowest

mean is establishing contingency actions with a mean of 3.13. For the faculty, the

activity with the highest mean is use specific methods and procedures with a

mean of 4.24 and the activity with the lowest mean is stakeholder feedback,

including stakeholder complaints, establishing contingency actions and defined

criteria for review and approval of the processes with a mean of 3.82. The overall

assessment of the administrators in the section 8 of the standard is Fairly

Prepared with an average mean of 3.35 while the facultys is Slightly Prepared

with an average mean of 3.99.


Table 3.7 Performance Evaluation
Administrators Faculty
Mean Standard Interpretation Mean Standard Interpretation
Deviation Deviation
Does the management review the 3.39 0.58 Fairly 4.12 0.78 Slightly
organizations quality management system at Prepared Prepared
planned intervals to ensure its continuing
stability, adequacy and effectiveness?
Can the organization conduct internal audits,
both financial and operational, at planned
intervals to determine whether the quality
management system:
Conforms to the planned arrangements to the 3.43 0.84 Fairly 4.18 0.83 Slightly
requirements of the International Standard/ Prepared Prepared
regulatory requirement?
Conforms to the quality management system 3.48 0.73 Fairly 4.00 0.81 Slightly
requirements established by the organization? Prepared Prepared
Is effectively implemented and maintained. 3.35 0.83 Fairly 4.00 0.79 Slightly
Prepared Prepared
Can the organization establish a procedure 3.48 0.85 Fairly 3.94 0.94 Slightly
where the responsibilities and requirements and Prepared Prepared
conducting audits, establishing records and
reporting records are properly documented
Are the measuring instruments through 3.45 0.69 Fairly 4.06 0.93 Slightly
examinations and evaluations carried out in a Prepared Prepared
consistent manner with the monitoring and
measurement requirements?
Are the test of controls and evaluations
Calibrated or verified at regular intervals against 3.26 0.69 Fairly 3.88 0.90 Slightly
a measurement standard recorded? Prepared Prepared
Adjusted or re-adjusted as necessary? 3.17 0.72 Fairly 3.82 0.86 Slightly
Prepared Prepared
Have identification in order to determine its 3.04 0.82 Fairly 3.94 0.88 Slightly
calibration status? Prepared Prepared
Safeguarded from adjustments that would 3.17 0.72 Fairly 3.82 0.90 Slightly
invalidate the measurement result. Prepared Prepared
Protected from damage and deterioration 3.30 0.76 Fairly 3.82 0.81 Slightly
during handling, maintenance and storage. Prepared Prepared
Mean of Means 3.32 Fairly 3.96 Slightly
Prepared Prepared

Table 3.7 shows the answers of both administrators and faculty regarding

performance evaluation. For the administrators, the activity with the highest

mean is can the organization establish a procedure where the responsibilities

and requirements and conducting audits, establishing records and reporting

records are properly documented and conforms to the quality management

system requirements established by the organization with a mean of 3.48 and the

activity with the lowest mean is test of controls and evaluations have
identification in order to determine its calibration status with a mean of 3.04. For

the faculty, the activity with the highest mean is conforms to the planned

arrangements to the requirements of the International Standard/regulatory

requirement with a mean of 4.18 and the activity with the lowest mean is test of

controls and evaluations adjusted or re-adjusted as necessary, safeguarded from

adjustments that would invalidate the measurement result and protected from

damage and deterioration during handling, maintenance and storage with a

mean of 3.82. The overall assessment of the administrators in the section 9 of

the standard is Fairly Prepared with an average mean of 3.32 while the facultys

is Slightly Prepared with an average mean of 3.96.

Table 3.8 Improvement


Administrators Faculty
Mean Standard Interpretation Mean Standard Interpretation
Deviation Deviation
The organization is able to adapt or change risks and 3.30 0.82 Fairly 3.82 0.95 Slightly
opportunities, the Quality Management System and/or Prepared Prepared
other processes to continually improve the
organization?
Mean of Means 3.30 Fairly 3.82 Slightly
Prepared Prepared

Table 3.8 shows the answers of both administrators and faculty regarding

improvement. For the administrators, the activity has a mean of 3.30 for the

administrators and 3.82 for the faculty. The overall assessment of the administrators

in the section 8 of the standard is Fairly Prepared with an average mean of 3.30

while the facultys is Slightly Prepared with an average mean of 3.82.


With respect to the quality manual, most of the key informants agreed that

the organization has their existing document. This current result supports the

previous study regarding the capacity of the organization to produce documents

such as the quality manual which is interpreted as fairly prepared, shown in table

3.5.

According to the previous study shown in table 3.3, the result interpreted

that the top managements ability to come up with a quality policy is slightly

prepared. Compared it to the current result in which most of the key personnel

agreed that the organization have an existing quality policy, hence, the previous

and current study justifies that there is an existing quality policy. Although these

still need improvements, so in terms of preparedness, Notre Dame University is

not fully prepared.

In addition, the current study concerning the availability of resources

required supports the previous question shown in table 3.5 which is the provision

of the resources needed by to implement and maintain quality management

system and continually improve its effectiveness is interpreted as fairly prepared.

But this availability does not imply that its enough to cater the needs for ISO

standardization.

Further, in relation to the past result regarding the question under

operation shown in table 3.6, that the organization determines & implement

effective arrangements for communicating with customer in terms of service

information, inquiries, etc. which is interpreted as fairly prepared. While the


current study which also relates to how the University cater the needs of those

interested parties is also explained by the respondents as effectively done by the

management.

Finally, regarding the organizations review of the quality management

system at planned intervals to ensure its continuing stability, adequacy, &

effectiveness is fairly prepared in relation to the administrators, shown in the

table 3.7. While in accordance to the current studys result which in a way of

assessing its employees. The respondents believed that the assessment of

employees performance is done in the University regularly through different

modes.
Chapter IV
DISCUSSION

The study is conducted through key informant interviews for the purpose

of collecting information from a wide range of people, including community

leaders, professionals, and administrators who have firsthand knowledge about

the subject matter. These community experts with their particular knowledge are

expected to provide insights, pertinent facts and gives recommendations. There

are eight specific questions which support the result of how well prepared is the

University for ISO certification: A) Availability of Quality Manual, B) Existence of

Quality Policy, C) Availability of resources, D) Allotment of funds for ISO, E)

Caters to interested parties needs, F) Assessment of Employees performance,

G) Existing office that will cater ISO requirements and H) Strategic plans for ISO

certification. The overall requirements for the quality management system pertain

to the sectors capability of determining the processes required, documenting

such processes and its ability to store and update such documents.

Base on the interview conducted with the key personnel of different

departments, in terms of quality manual availability, student, faculty &

administrative manual exists. The colleges also have existing manual of

operations and other documents to ensure quality management system.


Regarding the existence of quality policy, Universitys quality policy is

incorporated in the existing manuals and these policies assumed as a guide in

the operations of each colleges and the different support sections. Generally,

these policies have been helpful in terms of decision making but needs to be

revised and update based on the current operations.

On the other hand, regarding availability of resources in the academic

sector, all three categories are responded and these are available according to

the nature of purpose. These are the Human Resource office, fundamental

facilities and work environment. But according to the key informant, it is lacking of

physical plant facilities. While other respondents answered theres no quality

manual, quality policy and theres no available resources.

Notre Dame University also allots funds for the accreditation. Generally, it

has been providing financial support relevant to programs aligned to its strategic

directions. The current president is really working for accreditations, ISO

certification and other assessment to ensure the quality of services offered by the

University. Other respondent doubt if the top management can provide this

resource since the university is in the K to 12 transition period.

In terms of catering to interested parties need, in all efforts done,

administrators, faculty, staff and students are always consulted. The University

has always been responsive to the needs and opinions of its stakeholders. As to

how well they are responded, there are measures to support or will serve as

indicators like board results, faculty professionalization, parents consultation,

etc. Further, there is also assessment towards faculty members every term. Staff
is evaluated twice a year. There are different modes of evaluating the

performance of faculty and staff through classroom visits, clinical supervisory visit

and actual observation of performance in college and related activities. The tools

were provided by Human Resource Management.

In terms of existing office that will assist ISO requirements and strategic

plan for ISO certification. Notre Dame University has the Institutional Affairs

Office that takes charge of quality assurance and accreditation concerns. Finally,

though program accreditations are given more priority at this time, the University

has integrated ISO accreditation in its priority plans. But some key informant

responded that they cant find item for ISO preparations including the timeline.

Some respondents have not answered the other questions for they are not

the proper authorities to answer.


Chapter V

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary of Findings

The researchers conducted an interview to the selected key personnel of

Notre Dame University to know their opinion regarding the preparedness of the

University for ISO certification. The respondents opinion to the following

questions asked were: A.) Majority believes that Quality Manual is available in

the University, while some believes it does not exist, B.) Majority believes that

Quality Policy is existing but needs to be revised and updated while some

believes it is not existing, C.) Majority believes that Resources are available in

the academic sector but it is lacking while some believes that theres no available

resources, D.) Some believes that there is Allotment of Funds for ISO while some

is in doubt, E.) The respondents believe that the university is doing its best to

Cater the needs of interested parties, F.) The respondents believe that the

Assessment of employees performance is done in the university regularly

through different modes , G.) There is an Existing office that take charge of

quality assurance and accreditation concerns in the university, and h) Some

respondents believe that the ISO accreditation is integrated in the University

priority plan but some respondents says that they cant find item for ISO

preparations.
Conclusion

Based on the interview conducted to the key personnel of Notre Dame

University, the researcher concluded that the University is not yet prepared for

the ISO certification because although they have some of the requirements

needed for the certification like the documents, those documents still needed to

be revised and updated, and the university personnel should be aware of its

existence so that it could be applied. Notre Dame University still have some other

important priority that needs to be given an attention therefore they could not give

their full attention for the preparation of the ISO certification requirements.

Preparation for ISO certification needs a lot of time and attention, the

processes done is not easy because the university might be facing some

adjustments for the standardization of their operations. Notre Dame University

may not be fully prepared by now, but they already have some of the

requirements needed for the ISO certification and it will only need improvements.

Recommendations

Upon the findings, conclusions and result of this study the researchers are

able to recommend the following.

Recommendations for the study


1. The managing personnel such as the top management and

administrators should be applying an improved system of planning

various activities regarding the outcomes or results that may affect the

university. This may be observed by creating a platform for these

concerns are acknowledged such as meetings, etc. and the

administrators should also consider having a program to observe

possible risks and opportunities that these actions may

Lay.

2. The University should have and develop a proper documentation

policy, a general policy that is based on the standards set by the ISO

9001:2015

3. Proper disposal and retention of significant documents must be

observed by the University. Each department must have a head or a

person in rank that will engage such procedures. In these procedures it

should lay out what documents are retained and what are disposed.

4. These procedures must also involve the faculty of the university to

improve documentation that is based on the standards given. These

must be closely observed for departments become ready for ISO

9001:2015 certification

Recommendations for future researchers

1. The researchers should apply qualitative and quantitative research

designs in conducting surveys. Researchers must also interview some


of their respondents to make the study concrete. In this manner the

data or information gathered are more reliable and convey a

convincing result.

2. They must have an orientation first on their respondents and have the

survey questionnaires distributed after the said orientation. In this

procedure the distribution of questionnaires are improved efficiently.

The interview must be based on the consensus of the researchers and

as well as the respondents.