QUALITY AWARENESS IN HIGHER EDUCATION: A CASE

STUDY IN UNITEN

Mohamad Ishak Mohamad Ibrahim¹, Yuzainee Bte. Md Yusoff², Yee Chiew Ling Vivian³ &
Suhaida Bte. Mohd Sood¹

¹College of Business Management & Accounting, Universiti Tenaga Nasional,

²College of Engineering, Universiti Tenaga Nasional,
³Insitute of Liberal Studies, Universiti Tenaga Nasional,

ABSTRACT

This study was initiated from Universiti Tenaga Nasional’s (UNITEN) effort to excel in the
President Quality Award (PQA) competition organised by Tenaga Nasional Berhad.
Participating in the competition enabled UNITEN to assess the effectiveness of its quality
management in obtaining PQA’s ‘business excellence’ title. The criteria categories of PQA’s
conceptual framework are adapted from the criteria and weights set for the Malcolm Baldrige
National Quality Award (MBNQA). The purpose of this paper is to empirically investigate the
level of awareness among UNITEN staff towards the implementation of PQA’s underlying
categories in UNITEN’s organisational processes, subsequent to its participation in the award for
the third time. The sample consists of 184 respondents, including academic and non-academic
staff. A questionnaire using a six-point Likert scale was developed to measure the level of
awareness towards the quality items in the nine categories of the PQA award: leadership,
strategic management, data and information, human resource management, process management,
quality assurance of suppliers, corporate social responsibilities, customer focus, and business
results. The results of the statistical analysis suggest that only 33% of the quality management
categories were practiced effectively by the respondents. It was also observed that the awareness
percentage can be linked to the low score of 553 (55%) UNITEN obtained in its current quality
business performance assessment, which aligns with PQA’s score point. This paper claims that
awareness of quality management constructs have an impact on the PQA score.
KEYWORDS

PQA Award, Baldrige Award, quality management, higher education, performance measures,
business excellence

INTRODUCTION

The rapid growth of higher education and the high demand for quality educational services have
fostered an increasing interest in quality and standards. With quality assurance measures in place,
the quality of certificates awarded by institutes of higher learning is safeguarded and hence,
recognised internationally. The quality assurance procedures to accreditate higher education
programmes in Malaysia come under the scrutiny of the Malaysian Qualifications Agency Act
2007. (Universiti Utara Malaysia Quality Management Institute, n.d.)

This paper emerged as part of Universiti Tenaga Nasional’s (UNITEN) effort to excel in the
President Quality Award (PQA) competition to achieve its vision to be a premier university in
engineering, information technology and business. The PQA framework provides nine well-
defined quality management constructs or criteria which assess organisational performance. As
emphasised by Barnabè and Riccaboni (2007), with the implementation of quality assessment
frameworks, higher education institutions “across the world are undergoing an extensive process
of reform, aimed at generating profound transformations in academic institutional activities” (p.
302). In 2006, UNITEN scored 553 points under the framework, which constitutes 55% of the
total score. Thus, the aim of this paper is to study the awareness levels among UNITEN’s staff
towards the quality management criteria subsumed in the PQA model.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

According to Madu (2000), the ability to sustain quality products and services is extremely
crucial as this has an unequivocal effect on organisational performance. As a result, the process
of quality reform has “led to the development of numerous evaluation schemes…to the evolving
of a variety of standards and guidelines for internal and external (performance) assessments”
which are virtually identical to quality management frameworks or criteria (Barnabè &
Riccaboni, 2007). Examples of the former include self-evaluation, with the aim of “promoting a
greater awareness of the features of the activities being conducted and at sustaining the process
of continuous improvement of quality and efficiency within a university” and examples of the
latter include peer-reviewing that “is usually performed by a panel of external experts, having the
main goal of identifying the strengths and the weaknesses of the organisation/system/process”
(Barnabè & Riccaboni, 2007). Despite the importance placed on quality, the actual practice of
quality management assessment is scarce among colleges and universities, who have a narrow
perspective regarding the necessity of involving total quality management practices on the basis
of academic excellence (Yudof & Busch-Vishniac, 1996).
The Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award (MBNQA) was established in 1987 and has
gained widespread recognition as a framework for guiding the operation of quality management
constructs in transforming businesses into organisations of world-class quality (Flynn & Saladin,
2006; Garvin, 1991; Juran, 1994). Evan (1997) claimed that Baldrige’s principles should be
applied to the learning and curriculum processes in higher education. Belohlav et al. (2004 cited
in Badri et al., 2006) found that MNBQA-based teaching material “led to a higher level of
student engagement in the learning process, as evidenced by more abundant and higher quality
feedback to the instructors” (p. 119). The Baldrige educational framework consists of seven
categories: leadership, strategic planning, student and stakeholder focus, information analysis,
faculty and staff focus, educational and support process management, and organisational
performance results (Dettmann, 2007).

METHODOLOGY

There are 27 sub-criteria embedded in the nine quality categories of the PQA conceptual
framework (i.e. quality management initiatives) adapted from MBNQA’s selection criteria, since
the university realises that there is a “need for countries to develop awards and quality initiatives
tailored to their national cultures” (Flynn & Saladin, 2009). The PQA quality categories
comprise leadership, strategic management, data and information, human resource management,
process management, quality assurance of suppliers, corporate social responsibilities, customer
focus and business results. The total score is 1000. This paper adopted the MBNQA’s assessment
methodology to determine UNITEN staff’s level of awareness on these quality initiatives.

A questionnaire was developed to survey the level of awareness among UNITEN staff on the
quality items in the nine categories. Each item was measured using a six-point Likert scale
representing different levels of awareness (Table 1). A total of 184 respondents participated in
the study. The questionnaire was administered during a development programme held for staff in
the academic and support services (executive) departments. Finally, the collated data was
analysed quantitatively using means and percentage analysis.

Table 1
Six-Point Likert Scale on Level of Awareness

Scale

1 2 3 4 5 6

Not Evident Beginning Basically Mature Advanced Role Model

Effective
RESULTS

Based on the data analysis, the mean scores of the quality categories in relation to the staff’s
level of awareness were below 3.5, indicating that they were moderately aware of the quality
items. Table 2 presents results of the mean scores for staff’s awareness levels of PQA’s quality
management constructs. There are six categories that fall under the ‘Beginning’ levels of
awareness: strategic management, data and information, process management, quality assurance
of suppliers, customer focus and business results. Meanwhile, respondents were only slightly
aware of categories such as leadership, human resource management and corporate social
responsibility. As a whole, the mean scores suggest that only 33% of the quality management
categories were practiced effectively by respondents.

Table 2
Mean Score for Level of Awareness on PQA Quality Management Categories Among
UNITEN’s Staff

Standard Representing
Quality Management Categories Mean (Score) Deviation

Basically
Leadership 2.9 1.14 Effective
Strategic Management 2.4 1.08 Beginning
Data and Information 2.3 1.05 Beginning
Basically
Human Resource Management 2.6 1.07 Effective
Process Management 2.4 1.04 Beginning
Quality Assurance of Suppliers 2.0 1.07 Beginning
Basically
Corporate Social Responsibilities 2.6 1.12 Effective
Customer Focus 2.2 1.05 Beginning
Business Results 2.1 1.04 Beginning

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

The statistical results indicate that staff’s awareness of quality management constructs for
assessing UNITEN’s performance is low. At the same time, the results discussed in this paper
are substantial for UNITEN since they are almost identical to the university’s performance
scores of 553 points attained in the 2006 PQA exercise. An important point to note is that staff
awareness should be taken into account as part of the quality management decision-making
process, so that it has an impact on organisational performance. The results provided UNITEN
with valuable insight as they work towards initiating an ISO management system to effectively
address its educational processes (i.e. curriculum development, responsibilities of academic staff,
student assessment, campus life, etc.). Installing standardised educational processes ensures that
a quality learning experience is continuously safeguarded for students.

REFERENCES

An overview of quality assurance in higher education. Universiti Utara Malaysia Quality

Management Institute. Retrieved 20 May 2008, from www.uum.edu.my/ipq/COPs1.pdf.

Badri, M. A., Selim, H., Alshare, K., Grandon, E. E., Younis, H. & Abdulla, M. (2006). The
Baldrige education criteria for performance excellence framework: Empirical test and
validation. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 23(9), 1118-1157.

Barnabè, F., & Riccaboni, A. (2007). Which role for performance measurement systems in
higher education? Focus on quality assurance in Italy. Studies in Educational Evaluation,
33, 302-319.
Belohlav, J., Cook, L., & Heiser, D. (2004). Using the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality
Award in teaching: One criterion, several perspectives. Decision Sciences Journal of
Innovation Education, 2(2), 153-76.
Dettmann, P. E. (2007). Administrators, faculty, and staff/support staff’s perceptions of MBNQA
educational criteria: Implementation at the University of Wisconsin-Stout. Published
doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Virginia.

Evans, J. (1997). Critical linkages in the Baldrige award criteria: Research models and
educational challenges. Quality Management Journal, 5(1), 13-30.

Flynn, B. B. & Saladin, B. (2006). Relevance of Baldrige constructs in an international context:

A study of national culture. Journal of Operations Management, 24, 583-603.

Garvin, D.A. (1991). How the Baldrige award really works. Harvard Business Review, 69(6),
80–93.

Juran, J.M. (1994). Japanese and Western quality contrast. Quality Progress, 11(12), 10–18.

Madu, C. N. (2000). House of Quality (QFD) in a Minute. Fairfield, CT: Chi Publishers.

Yudof, M. G. & Busch-Vishniac, I. J. (1996). Total quality: Myth or management in universities?

Change, 28(6), 19-27.