Chapter 3

CHAPTER III
LITERATURE REVIEW
CONTENTS
3.1 Quality in Business
3.2 Quality in Educational Services: Services Marketing Perspective
3.3 Total Quality Management in Education
3.4 B-School Students: Customers, products, partners or Stakeholders?
3.4.1 Students as Customers
3.4.2 Students as Products
3.4.3 Students as Partners
3.4.4 Students as Partial Employees
3.4.5 Students as Stakeholders
3.5 Critique of Adopting TQM in B-School Education
3.6 Purpose of Education
3.7 Quality Measurement
3.7.1 Measuring Quality in B-Schools
3.7.2 Evaluation of the three Approaches
3.7.3 Holistic Perspective
3.8 Quality of Management Education in India
3.9 A Bird’s Eye View of Literature’

Chapter III Literature Review on Quality of Management Education
Introduction
The Indian B-School scenario has witnessed numerous changes in the recent past.
Mushrooming of B-Schools, global competition and changing expectations of the
corporate world. Shortage of well-qualified faculty, strong influence of changing
technologies and heightened student expectations are some of the issues faced by Indian
B-Schools.
Global management education has seen multiple challenges in the recent past.
Various scholars (Pfeffer and Fong, 20021 Leavitt, 19892, Pfeffer and Fong, 20043
Ghoshal, 20054 O Toole, 20055) have highlighted different, often conflicting, reasons for
postgraduate management education in the US becoming rudderless. An underlying idea,
emerging from these scholars is that, pressures from various sources like media,
stakeholders like students, have forced management institutions to adopt practices that
may make sense in the short run but are likely to have serious negative effects in the long
run.
The literature review is presented in a logical manner starting from definitions of

quality in business followed by definitions of quality in services, particularly educational
services. International and national journals have been reviewed. Four approaches to
quality exist in literature which have been reviewed namely services marketing
perspective, total quality management perspective, balanced score card perspective and
holistic perspective. Empirical studies in all four approaches have been analyzed. As only
conceptual papers are available in the Indian context, these have been thoroughly
reviewed.
3.1 Quality in Business
The ISO (1986) definition—"The totality of features and characteristics of a

product or service that bear on its ability to satisfy stated or implied needs”. The words
'characteristics' and 'satisfy needs' in the definition imply two important points, which are
Quality of Management Education in India

33
(A Case Study of B-Schools in Karnataka State)
also in line with TQM principles: (a) quality is what satisfies customer's needs (b) quality
is a set of characteristics that can be measured qualitatively or quantitatively.
Quality has been defined in business as conformance to specifications (Srabec,

2000 ). Garvin (1984)7 has given attributes of quality in product/service models (TQM)
6
in business they are performance, features, reliability, conformance, durability,

serviceability and perceived quality.
Total quality management is a general management philosophy that holds that

quality is continuous improvement (Seymour, 19928) and measures quality through
customers' satisfaction with the services they have experienced.
W. Edwards Deming's chain reaction theory, demonstrates that better products are
produced by focusing on such diverse areas as statistical analysis of defects, delivery and
service, customer relations and employee communications. Therefore, productivity is
increased as less products are rejected (Madu and Kuei, 19939)
Juran identified the costs incurred by a company to maintain a certain level of

quality. These are categorized as: (1) Prevention costs, those costs expended in an effort
to keep non-conforming products or services from occurring and from reaching the
consumer (2) Appraisal costs, those expended on maintaining quality levels through
measurement and analysis of data in order to detect and correct problems (3) Internal
failure costs, those that result from unsatisfactory quality that is found prior to the
delivery of a product or service to the customer; and (4) External failure costs, those that
occur after poor quality products or services reach the customer. The purpose of quality
cost measurement and analysis is to expose the top management of an organization to the
high cost of ignoring quality issues (Madu and Kuei, 1993)10
3.2 Quality in Educational Services: Services Marketing Perspective
Quality is an elusive and indistinct construct (Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry,

198511). Quality is a complex and difficult construct to measure in service sectors. The
34
following features-characterize the education industry, as a services industry (Kotler,

200212) Services are intangible- education cannot be seen, touched, heard or felt, before
enrolling, it has to be experienced.
Services are inseparable- there is immediate consumption of the service

(education) provided. Service quality varies- the quality of service varies from time to
time depending on the administrators, type of faculty, infrastructure modifications,
library facilities provided etc and lastly services are perishable- education provided last
semester/ year cannot be stored for consumption next semester/ year.
Brown, Keonig and Harold (1993)13 suggest that one approach to measuring
quality is to use a standardized set of questions. For example, SERVQUAL lists 10
general service quality issues that are measured from the standpoint of the customer
(Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry, 198514). This approach has been adapted to higher
education (Davis & Allen, 199015) and the standard questions facilitate comparisons
among schools (Brown, Keonig and Harold, 199316).
Mahapatra and Khan (2007)17 constructed a scale called “EduQUAL” having 43

items drawn from SERVQUAL and other studies. The scale was administered to
students, alumni, parents of students and recruiters of different technical institutions
across India. Factor analysis showed significant alpha values for the following
dimensions: learning outcomes, responsiveness, physical facilities, personality
development and academics.
Standardized questions may have their limitations. Some authorities believe that
unique customer concerns are the essence of quality and that quality is idiosyncratic to
individual schools or classes of schools (Ewell, 199218; Keller, 199219).
Sahney, Banwet and Karunes (2006)20 conducted an empirical study using

SERVQUAL dimensions. The focus of the study was on identifying a framework of
design characteristics able to provide for quality in education and aimed at identifying
and establishing linkages and relationships between the customer requirements (students
of Engineering and Management) and the design characteristics. The study measured the
35
perceptions and expectations of students for both the customer requirements and design
characteristics. The gaps between perceptions and expectations were studied. By using
interpretive structural equation modeling a path analysis comprising of independent and
dependent variables was developed and tested using quality function deployment. QFD
may be defined as, ‘a system for designing a product or a service based on customer
demands and involving all members of the organization’ (Maddux et al., 1991 21).
Sahney, Banwet and Karunes (2006) described the path analysis; quality of
education was the only dependent variable. The independent variables were effective and
efficient leadership, clear and specific policies and procedures, machinery for evaluation
and control, well-defined curriculum design, suitability and relevance of curriculum
content, curriculum planning, design, periodic review, instructional competence –
expertise and adequacy, instructional arrangement – class size, adequate, infrastructure
and facilities are well-defined.
3.3 Total Quality Management (TQM) in Education
Quality in Education has been defined variedly as, excellence in education (Peters
& Waterman, 198222), value addition in education (Feigenbaum, 1951 23), fitness for
purpose (Reynolds, 198624; Brennan et al., 199225)
Fitness of purpose was given by Tang & Zairi, (1998)26 also and fitness of
educational outcome and experience for use Juran & Gryna, (1988)27.
Gilmore (1974) defined quality in education as conformance of education output

to planned goals, specifications and requirements (Gilmore, 197428; Crosby, 197929),
defect avoidance in education process (Crosby, 197930), and meeting or exceeding
customer’s expectations of education (Parasuraman et al., 198531).
Spanbauer defines TQM in education, as “TQM is a management philosophy

which puts systems and processes in place to meet and exceed the expectations of

36
customers. It is a relentless quest for continuous improvement through documentation

and the use of tools in a problem-solving atmosphere that features team action and good
leadership practices (Spanbauer, 199532). TQM is known by many different terms such as
continuous process improvement (CPI), total quality leadership (TQL) and continuous
quality improvement (CQI). According to Spanbauer, education is a service with
customers like any other business, and those customers express satisfaction and
dissatisfaction about school services and instruction. When TQM is applied to education,
it is essential that customers be identified by the supplier and that processes be
established in order to determine their specific needs.
Spanbauer identifies two types of customers: external (students, employers, the

community at large, taxpayers, other educators from different institutions) and internal
(other instructors, service department staff). Visionary leadership, team problem solving,
scientific methods and tools, organizational climate, education and training to faculty and
staff and using meaningful data are the elements of TQM in education.
The key elements of TQM in education as defined by Spanbauer is depicted in

Figure 2.1.

37
FIGURE 2.1
KEY ELEMENTS OF TQM IN EDUCATION
Leadership
Education
and Organizational
Training Climate
Customer
Service
Scientific Team Problem

Methods and Solving
Meaningful
Tools
Data
Source: Spanbaeur, (1995). Reactivating higher education with total quality

management: using quality and productivity concepts, techniques and tools to
improve higher education” Total Quality Management, Vol. 6, Nos 5&6, pp
519- 537.
Spanbauer (1995) proposes that the results of applying TQM in higher education
should be assessed by four parameters: improvement in learning, improvement in
institutional efficiency, graduates possessing TQM competencies and cultural change in
the institution. Scrabec (2000)33 argues that in a TQM approach to quality in higher

38
education, the major drawback is considering the students as customers. The customer
driven approach lacks a focus on who the primary customers are and who is to set the
service specifications. If the TQM approach is followed, a high level of student
satisfaction does not necessarily measure the quality of education, though it may be one
indicator.
Garvin (1984)34 has distinguished between TQM and TQE (Total Quality
Education). Garvin has compared the attributes of quality in product/service models with
quality education. Table 3.1 depicts the comparison.
Scarbec (2000) opines that to operationalize the concepts of TQM to quality in

education is very difficult. Scrabec (2000) has proposed eight potential measures of
quality education; they are standardized national tests, certification of educational
institutions, student satisfaction measures, industry feedback, international text and
quantitative measures, national indices such as patents, government of independent audits
to set standards and student evaluations.
TABLE 3.1
TQM VERSUS TQE
Sl. No. Total Quality Management Total Quality Education
1 Performance Student performance
2 Features Degree options, courses
3 Reliability Capabilities and skills developed
4 Conformance Conformance to national, state and
professional standards
5 Durability Marketability of learned skills/ knowledge
6 Serviceability Ability to meet professional requirements and
accreditation
7 Perceived quality Contribution to improving society
Source: Garvin, David (1984). What Does Quality Really Mean? Sloan, Management review,
Vol.26.

39
Scrabec (2000) has given a total quality education model based on benefits and on
quality education attributes. The model shows recipient or student satisfaction as a result
of a total quality education approach, but not the main feedback to improve the system.
This model allows student evaluations to be a part of the overall process. The model uses
internal auditing to improve the education process continuously. According to Scrabec
(2000) the TQE model is much closer to the reality of the complex nature of education,
like the TQM model where planners use evaluations as the performance feedback loop,
ignoring the specifications and expectations of the beneficiaries (society, industry,
parents and professions)
FIGURE -3.2
TOTAL QUALITY EDUCATION MODEL
Techniques TQE Process Benefactor Actual &

satisfaction perceived
(Student) benefits
Service Quality
Feedback
Auditing Beneficiaries, Feedback (Performance)
specifications or measurement
expectations  Tests
 Industry
Source: Quentin Scrabec, (2000), A Quality Education is not Customer Driven, Journal of
Education for Business, May, June pp-298-300.
Widrick, Mergen and Grant (2002)35 have measured three quality dimensions
(quality of design, quality of conformance and quality of performance) in higher
education. They have developed a set of measurement parameters used in evaluating the
quality of research and curriculum development and the tools/techniques necessary for
evaluating them. This study limits itself to measuring quality of research and curriculum
development only, two case studies are cited, Master of Science in manufacturing
management and Leadership at Rochester Institute of Technology. The study does not
propose an overall quality framework for higher education institution.
40
3.4 B-School Students: Customers, Products, Partners or Stakeholders?
3.4.1 Students as Customers:
While some authors believe that, because of the complex, dynamic and intangible
outcomes of education, an objective measurement of quality is very difficult or
impossible (Tofte, 199336; Sayed, 199337), many view it as essential if quality
improvement is to be monitored (Seymour, 199238; Morris & Haigh39, 1993; Burkhalter,
199340). The terms 'customer' and 'market' have also met with resistance from some
educationalists, who argue that they are applicable only to commercial environments
(Sallis, 199341; Corts, 199242). Another complexity arises from the dynamic and
interactive nature of higher education. It is with respect to the role of students. Students
play different roles while acquiring an educational degree. They are the inputs, as well as
the recipients of education.
"While students are prime customers of colleges and universities, they are also
their raw material, suppliers, co-processors, and products" (Harris, 199243). For this, a
clarification is necessary for specifying customers and prioritizing or reconciling their
different requirements based on a university mission (Taylor & Hill, 199344).
While some administrators find it difficult to accept the idea of students as

consumers, in reality, that’s what they are. In today’s competitive marketplace, schools
are sellers offering courses, a degree, and a rich alumni life. Students are buyers who
register for courses, apply for graduation, and make donations as alumni. The longer
these ongoing transactions are satisfactory to both parties, the longer the relationship will
endure, to the benefit of everyone (Bejou, 200545). Textbook literature classifies B-
Schools in the “not for profit” service category, promotions by B-Schools indicate
otherwise. Market share, competitive analysis, positioning, and customer-centric service
delivery were concepts reserved for the business sector and were not applicable to the
realm of higher education (Kotler and Fox, 199546).

41
Though not stated explicitly, there is an increasing trend among B-Schools to

view students as customers. Students are consumers and products of education (Conway
and Yorke, 199147) a survey conducted by Delucci and Korgen (2002)48 for sociology
undergraduates, with a 41-item questionnaire, confirmed that students believe that higher
education operates as a consumer-driven marketplace. If students are treated as
customers, are we compromising on the broad, overall benefits (good citizenship,
professionalism, ethical values, life skills, etc) of B-School education, with immediate,
short-term student goals of lucrative employment?
Carlson and Fliesher (2002)49 opine, “This treating of the student body as
customers has lessened the rigor of the curricula and teaching methods”. In a student-
customer orientation, it is difficult to define the “product”, it could be education, but this
is a slippery construct even for educators, let alone for students (Clayson and Haley,
200550).
The student-customer model has some drawbacks; Students may shift the
responsibility of learning and placement success from themselves to the faculty and B-
School. Accountability no longer rests with the student and if the faculty or B-School
(service providers) do not meet up to the student (customer) expectations, then the
student fills a service form (teaching evaluation and feedback) which indicates service
failure, resulting in, a “bad word of mouth” for the service providers (faculty and B-
school). If a total TQM based approach is adapted to measure quality in a B-School, then
students have to be considered as customers and the drawbacks of considering students as
customers are many. Clayson and Haley (2005)51 argue that treating students as
customers is inappropriate and has negative influence on the student’s educational
welfare. The symptoms of this student as orientation has certain undesirable effects like
Short-term perspective or an “easy A”- students may choose those courses, where
instructors give easy grades and focus is on achieving grades rather than real learning.
Absence of student accountability- Students may transfer responsibility of learning and
outcomes of learning from themselves to service providers (B-School and faculty).

42
Students as judge- If the service provider does not satisfy the customer (reasons may be
unrelated to teaching), students fill up evaluation forms (faculty evaluation). Student
evaluations may be biased or skewed for various reasons. Adversarial relationships- If
instructors insist on a rigorous curriculum, instructors may be seen as adversaries that
stand in the way of what the student wants, a figure to dislike, or an object to get around
using some game-playing tactic.
Education as a commodity- In a student-customer model, the product is not readily

identifiable. It could be “education,” but this is a slippery construct even for educators, let
alone for students if “education” is a product, then the customer should be able to buy it
either with money or effort. A degree may be seen as just another commodity to be
purchased (Emery et al. 200152).
Failure to secure desired employment- With a student as customer perspective, not

securing a good job can be seen as the fault of the service providers.
Curriculum and allocation of resources- Although students are typically unfamiliar with
the configuration of employment marketplaces, educational resource allocations, and
societal needs, they have definite ideas about what they would like to study and B-
Schools may provide those courses, which may not really help students or society, in the
long run.
3.4.2 Students as Products:
Belohav (1984)53 proposes two views; one to consider the student as the final
customer and second to consider government and business sectors as the ultimate
consumers. Education is a value-added process, the student is the final product and the
institution is a manufacturing organization, thus-

43
INPUT.............................................TRANSFORMATION............................OUTPUT
INCOMING STUDENT..............EDUCATIONAL PROCESS...................GRADUATE
RAW MATERIALS....................VALUE-ADDED PROCESS..........FINAL PRODUCT
3.4.3 Students as Partners:
The student can be considered as a collaborative educational partner (Bay and

Daniel, 200154: Henning-Thurau et al 200155). Bell and Emery (1971)56 and Fieldman
(1971)57 suggested the ‘societal marketing orientation’ which emphasizes that an
organization exists to not only meet its own needs and the needs of the customer, but also
to maintain and advance individuals’ and society’s long term interests. Under this model,
the function of a university or college would be to advance the interests and goals of
students, faculty, staff, parents, government, and the society as a whole. While student
needs are central in this orientation, a balanced constituency far exceeds the students’
immediate wants and desires (Clayson and Haley, 200558). Groccia (1997)59 has
interpreted the student as “a real learner” by virtue of which, a student becomes a
producer and not a consumer, of the knowledge he or she gains.
3.4.4 Students as Partial employees and clients:
Students as Partial employees: The fundamental notion behind customer labor

contributions is that though customers are primarily interested in the consumption of a
service, when their skills match those required to fulfill a task required by the
organization, the organization should employ the customers’ skills, making them “partial
employees” (Mills & Morris, 198660). This view of customers (or students) as partial
employees suggests that they can and should be managed as human resources of an
organization (Halbesleben, Becker, Buckley, 200361)

44
According to Laskey (1998)62, an educational institution can take at least three views of
its mission of educating students
 Produce citizen-as-product for society-as-customer

 Produce worker-as-product for employer-as-customer
 Provide self-improvement services-as-product for student-as-customer
According to Sharrok (2000)63 on any given day, a student might be:

1. A customer wanting routine information (from a department or faculty office),
2. A client in need of expert guidance (choosing a course, or reviewing an assignment),
3. A citizen with certain rights (borrowing a book or appealing against an act of
discrimination), and
4. A subject with certain obligations (being fined for an overdue book, or working to
make a grade)
Litten (1980)64 defines a student as a client, part of the process, and a quasi-
product at the end of the process. Armstrong (2003)65 suggests ‘the students-as-client
model’ clients who pay to receive professional services from that firm. A client is a
person who engages the professional advice or services of another.
The findings of a survey conducted by Pitman (2000)66 on “Perceptions of

Administrative Staff towards Students and Faculty” indicate that in dealing with students,
administrative staff tend to relate closely to students, perceiving them as internal
customers.
3.4.5 Students as Stakeholders: A New Perspective
Extant literature review shows that treating students as customers may

compromise on course content and rigors of learning. Treating students as products
characterizes students as too passive and accepting. Treating students as partners would
be assuming that students are self-directed and are willing to share the responsibility of
learning, along with faculty on the same level. A student may be viewed as a stakeholder.
45
A stakeholder who has a vested interest in acquiring higher education. Student’s

needs will be given utmost priority by faculty in all aspects of curriculum design and
delivery. Faculty will be the final decision maker, by virtue of acquired knowledge and
meaningful real world experience (Shahaida, Rajashekar and Nargundkar, 200667). In an
empirical study Shahaida, Rajashekar and Nargundkar found that B-School students do
not seem to have clear-cut preference between- product, partner, customer and
stakeholder viewpoints, where as the perception was that students felt they were being
treated as stakeholders.
A similar finding was seen in a study conducted by Obermiller, Fleenor and

Raven (2005)68 where in Perceptions and Preferences of undergraduate and graduate
students towards two orientations- Students as Customers or Products was done. The
students preferred both orientations –customer or product almost the same. Empirical
research in this area is inconclusive but extant literature review indicates that more B-
Schools treat students as Customers.
Some questions to be answered are if students are not the customers, how should
students be treated? what is the role of faculty, parents, recruiters and society? How
should the other beneficiaries be treated? There is considerable debate and difference of
opinions among researchers, faculty, recruiters, administrators and students as to who are
the true customers of higher education. Are students really customers?
The exact role of the student in B-Schools is yet unclear. The stakeholder
perspective offers a balanced approach to viewing students in a B-School.
3.5 Critique of adopting TQM in B-School Education
Spanbauer (1995) raises a very pertinent question, who is the education intended
to benefit? Students are primary customers but the customer relationship is somewhat
different from a customer in a restaurant or bank. In the view of Scrabec (2000) the
inability to classify “customers” is at the heart of the failed TQM efforts in education.

46
In both the industrial and general service sectors, the customers are well defined
whereas in a university, as Madu and Kuei (1993) suggest, the definition of customers is
quite broad.
While students are accepted as the primary customers by many authors (Sallis,
199369; Corts, 199270; Hittman, 199371), other potential customers, like parents,
employers, government and society, should be considered.
TQM approach lays emphasis on market orientation (doing what the customer
requires) but in application to higher education, both market-orientation and
measurement pose problems.
While considering quality of B-School education, it is necessary to incorporate the

expectations of many stakeholders, students, faculty, government, employers, board of
directors, society etc. The TQM philosophy centers on continuously exceeding
customers’ expectations, In higher education, specifically B-Schools, which have many
stakeholders to satisfy, applying TQM like processes (like in manufacturing industry)
seems impractical. “The number of institutions that have actually implemented TQM
successfully in any meaningful way is comparatively small, and the gains generated in
these institutions often appear to be overshadowed by the time and effort” (Koch and
Fisher, 199872)
Quality is difficult to implement and capture in a meaningful sense. Given the

forces that place intense, sometimes conflicting pressures on the providers of MBA
programs, it becomes incumbent upon us to reflect on what quality means in today’s
world. (Rapert et al, 200473)
Studies conducted in U.S.A higher education institutions have shown mixed

response about the effectiveness of adopting TQM (Total Quality Management)-type
quality processes. A study of 32 higher education institutions found that administrators

47
believed that their TQM programs were making a great contribution to organizational
effectiveness, and benefits were greater than costs (Elmutti and Manippillili, 199974). Out
of the 32 higher education institutions, 12 institutions had given up on TQM programs
after a 3–year trail, citing reasons such as, detrimental effects on creativity, threats of
standardization and uniformity and lack of appropriate rewards. Very few institutions
have meaningfully made a success of implementing TQM programs (Koch and Fischer,
1998).
Despite various issues involved in the implementation of TQM–type programs,

many higher education institutes are using it to improve academic administration,
teaching and learning. The AACSB is supporting the use of continuous process
improvement programs to improve teaching and learning (Vazzana, Elfrink and
Bachmann, 200175). In 2001,Vazzana, Elfrink and Bachmann, carried out 2 surveys in
400 colleges and universities throughout U.S.A taken three years apart using the
following typology- TQM in the curriculum, TQM in nonacademic functions, TQM in
academic administration and TQM in the core learning process.
The major findings were the percentage of schools that included TQM in the
curriculum increased from 78% in 1995 to 86% in 1998. 38% in 1995 to 50% in 1998
was the increase in the use of TQM in administrative and academic activities. The use of
TQM in core learning processes increased from 52% in 1995 to 57% in 1998.
The major problems facing universities today relate to curriculum, experiential

learning, funding, the allocation of faculty time, teaching versus research, faculty status
and tenure, student access, distance learning and the use of technology, the pricing of
higher education, restraining cost increases, relationships with business and government,
governance and leadership arrangements, faculty compensation and intercollegiate
athletics.
Koch and Fisher (1998) state that TQM has little to contribute to the solution of
fundamental questions of value, direction and resource allocation. TQM can be of

48
assistance in improving administrative service areas (registration, mail service,

maintenance, billing, etc.), and that it has been used to enhance certain quasi-academic
areas such as library services. Koch and Fisher (1998) state that the problem with TQM is
not the goal- increased efficiency and greater employee and customer satisfaction but the
process, a process already being abandoned by some of its earliest advocates in industry.
The focus of TQM has been upon the non-academic side of institutions. The truth is that
higher education institutions have excelled at announcing TQM campaigns, but typically
have been incapable of implementing them fully or reaping significant benefits.
Fundamental issues such as the nature of the curriculum and the allocation of
faculty time have been extremely resistant to TQM campaigns, not the least because
faculties usually cast a jaundiced eye on any development that threatens to loosen their
grip over course and degree requirements, or their ability to allocate their own time
(Koch and Fisher, 1998).
Many education professionals believe that TQM directed at academics is not the
answer. They note that higher education is a very humanistic area where autonomy and
academic freedom are highly valued, where specialized faculties avidly protect their turf
(Satterlee, 199676)
It is important to consider the objective or purpose of education before any

initiative is taken to develop or measure the quality of education in a B-School. As
literature has proved that applying TQM like practices has not met with great success in
many B-Schools, other quality techniques have to be considered, but the purpose of
education has to be addressed first.
3.6 The Purpose of Education
The government, students and industry consider different attributes as the purpose
of education. Montmore and Stone (199077) opine that industry’s view about purpose of
education is to produce graduates who can communicate, cooperate, solve problems and

49
work in a team effectively. The student views purpose of education as a means to

improve earnings and further career prospects. The government’s perspective about
purpose of education may be to enhance aggregate student achievement.
Wicks (1992)78 propose other purposes of education such as, acquisition of

knowledge, building a value system in the individual, against which to make personal,
social and moral judgments etc. Faculty may perceive imparting subject knowledge and
honing the conceptual skills of the students as the purpose of education. The board of
directors’ viewpoint of purpose of education could be three fold to instill a sense of
discipline, to impart effective teaching and to provide good infrastructure etc. The
opinions of various stakeholders are diverse and also highly subjective. Montmore and
Stone (1990) suggest that there is no one-dimensional measure of quality and it is
possible to discuss the quality of different components of education.
Adam smith referred to quality of teaching as quality of education. Smith’s

notion of educational quality adheres to consumer’s perception of quality, J. S. Mill
contested this opinion, who pointed out that consumers of educational service are often
unaware about the quality of the service they are buying ( Bose, 2006 79).
Bose (2006) argues quality of education provided by for-profit and non-profit

providers of education is different. The resources available to an institute can also be a
measure for quality of education. Whether the institute is government funded or private
funded has an impact on both, the quality of education and the tuition fees charged. For
government-funded institutions, the pressure to increase number of students and satisfy
the preferences of the median voter is less intense. Students’ achievements during the
course (ranks, awards) and after the course (placements, professional success) may also
be considered as another indicator of quality of education rendered in the institute. Epple
and Romano (199880) and Basu (198981) propose that a better peer quality implies
superior quality as assured by ‘students’ achievements. Profit maximizing behavior
determines quality of a school as assessed by its peer quality (Basu, 1989 82). A profit

50
maximizing school chooses the quality of students, to maximize profit. Consumers

should be willing to pay a higher price if a school is offering better quality.
The school would like to fill in as my seats as possible as long as the number is
less than or equal to the ‘size’ of the school, or governed by government rules. A profit
seeking school would like to fill in all seats with students who are both rich and clever. If
the number falls short, then the rest of the seats can be filled by (a) some clever- poor
students or, (b) some mediocre rich students or, (c) some of both (Bose, 2006).
The presence of clever-rich and clever- poor students will enhance quality, there by
raising the willingness to pay by all students and hence the profit. The price that the
mediocre rich are willing to pay will compensate for the lower price that the clever yet
poor students pay. Rothschild and White (199583) state that this kind of price
discrimination internalizes the externality that clever-poor and mediocre- rich students
create within the school. Assuming that public schools admit all students, hence
government is not concerned about the quality of public schools, as long as they provide
education, Epple and Romano (199884) assert that profit-maximizing schools will be of
better quality. This assertion has not been proved empirically. There are many non profit-
maximizing schools which are of better quality both in India as well as other parts of the
world. Research in this area is not substantial to arrive at any meaningful conclusions.
The Business model followed in the B-School has an impact on the quality levels
at which the B-School operates. In private institutions the tuition fees is the major source
of revenue, all income and expenditure is accounted for, therefore spending in all areas of
teaching-learning, research, consultancy etc has to considered carefully. In funded
institutions (state governments, central government etc) tuition fees is only one means of
raising revenue, the government and various funding agencies provide for research
projects and other initiatives. This creates more opportunity for spending in all areas of
B-School development. In funded institutions it may be easier to invest in research and
development, consulting and other areas as compared to purely private institutions. This
will have an impact on the research output, quality of teaching, industry-institute

51
interaction etc. Private B-Schools have to face more challenges to in building a profitable
B-School in the short term as well as ensuring appropriate investments in developmental
areas for long term sustainability in the competitive market.
3.7 Quality Measurement
3.7.1 Measuring Quality in B-Schools
There are different approaches by which attempts have been made to develop a
method for measuring quality in B-Schools.
The first approach follows the services perspective and various researchers such
as Sahney et al (200685), Brown, Keonig and Harold (199386), Davis & Allen (199087)
Mahapatra and Khan (200788) have tested service quality in higher education institutions:
Engineering and B-Schools. These researchers have used modified SERVQUAL scale
proposed by Parasuraman, Zeithmal and Berry, (198589).
The second approach adopts the total quality management approach. Various
Universities and B-Schools in U.S.A and U. K have adopted TQM type policies since the
1980’s. Researchers such as Garvin (198490) and Burkhalter (199391) Morris and Haigh
(199392), Spanbauer (199593), Owlia and Aspinwall (199894), Scrabec (200095), Widrick,
Mergen and Grant (200296) have researched TQM in higher education. Different models
have been suggested to improve quality using TQM.
The third approach suggests using the balanced score card technique to improve
quality in B-Schools. The balanced score card is a technique suggested by Kaplan and
Norton (199697) for measuring performance in business organizations.
According to Kaplan and Norton (2001), financial measures are lagging indicators
of actual organizational performance and suggest an approach that retains financial

52
measures but adds measures "on the drivers, the lead indicators, of future financial
performance" (Kaplan and Norton, 2001)
Drtina, Gilbert and Alon (200798) have explored the possibility of applying the
Balanced Score Card (BSC) to measure quality in B-Schools. Figure 3.3 depicts the
University Strategy Map suggested by Drtina, Gilbert and Alon (2007).
The balanced scorecard offers a way to close the loop between strategic planning
and business school practices so that the strategic management system will drive
organizational changes (Conger and Xin, 200099). The strategic planning process
incorporates a systems approach, tying an organization's mission to employees by giving
frequent feedback on daily actions. Before an organization can implement balanced
scorecard, it must define its strategy and its plan for the way to compete. The customer
value proposition is central to this strategy because it defines the targeted customers and
how the organization will attract and retain them (Drtina, Gilbert and Alon (2007).
They identified 10 core values depicted on a “values proposition worksheet”. The

respondents were students, faculty and administration staff. The core values were: student
centered culture, small classes, globalization emphasis, excellent teaching, use of
technology, experiential learning, career management emphasis, faculty involvement,
leadership and ethics and academic reputation.
The study revealed inconsistencies in a seemingly uniform and focused business

school. It revealed much disparity among students, faculty, and staff about the
importance of many core values, particularly leadership and ethics, career management,
use of technology and to some extent, even academic reputation and excellent teaching.

53
FIGURE 3.3
UNIVERSITY STRATEGY MAP
Leading Lagging
indicators indicators
Learning Internal Customer Financial
And Growth Operations Relations Performance
Shared Excellent Capable Growing

Values Teaching Graduates Revenues
Qualified Respected Satisfied Growing

Leaders Publications Employers Endowment
Learning Administrative Supportive Financial

Culture Effectiveness Donors Stability
Technical Sufficient
Support Research
Support
Successful
Student
Recruitment
Excellent
Student
Support
Continuous Table 3.3

Community
Source: Drtina, Gilbert and Alon (2007). Using the Balanced Scorecard for Value
Involvement
Congruence in an MBA Educational Setting, SAM Advanced management Journal, pp
Active
4-15. Donor
Relations
Source: Drtina, Gilbert and Alon (2007). Using the Balanced Scorecard for Value Congruence in
an MBA Educational Setting, SAM Advanced management Journal, pp 4-15

54
These differences raise questions about key components of competitive advantage

for the school. Drtina, Gilbert and Alon (2007) suggest that B-Schools should revisit their
mission statement, identify potential core values, survey key stakeholders and prioritize
core values.
3.8.2 Evaluation of the three approaches: Services marketing perspective, TQM

perspective and BSC perspective
The central premise of all the three approaches: Services perspective (using
SERVQUAL based scales), TQM perspective and BSC perspective for building and
measuring quality is treating “students as customers” and the objective is to delight the
customer by providing services which satisfy the customers needs.
Services Marketing Perspective
SERVQUAL was developed to measure service quality in services where, the

definition of customer is clear and in for profit-maximization setting as businesses. Most
of the service sectors deal with a single customer base and customer satisfaction is of
prime importance to them. Various researchers have applied modified SERVQUAL and
used it in education. There are various stakeholders involved in an educational setting,
the primary stakeholders being students, faculty and recruiters. The secondary
stakeholders are parents, society and government. Each stakeholder has different
expectations and perceptions of quality from the B-School. Measure quality through a
SERVQUAL based scale accords all the different stakeholders in one segment or group.
The results obtained may not be an accurate measure of service quality, since different
stakeholders expect different attributes of quality, attributes that are significant for one
stakeholder, for example, student may not be significant to another stakeholder such as a
recruiter.

55
An educational setup must satisfy the needs of wide range of stakeholders. This
results in difficulties to plan for quality control programmes and formulating policy
framework (Mahapatra and Khan, 2007100).
Total Quality Management Perspective
Though Universities and B-Schools have adapted TQM policies in U.S.A and
U.K, studies have revealed a mixed response towards implementation and the success of
such initiatives. Vazzana, Elfrink and Bacchman (2000), Satterlee (1986) and Koch and
Fischer (1998) have shown the problems arising out of following TQM policies in
education.
Balanced Score Card perspective

Drtina, Gilbert and Alon (2007) have adopted the BSC approach as a tool to
enhance quality in a B-School. This approach considers students, recruiters and donors as
the customers of the B-School, and emphasis is laid on linking strategic planning process
with the goals of students, faculty, recruiters and academic staff. Their study showed that
the importance attached to different core values was not uniform across the customer
groups. BSC allows an organization to measure the performance from all aspects.
The quality of all higher education programmes cannot be measured using the
same measurement scales. B-Schools belong to a niche segment and the selection
process, cost of education, career prospects, etc differ from other higher education
programmes. The stakeholders’ expectations and perceptions of quality from B-schools
are unique, so there is a need to develop a separate measure of quality for B-schools.
Different stakeholders have different notions about quality, so quality has to be
researched from the perspectives of all the important stakeholders, students, faculty and
corporate (recruiters).
Following a particular approach such as services marketing, TQM or BSC may not
provide a complete measure, which takes care of all the complexities existing in

56
managing a B-School. A holistic approach that combines all the three approaches has to
be developed. B-School Management involves strategic planning at top management
level, which involves the assessment of actions and goals assumed by individual actors or
groups. The planning process involves assessing each institutions objective along with a
thorough analysis of the external environment. B-Schools need to measure stakeholder
satisfaction, considering students, faculty and corporate world and not just student
satisfaction. Though performance measurement and evaluation is very difficult in an
educational setting, evaluation today is highly necessary and an unquestionable reality.
All processes such as teaching, research, service-providing activities etc have to be
instituted.
3.7.3 Holistic Perspective
Rosa, Saraiva and Diz (2001101) conducted an empirical study to identify all the
complexities involved in higher education in Portugal. The survey covered Portuguese
public and private higher educational institutions, including universities and polytechnic
schools. They analyzed management, quality–related, evaluation and strategic thinking
practices in the sample institutions. The survey revealed varying degrees of planning
activities in the institutions, the areas in which quality institutional policy was
implemented were: teaching, research, community services, administrative services,
social services, technical services, documentation services and computing services.
The sixteen subjects reflected in the institutions global development plan were;
relationship with the environment, teachers and researchers’ training, internationalization,
services provided, student’s insertion in active life, new teaching methods, curricular
development, technological development, culture, interdisciplinarity, geographical/ space
expansion, administration, research management, learning success, regional development
and secondary education/ higher education transition.
.

57
Based on this study, Rosa, Saraiva and Diz (2001) proposed a model called: The
excellence model for Portuguese higher education institutions. Figure 3.4 depicts this
model. Roza et al (2003102) validated this model through structural equation modeling.
FIGURE 3.4
Internal catalysts
Leadership
Structure and Policy, structure and

organization culture
Partnerships
Outcomes
PROCESSES (Stakeholders)
ACTORS
Resources STATE
EUROPEAN UNION
PROFESSIONAL
ASSOCIATIONS
SOCIETY
ORGANIZATIONS
External regulation
ASSESSMENT, INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT
Fig. 3.4: Source: Roza, Saraiva and Diz (2001).The development of an excellence Model for
Portuguese higher education institutions, Total Quality Management, Vol.12 (7&8), pp
1010-1017.

58
The AACSB, the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business, U.S.A and
EQUIS, the European Quality Improvement System adopted in the developed countries
for accreditation and assessment have incorporated many of these concepts.
3.8 Quality of Management Education in India
Extant literature review has revealed that applying industry-type, quality

programs in education may be very difficult to implement and measure. TQM in
academics has been found practical for processes like, admissions, quality of teaching-
learning, administrative practices etc.
There is a need for a holistic perspective for measuring quality of management

education, which considers all aspects- academic, nonacademic, admissions process,
placements, perspectives of different stakeholders, government, external bodies, etc.
Laha (2002103) has identified the following determinants of management education

a. Academic environment- library facilities, journals available, computer facilities
etc.
b. Intellectual capital- number of faculty, books and journal articles published,
seminars and conferences attended etc
c. Physical infrastructure- classrooms, laboratories, campus, hostels etc
d. Industry interface- number of MDPs (Management Development Programs), in-
company programs, consultancy projects, industry professionals visiting campus
etc.
e. Placements- percentage of students recruited through campus selection, average
salary offered etc.
f. Stakeholder satisfaction and perception- Faculty, student and recruiter’s
perception and satisfaction.
g. Innovation- Courses modified, updated, new innovative courses launched etc

59
Gupta, Gollakota and Sreekumar, (2003104) have proposed five yardsticks to measure
quality of business education in India they are, (1) Quality of students including the
admission process, (2) Pedagogy, (3) Placement (4) Faculty development and (5)
Infrastructure.
Rao (2006105) has proposed a model for achieving continuous quality enhancement
and global standards for B-Schools. The parameters of the proposed model are, (1)
Academic curriculum- benchmarking, responsiveness and orientation to shifting
corporate needs, (2) Internal branding (3) Leadership and institutional governance, (4)
Forging international alliances and alignments (5) Global admissions and internships (6)
Benchmarking for global accreditation.
There is a strong need to develop a framework for measuring quality in a B-

school. Students, faculty, university, top management, and industry have different
perceptions and expectations about B-school quality. Quality has to be researched from
the perspectives of all the different stakeholders.
The most sought after MBA program, regarded as having the best quality, is from
the IIMs, which are government funded. However, with the spurt in the number of private
B-schools, there is increasing difference in the quality of business education provided by
different providers. Gupta, Gollakota and Sreekumar (2003106) cite various reasons for
the existence of wide differences in quality, there is no uniform entrance test for
admission to an MBA program, CAT, MAT, XMAT, etc. The Government of India tried
to introduce a common admission test for the B-schools but the Supreme Court of India
rejected that attempt. The Court ruled, “Private educational institutions have a personality
of their own, and in order to maintain their atmosphere and traditions, it is necessary that
they have the right to choose and select the students who can be admitted” (Goswami,
2003107). India does not have a body like AACSB (The American Assembly of Collegiate
Schools of Business) in USA, the apex body AICTE (All India Council for Technical
Education) is responsible for defining the basic framework for quality of the business-

60
education and approving entry and expansion of all institutions, there are in practice,
many problems that undermine its effectiveness. (Gupta, Gollakota and Sreekumar, 2003)
There are many areas like, infrastructure, teacher-student ratio, number of Ph. D
faculty in an institute, etc which feature only in plans, to get AICTE approval. It is
reported that many business schools got AICTE approval on the basis of attractive project
plans, which never got implemented, so that some of them operated “virtually from sheds
and garages” (Raghunath, 1998108). AICTE has launched NBA (National Board of
Accreditation) using a benchmarking system with regard to factors such as physical
infrastructure, quality of inputs, and faculty training. However, falling standards of
schools approved by AICTE dropped its credibility (Gupta, Gollakota and Sreekumar,
2003). In 1998, All India Management Association (AIMA) used ISO 9000 to develop a
quality assurance system, known as QBS 1000. QBS 1000 program determined and
assessed B-school’s quality and processes and certified their capacity across crucial and
desirable parameters. The QBS 1000 system was intended to evaluate quality at 100-plus
institutions associated with AIMA (Raghunath, 1998). Rao (2005109) suggests B-School
classification as: Research based Schools, Specialized Schools, General MBA Schools
and Practice Oriented and Industry linked (Rao, 2005)

61
3.9 A Bird’s Eye View of Literature

TABLE 3.2
LITERATURE REVIEW: A BIRD’S EYE VIEW
Concept Year and Author Excerpts/ key contributions
Quality in business ISO, 1986 Totality of product’s characteristics and

features
Definitions of quality Srabec, 2000 Conformance to specifications
Attributes of Quality Gravin, 1984 Performance, features, reliability,
conformance etc
TQM Seymour, 1992 Quality is continuous improvement
Purpose of quality Madu & Kuei, 1993 Exposed management to high cost of
measurement ignoring quality
Characteristics of Parasuraman, Zeithaml Elusive & indistinct
quality and Berry, 1985
Service Kotler, 2002 Intangible, has to be experienced
Standardized method of Brown, Keonig & Standardized set of questions
measuring quality Harold, 1993
EduQUAL scale Mahapatra & Khan, 43 items drawn form SERVQUAL and
2007 others
Quality is idiosyncratic Ewell & Keller, 1992 Quality concerns are unique to individual
Definition of QFD Maddux et al, 1991 Designing a product based on customer
demand and involving all members of the
organization
Empirical survey using Sahney Banwet & To identify framework of design
SERVQUAL Karunes, 2006 characteristics able to provide quality
education
Quality in education Peters & Excellence in education
Waterman,1982
Quality in education Frigenbaum, 1951 Value addition in education
Quality in education Reynolds, 1986 Fitness for purpose
Brennan et al, 1992
Tang & Zairi, 1998
Quality in education Juran & Gryna, 1988 Fitness of educational outcome and
experience for use
Quality in education Gilmore, 1974 Conformance of educational output to
planned goals
Quality in education Crosby, 1979 Defect avoidance in educational process
Quality in education Parasuraman et al, 1985 Meeting or exceeding customer expectation
of education
Education Spanbaur, 1995 Is service, has 2 types of customers:

external and internal
Drawback of TQM in Scrabec, 2000 Considering students as customers

education
Distinction between Garvin,1984 Differentiated between TQM and TQE
62
TQM and TQE (Total

quality education)
Eight potential Scrabec, 2000 Standardizes national tests, certified
measures of quality educational institutions etc.
education
3 quality dimensions Widric, Mergen & Quality of design, conformance &
Grant, 2002 performance
Purpose of education Montmore & Stone, Produce graduates, communicate,
1990 cooperate etc
Purpose of education Wicks, 1992 Acquisition of knowledge, building value
system etc
Profit maximizing Epple & Romano, 1998 Profit maximizing schools chooses quality
schools Basu, 1989 students to maximize profits
Student as customer Bejou, 2005 Students are the buyers who register for
courses offered by B-Schools
Student as customer Harris, 1992 Students are also raw materials, suppliers
and products
Schools – “Not for Kotler & Fox, 1995 The advertisements, market analysis and
Profit” organizations promotions indicate that schools are no
more ‘not for profit organizations’
Student as customer Delucci and Korgen, Study says that higher education operates
2002 as consumer driven marketplace
Student as customer Carlson and Fliesher, Has lessened the rigor of curricula and
2002 teaching methods
Student as products Belohav, 1984 Consider student as final consumer and
Government & business sector also as final
consumer
Student as partners Bay and Daniel, 2001: Students can be considered as collaborative
Henning-Thurau et al partners
2001
Students as partial Mills & Morris, 1986 Students can and should be managed as
employees human resources of organization.
Students as partial Litten, 1980 Clients who pay to receive professional
clients Armstrong, 2003 services
Students as stakeholders Shahaida, Rajashekar A stakeholder with a vested interest in

and Nargundkar, 2006 acquiring higher education. Student needs
given utmost priority but faculty remains
final decision maker.
Measuring the quality in Sahney et al, 2006, Services marketing perspective

B-Schools/ higher Brown, Keonig and
education Harold 1993,
Davis & Allen 1990,
Mahapatra and Khan
2007
Measuring the quality in Garvin 1984, Total Quality Management approach
B-Schools/ higher Burkhalter 1993 Morris
education and Haigh 1993
63
Spanbauer 1995,
Owlia and Aspinwall
1998,
Scrabec 2000,
Widrick, Mergen and
Grant (2002)
Balanced score card Kaplan and Norton 1996 Kaplan and Norton developed BSC
approach Drtina, Gilbert and Alon technique. Drtina et al applied it to measure
(2007 the quality of B–School.
The excellence model Rosa, Saraiva and Diz, Holistic perspective: Based on empirical
for Portuguese higher 2001 and 2003 study to identify all the complexities
education institutions involved in higher education.
Determinants of quality Laha, 2002 Academic environment, Intellectual
of management capital,
educations Physical infrastructure,
Industry interface,
Placements,
Stakeholder satisfaction,
Innovation
Model for achieving Rao, 2006 Academic curriculum,
continuous quality Internal branding,
enhancement Leadership and institutional governance,
Forging international alliances and
alignments,
Global admissions & internships

64
Conclusion
The comprehensive literature survey has revealed that the subject of quality in
management education is approached in different perspectives such as services marketing
approach, TQM approach and balanced scorecard approach. A combination of
approaches is required to study the quality of B-Schools. Holistic approaches overcome
the drawbacks of individual approaches and combine the benefits of each approach also.
A holistic approach to quality measurement has been adopted in this study. Unlike all
previous studies which have considered quality measurement in B-Schools from the
perspective of only one stakeholder: either students or B-School heads. This study
considers the perspectives of four stakeholders: Students, recruiting companies, faculty
and B-School heads of departments. Data is collected from four stakeholders, the
expectations and perceptions of students, recruiting companies and faculty on different
parameters of quality are recorded and analyzed through appropriate statistical tools.

65
End Notes
1
Pfeffer Jeffery and Fong T Christina (2002).The End of Business Schools? Less Success Than
Meets the Eye, Academy of Management Learning and Education, 2002, Vol.1 (I), pp78-85.
2
Leavitt, H. J (1989). Educating our MBAs: On Teaching What We Haven't Taught, California
Management Review. 31(3), pp 38-50.

3
Pfeffer J and Fong C T (2004). “The Business School’s Business: Some lessons from the US
Experience”, Journal of Management Studies, 41(8) pp 1501-1520.

4
Ghoshal S (2005). “Bad Management Theories are Destroying Good Management practices”,
Academy of Management Learning and Education, 4(1) pp 75-91.

5
O’Toole, Warren and Bennis G (2005). “How Business Schools Lost Their Way”, Harvard
Business Review, May. vol. 83 Issue 5, pp 96-104.

6
Scrabec, Quentin (2000). A Quality Education is Not Customer Driven, Journal of Education for
Business, May/June, pp 298-300.

7
Garvin, David (1984). What Does Quality Really Mean?, Sloan Management review, Vol. 26,
pp 25-43.
8
Seymour, D. T. (1992). On Q: Causing quality in higher education. New York: Macmillan.
9
Madu C N & Kuei C (1993). “Dimensions of quality teaching in higher education”, Total
Quality Management, 4, 325-338.

10
Ibid. 09
11
Parasuraman A, Valarie A, Zeithaml and Leonard L Berry (1985). “A Conceptual Model of
Service Quality and Its Implications for Future Research”, Journal of Marketing, pp 41-50.
12
Philip Kotler (2002). Marketing Management, Thomson press, New Delhi, pp 446-449.
13
Brown, Daniel, J. Koenig and Harold F (1993). Applying Total Quality Management to
Business Education, Journal of Education for Business, July/August, Vol. 68 (6).

14
Ibid 11

66
15
Davis, D and Allen, J. W. (1990). The use of Recipient-Based Measures of Service Quality in
Business Education, Journal of Education for Business, 65(6) pp 280-285.
16
Ibid 13
17
Mahapatra. S.S and Khan M.S (2007). Assessment of Quality in technical Education: An
Exploratory Study, Journal of Services research, vol. 7 (1) pp 81-101.

18
Ewell, P. T. (1992). Feeling the elephant: The quest to capture ‘quality' Change, 24(5), pp 44-
48.
19
Keller, G. (1992). Increasing quality on campus. Change, 24(3), pp 48-51.
20
Sangeeta Sahney, D.K. Banwet & S. Karunes (2006). An Integrated Framework for Quality in
Education: Application of Quality Function Deployment, Interpretive Structural Modelling
and Path Analysis, Total Quality Management, Vol. 17 (2) pp 265–285, March.
21
Maddux, G.A. et al. (1991). Organizations can apply QFD as strategic planning tool, Industrial
Engineering, September.
22
Peters, T.J. and Waterman, R.H. (1982). In Search of Excellence,New York: Harper & Row.
23
Feigenbaum, A.V (1951). Quality Control: Principles, Practice and Administration, New York:
McGraw-Hill.
24
Reynolds, D. (1986) Academic Standards for Universities, London: CVCP.
25
Brennan, J. et al. (1992). Towards a Methodology for Comparative Qualitative Assessment in
European Higher Education, London: CNAA, CHEPS, HIS.

26
Tang, K.H. and Zairi, M (1998). Benchmarking Quality Implementation in a Service Context:
a Comparative Analysis of Financial Services and Institutions of Higher Education – Part III,
Total Quality Management, 9(8), pp 666–679.

27
Juran, J.M. and Gryna, F.M. Jr. (Eds) (1988). Juran’s Quality Control Handbook, New York:
McGraw- Hill.
28
Gilmore, H.L (1974). Product conformance, Quality Progress, 7(5).
9
Crosby, P.B (1979). Quality is Free, New York: McGraw Hill.
67
30
ibid.29
31
ibid.11
32
Stanley J. Spanbauer (1995). Reactivating higher education with total quality management:
Using quality and productivity concepts, techniques and tools to improve higher education,
Total Quality Management, Vol. 6, Nos 5&6, pp 519- 537.

33
Scrabec, Quentin (2000). A Quality Education is Not Customer Driven, Journal of Education
for Business, May/June, pp 298-300.

34
Garvin, David (1984). What Does Quality Really Mean?, Sloan Management review, Vol. 26.
35
Widrick, Stanley M, Erhan Mergen and Delvin Grant (2002). Measuring the dimensions of
quality in higher education, Total Quality Management, Vol. 13 (1) pp 123- 131.
36
Tofte, B (1993). A theoretical model for implementation of total quality leadership in
education”, EEC Seminar in Total Qualily in Education, Denmark.

37
Sayed, Y (1993). A perspective on quality in education, Quality Assurance in Education”, 1 pp
35-39.
38
ibid.08.
39
Morris, D. S and Haigh, R. H (1993). Introducing TQM into the Student Service Department
of a College of Further Education in the UK, EEC Seminar in Total Quality in Education,
Denmark.
40
Burkhalter, B (1993). The evaluation of a quality management process in a university setting,
EEC Seminar in Total Quality in Education, Denmark.

41
Sallis, E (1993). Total Quality Management in Education, London, Kogan Page.
42
Corts, T. E (1992). Customers: you can't do without them, In: J.W. Harris and M. Baggett
(Eds) Quality Quest in the Academic Process (Birmingham, Samford University).

68
43
Harris, J. W (1992). Key concepts of quality improvement for higher education, In: J. W.
Harris & M Baggett (Eds) Quality Quest in the Academic Process , Birmingham, Samford
University.
44
Taylor, A. W & Hill, F. M (1993). Issues for implementing TQM in further and higher
education, Quality Assurance in Education, Vol 1 pp 12-21.

45
Bejou, David (2005). Treating Students like Customers, Biz ed, March /April pp 44-27.
46
Kotler, Philip and Karen, F.A. Fox (1995). Strategic Marketing for Educational Organizations
(2nd ed). Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

47
Conway, A and D.A. Yorke (1991). Can the Marketing Concept be Applied to the Polytechnic
and College Sector of Higher Education?” International Journal of Public Sector Management,
4 (2) pp 23-35.
48
Delucchi, M and K. Korgen (2002), We’re the Customer – we Pay the Tuition: Student
Consumerism among Undergraduate Sociology Majors, Teaching Sociology, 30 (January), pp
100-107.
49
Carlson, Peter M. and Fleisher, Mark, S. (2002). Shifting realities in higher education: today’s
business model threatens our academic excellence, International Journal of Public
Administration, Vol. 25 (9 and 10), pp. 1097-1111.

50
Clayson, E. Dennis and Haley, A. Debra (2005). Marketing Models In Education: Students as
Customers, Products, or Partners, Marketing Education Review, Vol 15 (1), Spring, pp 1-10
51
ibid. 50
52
Emery Charles, Tracy Kramer, and Robert, Tian (2001). Customer vs. Products: Adopting an
Effective Approach to Business Students, Quality Assurance in Education, 9(2), pp 110-115.

53
Belohav, J (1984). Academic Planning- Back to the Basics, Higher Education, Vol. 13.
54
Bay, Darlene and Harold, Daniel (2001). The Student is not the Customer- An Alternative
Perspective, Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 11 (1) pp 1-19.

69
55
Henning-Thurau, Thorsten, Markus F. Langer and Ursula Hansen (2001). Modeling and
Managing Student Loyalty: An Approach Based on the Concept of Relationship Quality,
Journal of Service Research, 3 (4), pp 331 – 344.

56
Bell, Martin L. and C. William, Emery (1971). The Faltering Marketing Concept, Journal of
Marketing, (October), pp 37-42.

57
Fieldman, Laurence P. (1971). Social Adaptation: A New Challenge for Marketing, Journal of
Marketing (July), 54-60.

58
ibid. 50
59
Groccia, James E (1997). The student as Customer versus the Student as Learner, About
Campus, (May- June), 31-32.

60
Mills, P. K., & Morris, J. H. (1986). Clients as “partial employees” of service organizations:
Role development in client participation. Academy of Management Review, 11, pp 726–735.

61
Halbesleben, Jonathon., Becker, Jennifer and Buckley Ronald (2003),“Considering the Labor
Contributions of Students: An Alternative to the Student as- Customer Metaphor”, May/June,
255-257.
62
Laskey Blackmond Kathryn (1998). Are Students Our Customers in the Education
Marketplace”, Mason Gazette. Nov1998 - Are Students Our Customers in the Education
Marketplace.htm, Accessed on 1/5/07.

63
Sharrock, Geoff (2000). Why Students are not (just) Customers (and other reflections on life
after George), Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, Volume 22 (2).
64
Litten L. H (1980), Marketing Higher Education – Benefits and risks to American Academic
System, Journal of Higher Education, Vol.15 (1).

65
Armstrong M. J, 2003. Students as clients: a professional services model for business
education, Academy of Management Learning & Education 2, pp 371-374.

70
66
Pitman, Tim. (2000). Perceptions of academics and students as customers: a survey of
administrative staff in higher education, Journal of Higher Education Policy and
Management, vol. 22 (2), pp 165-175.

67
Shahaida, Rajashekar and Nargundkar, 2006. The B-School Student as a “Stakeholder”: An
Alternative Perspective, FOCUS, The International Journal of Management Digest, Vol II (2),
October, pp 28-33
68
Obermiller, Carl Fleenor, Patrick and Raven, Peter (2005). Students As Customers or Products:
Perceptions And References Of Faculty And Students, Marketing Education Review, Volume
15 (2) (summer).
69
Sallis, E (1993). Total Quality Management in Education, London, Kogan Page.
70
Corts, T. E (1992). Customers: you can't do without them, In: J.W. Harris and M. Baggett
(Eds) Quality Quest in the Academic Process (Birmingham, Samford University).

71
Hittman, J. A (1993), TQM and CQI in post secondary education. Quality Progress, 26 pp. 77-
80.
72
Koch, James V and Fisher, James L (1998). TQM and Higher Education, Total Quality
Management, 9(8), pp 659 -668.

73
Rapert Molly Inhofe, Scott Smith, Anne Velliquette and Judith A. Garretson (2004). The
Meaning of Quality: Expectations of Students in Pursuit of an MBA, Journal of Education for
Business, 17-24 .
74
Elmutti, D. Kathawala, and Y Manippallili M (1996). Are Total Quality Management
Programmes in Higher Education Worth the Effort? International Journal of Quality and
Reliability Management, 13 (6), pp 29-45.

75
Vazzana Gary, John Elfrink and Daune P. Bachmann (2001). A Longitudinal Study of Total
Quality Management Processes in Business Colleges, Journal of Education for Business,
November/December, pp 69-74.

71
76
Satterlee B (1996). “Continuous Improvement and quality implications for higher education”,
Viewpoints, ED399845, accessed on 1/5/2007.

77
Montmore and Stone (1990). Measuring Educational Quality, British Journal of Educational
Studies, 39 (1), pp 69-82

78
Wicks (1992). Peer Review and Quality Control in Higher Education, British Journal of
Educational Studies, 40(1) pp 57-68.

79
Bose, Arundati Sarkar (2006). Is the Free Market Appropriate for Education? IMPACT,
International Journal of Management and Contemporary Thought, 1(1), pp 66-85.

80
Epple and Romano (1998). Competition between Private and Public Schools, Vouchers and
Peer Group Effects, American Economic Review, 88 (1) pp 33-62.

81
Basu, Kaushik (1989). Theory of Association: Social Status, Prices and markets, Oxford
Economic papers, New Series, 41 (4), pp 653-671.

82
ibid.81.
83
Rothschild and White (1995). The Analytics of pricing of Higher Education and other Services
in Which the Consumers are Inputs, Journal of Political Economy, 103 (3) pp 573-652.
84
ibid.80
85
ibid.20
86
ibid. 13
87
ibid. 15
88
ibid. 17
89
ibid. 11
90
ibid. 07
91
ibid. 40
93
ibid. 32

72
94
Owlia, S. Mohammed and Aspinwall, M. Elaine (1996). Quality in higher Education- A
Survey. Total Quality Management, Vol. 7 (2) pp 161-171.

95
ibid. 06
96
ibid. 35
97
Kaplan, R. S., and Norton, D. P. (1996). Translating strategy into action: The Balanced
Scorecard.Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

98
Drtina, Gilbert and Alon (2007). Using the Balanced Scorecard for Value Congruence in an
MBA Educational Setting, SAM Advanced management Journal, pp 4-15.

99
Conger, J. A and Xin, K. (2000). Executive education in the 21st century. Journal of
Management Education, 24(1) pp 73-101.

100
ibid. 17
101
Roza, Saraiva and Diz (2001).The Development of an Excellence Model for Portuguese
Higher Education Institutions, Total Quality Management, Vol.12 (7&8), pp 1010-1017.

102
Roza, Saraiva and Diz (2003). Excellence in Portuguese Higher Education Institutions, Total
Quality Management, Vol.14 (2), pp 189-197.

103
Laha, Arnab Kumar (2002). Quality in Management Education: A Meta- analysis of B-school
Surveys, National Conference on quality of Life organized by IAPQR and Vishwa- Bharati at
Shantiniketan, West Bengal, November.

104
Gupta V, Gollakota K and Ancheri S (2003). Quality in Business Education: A Study of the
Indian Context, Paper presented at the Business Education and Emerging Market Economies:
Trends and Prospects” at Conference, Technology Square, Atlanta, Georgia, USA,
November 7.
105
Rao, Asoke U K (2006) Adoption of a Self- Adaptive and Self-Sustainable Model – A Tool to
Achieve Continuous Quality Enhancement and Global Standards in B-schools, FOCUS, The
International Journal of Management Digest, II (2) 34-45.

73
106
ibid.104
107
Goswami, U.A. (2003) “Common entrance tests could be history”, Economic Times, Jan 30
108
Raghunath R (1998). Quality standards for business schools, Financial Express, Nov 25.
109
Rao, S. L and Bowender (2005). Management Education in India-Some Contemporary Issues
and Recommendations, All India Management Association, Excel Books.

74

75

76

77

Chapter 3

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter 3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CHAPTER III

3.1 Quality in Business

3.2 Quality in Educational Services: Services Marketing Perspective

3.3 Total Quality Management in Education

3.4 B-School Students: Customers, products, partners or Stakeholders?

3.4.1 Students as Customers

3.4.2 Students as Products

3.4.3 Students as Partners

3.4.4 Students as Partial Employees

3.4.5 Students as Stakeholders

3.5 Critique of Adopting TQM in B-School Education

3.6 Purpose of Education

3.7 Quality Measurement

3.7.1 Measuring Quality in B-Schools

3.7.2 Evaluation of the three Approaches

3.7.3 Holistic Perspective

3.8 Quality of Management Education in India

3.9 A Bird’s Eye View of Literature’

The literature review is presented in a logical manner starting from definitions of

3.1 Quality in Business

The ISO (1986) definition—"The totality of features and characteristics of a

Quality of Management Education in India

Quality has been defined in business as conformance to specifications (Srabec,

in business they are performance, features, reliability, conformance, durability,

Total quality management is a general management philosophy that holds that

Juran identified the costs incurred by a company to maintain a certain level of

3.2 Quality in Educational Services: Services Marketing Perspective

Quality is an elusive and indistinct construct (Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry,

following features-characterize the education industry, as a services industry (Kotler,

Services are inseparable- there is immediate consumption of the service

Mahapatra and Khan (2007)17 constructed a scale called “EduQUAL” having 43

Sahney, Banwet and Karunes (2006)20 conducted an empirical study using

3.3 Total Quality Management (TQM) in Education

Gilmore (1974) defined quality in education as conformance of education output

Spanbauer defines TQM in education, as “TQM is a management philosophy

Quality of Management Education in India

customers. It is a relentless quest for continuous improvement through documentation

Spanbauer identifies two types of customers: external (students, employers, the

The key elements of TQM in education as defined by Spanbauer is depicted in

Quality of Management Education in India

Scientific Team Problem

Source: Spanbaeur, (1995). Reactivating higher education with total quality

Quality of Management Education in India

Scarbec (2000) opines that to operationalize the concepts of TQM to quality in

Quality of Management Education in India

Techniques TQE Process Benefactor Actual &

3.4 B-School Students: Customers, Products, Partners or Stakeholders?

3.4.1 Students as Customers:

While some administrators find it difficult to accept the idea of students as

Quality of Management Education in India

Though not stated explicitly, there is an increasing trend among B-Schools to

Quality of Management Education in India

Education as a commodity- In a student-customer model, the product is not readily

Failure to secure desired employment- With a student as customer perspective, not

3.4.2 Students as Products:

Quality of Management Education in India

3.4.3 Students as Partners:

The student can be considered as a collaborative educational partner (Bay and

3.4.4 Students as Partial employees and clients:

Students as Partial employees: The fundamental notion behind customer labor

Quality of Management Education in India

 Produce citizen-as-product for society-as-customer