See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/311307834

OBSTACLES HINDERING TQM IMPLEMENTATION IN SECONDARY SCHOOLS

IN SAUDI ARABIA

Conference Paper · June 2016

CITATIONS READS

0 1,028

2 authors:

Asma Hassan Ip-Shing Fan

Cranfield University Cranfield University
3 PUBLICATIONS   1 CITATION    77 PUBLICATIONS   615 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

EU R&D Framework Programme History View project

Health Management of RPAS View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Asma Hassan on 02 December 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 OBSTACLES HINDERING TQM IMPLEMENTATION IN
SECONDARY SCHOOLS IN SAUDI ARABIA
Asma Hassan1, Ip-Shing Fan1
1
School of Aerospace, Transport and Manufacturing, Cranfield University (UK)

Abstract

In its quest for continuous improvement and quality, the education sector has been adopting modern
management methods, such as Total Quality Management (TQM).
The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (SA), along with many other Arabic speaking countries, has made strategic
investments in the country’s education system to leverage TQM principles, in order to meet international
standards of efficiency and effectiveness.
Despite substantial investments, the implementation of TQM in the education sector has not achieved the
promised benefits. Some suggest this may be related to TQM’s origin in manufacturing. This study aims to
explore the nature of the obstacles that impede the implementation of TQM in the public education sector
in Saudi Arabia, and the critical success factors needed to overcome them. The study includes a review of
the published literature to identify factors and barriers that may affect quality change programmes in
education institutions. A field study was undertaken within secondary schools and in the Education Ministry
of Saudi Arabia to assess these factors and barriers.
This involved a questionnaire, with a selection of seventeen obstacles often cited in the literature which
affect quality change programmes in education institutions. The questionnaire was distributed as a hardcopy
to secondary schools in the different regions of Riyadh. Sixty one headteachers ranked their top ten most
significant obstacles in order of importance. The result of the ranking was statistically analysed.
Four major obstacles: Top Management Commitment; Training; Tools and Techniques; and Reward and
Recognition were identified as substantially hindering the TQM programme within the secondary schools.
This result was further validated through face-to-face interviews with headteachers and Education Ministry
officials. They confirmed that the result was an accurate snapshot of the current TQM state.
Top Management Commitment is often cited in publications on TQM implementation in manufacturing
and other sectors. This study suggests that, if the investment in TQM is to deliver the promised benefits in
secondary schools, then further work to improve Top Management Commitment is a priority. However,
this must be done in a way that Top Management Commitment is understood and practiced in the Saudi
cultural environment. The authors are developing tools and techniques for recognition and reward systems,
to improve TQM in the public education system in Saudi Arabia.

Keywords: Total Quality Management, schools, obstacles, education, headteachers

1. Introduction

Globalisation’s interconnectivity and influence on the economic (Panic, 2003) and political (Daun,
2002) arena, cultivates the need for the advancement of knowledge and technology amongst all nations,
and this has a direct effect on their education establishments (Stromquist, 2002). The exchange of new
ideas, beliefs and knowledge permeates national boundaries through each strata of society, and shifts
understanding and opinions, changing local preferences and prompting the emergence of a more blurred
‘global culture’ amongst nations. Education systems, therefore, have to facilitate a response to assist the
future generation with the new challenge and opportunities that are occurring (ALNabhani, 2007).
Since the 1980’s, Total Quality Management (TQM) as a management system has become widely accepted
in industrialised countries following the lead of the United States and Japan (Deming, 1986; Juran, 1989;
Becket and Brookes, 2008; Ali and Shastri, 2010). TQM, considered as a means to achieve superior
performance and a quality differentiator, has become embedded in many service sectors, not just
manufacturing (Becket and Brookes, 2008; Hassan, Ip-Shing and Johnstone, 2013). Some educators
believe that Deming’s TQM ideas can be used to improve education standards (Hegazy, 2012; Aldaweesh,
Al-Karaghouli and Gallear, 2013). TQM could be modified to include education elements (Hassan, Fan
and Johnstone, 2014). However, in education, as with other services, there is no visible, tangible product.
Therefore, Carnoy and Rhoten, (2002) stress that it is an imperative challenge for education to distinguish
locally the core necessary reforms needed from the “ideological packaging” and “transnational
paradigms” of the related modern systems.
The published success of TQM in several industries in the rest of the world, and their quest to meet
international standards of efficiency and effectiveness and continuous improvement using modern
management methods to develop Knowledge Capital (Stromquist, 2002), has prompted many Arabic
countries (including the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia) to make strategic investments in the country’s education
system to leverage modern management methods such as Total Quality Management (TQM).
The role of TQM in education is, however, controversial. Both Horsburgh (1998) and Zabadi (2013)
challenge the interpretation of quality within the school system. Arcaro (1995), cited in (Köksal, 2011),
states “TQM in education is not a panacea”, and does not have supernatural powers to solve all problems
in schools or the classroom. TQM implementation worldwide has prompted an increase in the recent
published literature on the failure of TQM. This appears to support the current experiences in Arabic
Countries, including Saudi Arabia, where despite substantial investments, the implementation of TQM in
the education sector has not achieved the promised benefits.

2. Literature Review

This study has researched sixty papers from 2000 to 2014 related to TQM implementation in the
Education Sector. This has identified 46 barriers most frequency referenced as obstacles that impede the
implementation of TQM in the education sector. Applying the Principle of Causality, five obstacles can be
determined as the root cause of many barriers that hinder successful implementation of total quality
management in in the education sector. These are: Lack of Top Management, Lack of Training and Lack
of Sufficient Tools and Resources, which can be considered the major obstacles in the earlier phases, and
Lack of Benchmarking and Lack of Culture change in the later stages of the change programme.
Lack of Top Management Commitment (TMC): Kanji and Tambi (1999) observe that Lack of Top
Management was the most significant barrier in older established universities in the UK. In Pakistan
Secondary Education study, Suleman and Gul (2015) have determined that leadership, accountability and
cooperation are important dimensions. TQM implementation also requires commitment to a clear vision,
long-range leadership and teamwork for the development of staff.
Lack of Training: This is considered the first step in familiarisation and equipping employees to handle
the uncertainty of change (Talib and Rahman, 2010). Sallis (1993, p. 128) points out that “It can be the key
strategic change agent for developing the quality culture”. Kohn (1993) states that commercial language
or TQM jargon causes difficulties for all stakeholders, and prevents translation into educational institutions.
Lack of resources and funding:Suleman and Gul (2015, p. 131) conclude that the “lack of resources and
funding is responsible for the overall poor institutional performance”. Hagemeyer et al, (2006) and
Murgatroyd and Morgan (1994) explain that informed decisions on performance require tools to implement
institutions’ quality measurements. Additionally, Juran (1989) explains that a recognition and reward
system is a critical tool for promoting organisational performance development. Sallis (1993) reinforces
these views by stating that employee performance is optimised only when achievements are recognised and
rewarded.
Lack of culture change: Gotzamani and Tsiotras (2002) have highlighted the need to change the
organisational culture, which requires that groups of individuals must also alter their behaviour and attitudes
and adopt new practices. However, Blankstein (1996) and Mishra (2013) state that academic staff may
refuse to change and adapt their behaviour and practices. Goetsch and Davis (2006), explains that this is
the result of a natural conflict between the advocators of change and the resistors as a “clash between
cultures”.
Lack of Benchmark: Huq (2005) explains that TQM processes originate from the industry sector, with no
ideal benchmark of TQM in education, and that few guidelines or precise criteria exist, which is confirmed
by the studies by Oduwaiye, Sofoluwe and Kayode (2012) and Al Tasheh (2013). Thus, it is difficult to for
academic institutions to compare best practices to external sources (Rao, Solis and Raghunathan, 1999;
Freytag and Hollensen, 2001) and identify relevant gaps for improvement (Zhang, Waszink and Wijngaard,
2000).

3. Methodology
3.1. The Questionnaire
The questionnaire content was designed using the research from sixty papers related to TQM
implementation in the Education Sector, and 17 obstacles were selected to develop the questionnaire; these
were refined after comments were obtained from the Pilot Study. The Pilot Study used a panel of five
respondents to assess the validity of the questions, comprising of two quality experts, two members of the
academic staff from local Saudi Arabian universities, and one member of staff from a UK university. Some
changes were made to improve readability and thereby reduce the amount of time needed to answer the
survey.
 The intended survey respondents were headteachers of secondary schools in Riyadh in all four regions of
the city. The appropriate ethical process and approvals were undertaken to assure voluntary contribution,
which would ensure anonymity and ensure that the focus was on the areas relevant to the current research
project. The questionnaire comprised 17 close-ended statements with a ranking scale in which the
headteachers (HT) were required to select their top ten factors in order of the difficulty perceived in
hindering their implementation of total quality management in their school.
The questionnaire was completed by 61 secondary school headteachers. In addition, semi-structured
interviews with 35 Headteachers were conducted.
The questionnaire was distributed online and as hardcopies physically distributed using the convenience
sampling method to overcome the issues associated with random sampling, to access the schools and target
respondents. The distribution method balanced the logistics (distance and accessibility), cost and time
(availability) factors.

3.2. The Interviews

Further interviews were conducted with five headteachers and three senior officials from the
Ministry of Education in Saudi Arabia to validate the findings. Content analysis was undertaken on the
notes from each respective interview to understand the broad trends which were semiotically analysed to
identify key themes and issues.

4. Results
4.1. Results of the Headteachers Survey
The headteachers ranked their obstacles in the questionnaire. The final result has ranked the 17
obstacles in the order most frequently listed in the Top 10. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with
35 headteachers in order to understand if there were interdependencies and causal relationships within the
obstacles. These were then finally grouped into the main themes determined by the headteachers’
perceptions and insights, and the Top 4 major obstacles were identified as the root causes underpinning
many other significant obstacles.

Table1. Top 17 list (ranked by frequency) of Significant Obstacles of TQM implementation by Head teachers

Significant Obstacles Ranking Inter relationship with other Obstacles

Lack of Lack of Lack of Lack of
TMC training Resources reward
Inadequate knowledge or understanding of TQM 1 * *

Lack of training programmes 2 *

Lack of top management commitment and belief in the programmes of TQM 3 *

Weakness of commitment in employee involvement and empowerment 4 *

The absence of precise criteria for determining the level of performance required for the application of quality *
5
standards in the school

Weakness of focusing on customer satisfaction and their expectations 6 *

Poor organisational communication 7 *

Lack of use of quality measurement and benchmarking 8 *

Lack of infrastructure suitable for the application of TQM 9 *

Inefficient information systems used in the company 10 *

Inappropriate Reward and Recognition 11 * *

Weakness of commitment to quality strategy requirements 12 *

Resistance of some staff in the school 13 * *

Lack of qualified human resources 14 * *

Lack of material resources necessary for the application of comprehensive quality standards in the school 15 *

Weakness of attention to a quality culture 16 *

Expect immediate results 17 *

Total 9 5 5 2

The result of this final analysis of the interviews with the 35 headteachers reveals that they consider the
Lack of Top Management Commitment as the cause of nine other obstacles; Lack of Training and
Resources are the root cause of five other obstacles, and finally, Inappropriate Reward and Recognition is
the source of two obstacles.

4.2. Results of the Validation Interviews

At the validation interview, specific comments from the eight representatives explained what they
considered to be the most significant current obstacles to TQM implementation, and these have similarly
been clustered by category. The number of matched statements per representative were counted and have
been presented as follows:

Table 2. Top 4 Major Obstacles of TQM implementation validated by MOE Officials and Head teachers

Lack of Issues MOE HT Total Order

Management Committment 3 8 6 6 7 4 2 5 41 2
Training & Education 7 7 4 6 8 5 7 8 52 1
Total
Tools & Resources 2 3 4 3 3 3 2 1 21 3
Reward & Recognition 2 1 3 3 2 2 2 2 17 4

According to Table 2, the main obstacles are: Training programmes, Top Management Commitment,
Tools/Resources and finally Inappropriate Reward and Recognition. The comments provide an insight into
the nature and impact of these obstacles:
- Lack of Top Management Commitment: The key concerns raised by the Top Management Commitment
were threefold. One was related to the MOE which was explained by headteachers as follows: “it is not
clear what the MOE wants to achieve”, “the Ministry centralised decision limits our accountability” and
“MOE just issues orders”. Secondly, the MOE expresses that “often Headteachers personal ambitions were
in conflict with the intent of the new quality initiatives”. Thirdly, the MOE raised concerns that “there is an
absence of modern leadership strategies of Headteachers” and “a continuous programme is needed for
Headteachers to build their capabilities”.
- Lack of Training: Headteachers complained about three significant issues related to this obstacle. Firstly,
“it was too short, not informative and not sufficient”; and “There is no opportunity to provide any feedback
so there is no way to measure any impact from the training”. Secondly, that “teachers were not included in
this TQM training”. Thirdly, the MOE and headteachers considered that “there are no local workshops
accompanied by on the job training to support them onsite”.
- Lack of Tools and Resources: Representatives raised several major and wide ranging issues related to
this obstacle. These included: “insufficient budgets, out of date infrastructure and inappropriate use of
tools and systems”. Headteacher comments included that “there are no uniform standards or criteria
applied by the MOE and we need guidance and support from the MOE to understand how to implement
TQM effectively”. Also,“The new technology has not produced the expected results” and “inefficient
information systems are used in the schools”.
Lack of Reward and Recognition: Representatives agreed that Reward and Recognition is a “hot topic”.
The MOE explained that “There is a reluctance of teachers to apply for the headteachers post as there is
no recognition and reward scheme to incentivise promotion to Headteachers level”. The headteachers
pointed out that “Teachers are mostly aggrieved by the lack of recognition” “Reward is a very important
factor to motivate the staff to work to achieve quality”. The MOE acknowledged that “we need to build a
quality system which should contain standards, performance indicators, and performance should be
measures and achievements to these criteria recognised and rewarded”.

5. Findings and Discussion

The literature review and this study appear to be in agreement that Lack of Top Management, Lack
of Training and Lack of Sufficient Tools and Resources are major obstacles. However, the literature review
has identified that Benchmarking and Lack of Culture Change are major obstacles only in the later stages
of TQM. The validation interviews held with the eight representatives confirm that these final findings are
an accurate snapshot of what is agreed to be early stage implementation. According to the representatives,
the Lack of Top Management Commitment is the driving contributor. These opinions are also supported
by Talib et al., (2011) in their comprehensive international research into TQM within the service,
manufacturing and production sector. This study concludes that unrealistic expectations, absence of process
focus, lack of information flow, education and training and the failure to engineer the vision and benefits
of a continuous improvement culture are all attributes of this key obstacle.
The perception that TQM originates within the private sector makes it more difficult for Saudi public sector
managers to adopt and adapt. (Al-Qahtani and Al-Methheb, 1999). Steers, Nardon and Sanchez-
Runde (2010, p. 77)highlight how when a new management philosophy is introduced from a different
culture the cross-cultural differences need to be recognised, and that these differences are “not a bad
thing… they just require more work at times” to address the complexity of the compromises needed when
introducing new concepts.
According to Ahmed (1998), it is the task of organisational leaders to bridge the gap between theory and
the real world and provide a culture and climate that delegates, nurtures and acknowledges innovation at
every level. However, Darandari et al. (2009) and Alruwaili (2013) state that Saudi institutes operate on
centralised systems, and the recently introduced TQM theories rely on delegating decision-making power
be driven at all levels, which is in conflict with this centralised decision making.
Furthermore, TQM relies on informed and delegated decision making. However, Alruwaili (2013) notes
that Saudi management culture relies heavily on guesswork, gut feeling or at least management by
command. Therefore Brigham (1993) warns that there is a risk that the core message of TQM may get lost
in the communication “muddle” between the “cultural gap” caused by two cultural styles of leadership -
Transactional leadership and Transformational leadership.
Atkinson (1990) proposes that mapping the ideal (TQM) culture to the current prevailing one will anticipate
the “culture gaps” and indicate the challenges that need to be confronted upfront.
McNabb and Sepic (1995) resolves that leadership behavioural “soft skills” training needs to be emphasised
at the earliest stages if more modern leadership styles are to be encouraged and adopted. According to
Darandari et al. (2009), the NCAAA in Saudi Arabia has adopted these principles within their quality
assurance programme and introduced a management accredited training quality assurance system within
universities and colleges, but this approach also needs to be applied to the rest of General Education in
Saudi Arabia. The NCAAA have also specified the importance of an accompanying performance system
with a clear structure of standards supported by a recognition and reward systems that encourages the
attainment and continuous progression of these scale of intended outcomes to support and enable Top
Management Commitment. Rice (2003) advocates that when employees are more confident about what is
expected of them, they are more likely to accept a risk and action change, especially if they know
management are likely to recognise and reward their efforts accordingly.

6. Conclusion

The results reveal that there are a number of challenges being faced by girls’ public secondary schools in
implementing TQM in Riyadh in Saudi. The most significant obstacle is the Lack of Top Management
Commitment. Furthermore, training and tools and techniques that support the recognition and reward of
desired behaviours and practices are essential to enable readiness for change and improve the Level of
Readiness for TQM implementation in the public education system in Saudi Arabia.

References
Ahmed, P. K. (1998) ‘Culture and climate for innovation’, European Journal of Innovation Management, 1(1), pp.
30–43. doi: 10.1108/14601069810199131.
Aldaweesh, M., Al-Karaghouli, W. and Gallear, D. (2013) ‘The Effective Implementation of Total Quality
Management and Leadership in Saudi Universities: A Review and Framework to Enhancing HE Strategy’, in
European, Mediterranean & Middle Eastern Conference on Information Systems.
Ali, M. and Shastri, R. K. (2010) ‘Implementation of total quality management in higher education’, Asian Journal of
Business Management. Asian Journal of Business Management, 2(1), pp. 9–16.
ALNabhani, M. (2007) Developing the Education System in the Sultanate of Oman through Implementing Total
Quality Management: the Ministry of Education Central Headquarters - a Case Study. University of Galsgo.
Al-Qahtani, S. S. and Al-Methheb, M. M. (1999) ‘Implementation of Total Quality Management in Some Saudi
Public Sector Organizations’, 13(2), pp. 23–38.
Alruwaili, J. (2013) ‘Total Quality Management in Education Directorates in Saudi Arabia: Contrasting Provincial
Case Studies’, Public Policy and Administration Research, 3(6), pp. 26–34.
Arcaro, J. S. (1995) Quality in Education: An Implementation Hand-Book. St Lucie Press.: Florida.
Atkinson, P. E. (1990) Creating culture change. Bedford: IFS.
Becket, N. and Brookes, M. (2008) ‘Quality management practice in higher education–what quality are we actually
enhancing’, Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education, 7(1), pp. 40–54.
Blankstein, A. (1996) ‘Why TQM Can’t Work-and a School Where It Did: It takes a serious understanding of
Deming's principles’, Education Digest, 62(1), pp. 27–30.
Brigham, S. E. (1993) ‘Lessons we can learn from industry’, Change, 25(3), pp. 42–48.
Carnoy, M. and Rhoten, D. (2002) ‘What does globalization mean for educational change? A comparative approach.’,
Comparative Education Review, 46(1), pp. 1–9.
Darandari, E. Z., Al‐Qahtani, S. A., Allen, I. D., Al‐Yafi, W. A., Al‐Sudairi, A. A. and Catapang, J. (2009) ‘The
Quality Assurance System for Post‐Secondary Education in Saudi Arabia: A Comprehensive, Developmental and
Unified Approach’, Quality in Higher Education, 15(1), pp. 39–50. doi: 10.1080/13538320902741806.
Daun, H. (2002) Educational restructuring in the context of globalization and national policy. New York: Routledge
Flamer.
 Deming, W. E. (1986) Out of the crisis. Cambridge, MA, itd: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.
Cambridge: MIT Press.
Freytag, P. V and Hollensen, S. (2001) ‘The process of benchmarking, benchlearning and benchaction’, The TQM
magazine. MCB UP Ltd, 13(1), pp. 25–34.
Goetsch, D. L. and Davis, S. B. (2006) Quality management: introduction to total quality management for
production. NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Gotzamani, K. D. and Tsiotras, G. D. (2002) ‘The true motives behind ISO 9000 certification: their effect on the
overall certification benefits and long term contribution towards TQM’, International Journal of Quality &
Reliability Management. MCB UP Ltd, 19(2), pp. 151–169.
Hagemeyer, C., Gershenson, J. K. and Johnson, D. M. (2006) ‘Classification and application of problem solving
quality tools: a manufacturing case study’, The TQM Magazine. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 18(5), pp. 455–
483.
Hassan, A., Fan, I. S. and Johnstone, A. (2014) ‘LEVEL OF AWARENESS AND UNDERSTANDING OF THE
MEANING OF TQM IN GIRLS PUBLIC SCHOOLS IN SAUDI ARABIA’, in 6th International Conference on
Education and New Learning Technologies. Barcelona: IATED, pp. 7223–7232.
Hassan, A., Ip-Shing, F. and Johnstone, A. (2013) ‘Comparison Between TQM CSFS in Service Sector and
Esucation Sector’, in 6th International Conference of Education, Research and Innovation. Seville: IATED, pp.
5906–5915.
Hegazy, A. (2012) ‘Total Quality Management in Saudi Arabia Judo and Taekwondo Federation’, World, 6(4), pp.
473–477.
Horsburgh, M. (1998) ‘Quality monitoring in two institutions: A comparison’, Quality in higher education. Taylor &
Francis, 4(2), pp. 115–135.
Huq, Z. (2005) ‘Managing change: a barrier to TQM implementation in service industries’, Managing Service
Quality. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 15(5), pp. 452–469.
Juran, J. (1989) Juran on leadership for quality: an executive handbook. The Free Press: New York.
Kanji, G. K., Malek, A. and Tambi, B. A. (1999) ‘Total quality management in UK higher education institutions’,
Total Quality Management. Taylor & Francis, 10(1), pp. 129–153.
Kohn, A. (1993) ‘Turning learning into a business: concern about quality management at school’, Educational
leadership.
Köksal, H. (2011) ‘Quality journey of Turkey from the perspective of language teachers’, Journal of NELTA, 16(1-2),
pp. 52–58.
McNabb, D. E. and Sepic, F. T. (1995) ‘Culture, climate, and total quality management: Measuring readiness for
change’, Public Productivity & Management Review. JSTOR, 18(4), pp. 369–385.
Mishra, P. (2013) ‘Barriers in implementing total quality management in Higher Education’, Journal of Education &
Research for Sustainable Development ( JERSD ), 1(1), pp. 1–11.
Morgan, C. and Murgatroyd, S. (1994) Total quality management and the school. An international perspective .
Buckingham: Open University Press.
Oduwaiye, R. O., Sofoluwe, A. O. and Kayode, D. J. (2012) ‘Total Quality Management and Students’ Academic
Performance in Ilorin Metropolis Secondary Schools, Nigeria’, Total Quality Management, 1(1), pp. 141–152.
Panic, M. (2003) Globalization and National Economic Welfare. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Rao, S. ., Solis, L. E. and Raghunathan, T. S. (1999) ‘A framework for international quality management research:
development and validation of a measurement instrument.’, Total Quality Management, 10(7), pp. 1047–1075.
Rice, G. (2003) ‘The challenge of creativity and culture: A framework for analysis with application to Arabian Gulf
firms’, International Business Review, 12(4), pp. 461–477. doi: 10.1016/S0969-5931(03)00039-8.
Sallis, E. (1993) Total Quality Management in Education. London: Kogan Page.
Steers, R. M., Nardon, L. and Sanchez-Runde, C. J. (2010) Management Across Cultures: Challenges and Strategies.
Cambridge: University Press.
Stromquist, N. P. (2002) Education in a globalized world: The connectivity of economic power, technology, and
knowledge. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Suleman, Q. and Gul, R. (2015) ‘Challenges to Successful Total Quality Management Implementation in Public
Secondary Schools : A Case Study of Kohat District, Pakistan’, Journal of Education and Practice, 6(15), pp. 123–
135.
Talib, F. and Rahman, Z. (2010) ‘Critical success factors of TQM in service organizations: a proposed model’,
Services Marketing Quarterly. Taylor & Francis, 31(3), pp. 363–380.
Talib, F., Rahman, Z., Qureshi, M. N. and Siddiqui, J. (2011) ‘Total quality management and service quality: an
exploratory study of quality management practices and barriers in service industry’, International Journal of Services
and Operations Management, 10(1), p. 94. doi: 10.1504/IJSOM.2011.041991.
Al Tasheh, G. H. (2013) ‘Obstcales to the application of total quality management (TQM) in higher education
institutions in the state of Kuwait’, European Scientific Journal, 9(4), pp. 209–220.
Zabadi, A. M. A. (2013) ‘Implementing Total Quality Management (TQM) on the Higher Education Institutions–A
Conceptual Model’, Journal of Economics & Finance, 1(1), pp. 42–60.
Zhang, Z., Waszink, A. B. and Wijngaard, J. (2000) ‘An instrument for measuring TQM implementation for Chinese
manufacturing companies.’, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 17(7), pp. 730–755.

View publication stats