Quality Management Journal

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uqmj20

An empirical study on quality improvement in

higher education institutions with reference to
selected processes

Rahul V. Mulay & Vandana Tandon Khanna

To cite this article: Rahul V. Mulay & Vandana Tandon Khanna (2021) An empirical study on
quality improvement in higher education institutions with reference to selected processes, Quality
Management Journal, 28:1, 41-56, DOI: 10.1080/10686967.2020.1848367

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10686967.2020.1848367

Published online: 10 Dec 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 103

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=uqmj20
QUALITY MANAGEMENT JOURNAL
2021, VOL. 28, NO. 1, 41–56
https://doi.org/10.1080/10686967.2020.1848367

An empirical study on quality improvement in higher education institutions

with reference to selected processes
Rahul V. Mulay and Vandana Tandon Khanna
K. J. Somaiya Institute of Management, Somaiya Vidyavihar University, Mumbai, India

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Quality improvement plays an important role in higher education. The purpose of this study Received 25 March 2020
was to find the impact of quality (in terms of customer expectations) related to selected Revised 25 June 2020
administrative processes in professional higher education institutions. The literature revealed Accepted 30 June 2020
that quality management in higher education studies mainly focused on teaching, learning,
KEY WORDS
student issues, and infrastructure. Very few studies mentioned quality in terms of the administrative; higher
administrative processes; hence, the authors saw the need to study this aspect. The study education; processes;
involved administering a survey questionnaire to students, faculty, administrative staff, and quality improvement;
process owners in private engineering and management institutions. Data were collected quality management
from 12 engineering institutions and 8 management institutions. The total sample size was
725 respondents. Data analysis was done using Partial Least Square-Structural Equation
Modeling (PLS-SEM) software. In this study, the admissions process was found to have the
most impact on quality, and exam and placement processes also had a significant impact
on quality. The authors recommend that private higher education institutions strive to
improve and maintain good quality.

Introduction Many organizations have realized the benefit of

Quality is one of the most sought-after features in all
spheres of life. Quality of business processes and
deliverables is an important parameter in gauging the
success of a business. Customer expectations and the
value customers derive from a service are important
aspects of quality. The Oxford Dictionary defines qual-
ity as “degree of goodness or worth.” Some of the
quality pioneers have offered definitions such as
“conformance to the specifications,” “fitness for use,”
and “meeting customer needs,” thereby creating value
and business transformation. Quality is thus related to
the profitability and growth of an organization. These
are generic definitions that apply to all products, that
is, goods and services (Charantimath 2011).
The efforts toward understanding and adopting qual-
ity improvement practices are driven by the changing
economy, market conditions, and customer expecta-
tions. The quality of a service is user-based and defined
mostly by the customer. Meeting the needs and expecta-
tions of customers at a cost that represents the best
value to them enhances the image of an organization.
implementing total quality management (TQM), par-
ticularly in the education sector (Sabet et al. 2012).
Higher education is involved in the creation of human
capital (Dyer 1970). The operation systems of higher
education need to be efficient and effective to meet
the goals of the institution.
Quality from a TQM perspective in education has
the foundation as a systems approach. It includes the
quality of inputs in the form of students, faculty, sup-
porting staff, and infrastructure (Sahney, Banwet, and
Karunes 2004). Private universities have grown in
numbers (Halai 2013). However, state funding for
public universities has gone down (Quinn et al. 2009).
Quality management promotes organizational effect-
iveness in an institution’s goods and services.
Technical education excellence can lead to error-free
work for the organization (Deshmukh 2006).
Some other aspects of quality management are
infrastructure, communication facilities, and a systems
approach (Joglekar, Kulkarni, and Sahasrabudhe 1999;
Kulkarni 1999; Sirvanci 2004). Productivity measure-
ment is also an important aspect of quality (Singh,
Singla, and Bansal 2007).

CONTACT Rahul V. Mulay rahulmulay@somaiya.edu K. J. Somaiya Institute of Management, Somaiya Vidyavihar University, Vidyavihar (E), Mumbai
400077, India.
ß 2020 American Society for Quality
42 R. V. MULAY AND V. T. KHANNA
Quality is understanding and perceiving the cus-
tomer’s needs and knowing how to satisfy those
needs. The satisfaction level of students is a factor of
quality improvement at technical institutions (Pandi
and Rao 2007; Sakthivel, Rajendran, and Raju 2005),
and activities need to be executed accordingly. Quality
is vital in the education sector because of the instruc-
tion the university offers to its students.
The subject of quality assurance in management
education is important to business schools around the
world (Darley and Luethge 2019). Higher education
plays an important role in realizing the potential of
any country and lays the foundation for its success.
Quality in education services help in building skills
and aid in the economic development of the nation.
Kumar and Jha (2012) point out that although the
number of higher education institutions (HIEs) across
India is high, the quality of the education being deliv-
ered needs to be improved. In an era in which some
institutions are shutting their doors and many seats
are going empty, a study of quality in education will
be helpful to the board of governors and the manage-
ment of these institutions.
The 21st century presents a challenging environ-
ment for business. Education institutions, particularly
professional institutions, have to adapt to the fast-
changing environment. Academic institutions with
quality delivery systems will be able to survive (Sahu,
Shrivastava, and Shrivastava 2013). The institutions
need to know the quality standard and go for an
appropriate quality improvement program.
Improving service quality, and thereafter sustaining
the same, has become a prerequisite for HEIs. There
is competition in the present higher educational setup
(Teeroovengadum, Kamalanabhan, and Seebaluck
2016). Some of the challenges faced by many educa-
tion administrators relate to collaborating and sustain-
ing staff effectiveness and efficiency while maintaining
and improving education standards (Chamila and
Chandana 2016; Wright 2010).
The objective of this article is to determine the
quality impact (in terms of customer expectations) in
selected administrative processes in professional HEIs.
The literature review revealed that quality manage-
ment in higher education studies have primarily
focused on teaching, learning, student issues, infra-
structure, pedagogy, and so on. There are very few
studies that focus on quality in terms of administra-
tive processes; hence, the authors saw the need to
study this aspect. Further, there are very few studies
about this related to private (unaided) professional
education institutions in Maharashtra. Unaided
colleges are those that do not receive funds or aid from
the government. Unaided colleges charge higher fees to
students, and management pays the salaries of the
teachers and staff. Also, unaided institutions enjoy more
autonomy (What is the difference between aided and
unaided engineering colleges? (2016). Retrieved from
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-
aided-and-unaided-engineering-colleges/).
This study delves into finding the relationship
between some of the operational processes of an aca-
demic institution and quality improvement therein.
The authors studied the impacts of the implementa-
tion of the processes and quality in terms of stake-
holder expectations.
This study focused on selected activities (processes)
of academic institutions with the objective of identify-
ing and measuring quality (from the stakeholder’s
point of view) in the process, thus improving the
quality of the academic institution. The outcome of
this study should help institutions identify and focus
on the activities that enhance quality and customer
satisfaction in the administrative processes.
Literature review
Quality management for quality improvement
in higher education services
Quality was originally implemented in the manufac-
turing industry. The evolution and definitions of qual-
ity in higher education were given by Gandhi (2014).
According to him, higher education is an instrument
for development and change and helps in preparing
leaders. This is especially true in a country like India.
Only a few reputed institutions, such as the Indian
Institutes of Technology (IIT) and Indian Institutes of
Management (IIMS), are providing an education of
the desired quality (Gandhi 2014). With proper
motivation, quality can be achieved. Professional
higher education should meet market and global
requirements. TQM in higher education is a process
of continuous improvement with a focus on customer
(stakeholder) expectations; prevention of problems;
building commitment to quality in the workforce; and
open decision-making. Institutions and faculty need to
take proactive measures for the successful implemen-
tation of TQM in higher education. However, there
remain hurdles in TQM implementation due to the
approach of some stakeholders.
The Indian professional higher education sector is
facing the issues of globalization and intense competi-
tion from government institutions, as well as private
institutions. After the country’s liberalization, business

education institutions have mushroomed in India.
These competing forces have compelled Indian man-
agement institutions to focus on the quality of service
(Choudhury 2015). A study identified four factors,
and the customers distinguish the four dimensions of
service quality in business management higher educa-
tion in India as: 1) competence, 2) tangibles, 3)
responsiveness, and 4) convenience. Of these, compe-
tence and tangibles are the two most important fac-
tors of service quality in this context. HEIs must focus
on the processes of research, administrative services,
consulting activities, service to society, and so on,
along with teaching, to deliver a holistic experience to
the customer.
Adam et al. (1997) proposed that operation and
financial performance are enhanced and costs are
reduced when quality improvement is implemented.
They link an organization’s success to the quality of
its products and services. They tried to identify what
approaches lead to quality and financial performance
in different parts of the world.
The policy makers and educational administrators
consider the focus area of quality as define, conceptu-
alize, implement, and measure (Sahney 2012). The
study was conducted on selected HEIs to identify the
various design characteristic constructs that would
form the quality components for an educational sys-
tem. Quality in education includes the quality of
inputs such as students, faculty, support staff, infra-
structure, and capital; the quality of processes such as
teaching, learning, and administrative activities; and
the quality of outputs.
The importance of integrating quality management
with higher education was discussed by Manatos,
Sarrico, and Rosa (2017). By integrating, they meant
that organizations should apply their management sys-
tems to cover various processes, thereby providing a
holistic approach to quality. Universities are interested
in integrating management practices and activities.
Some of the focus areas of quality management are: 1)
process level: teaching and learning, and support proc-
esses; and 2) quality management principles level: cus-
tomer focus, leadership, and involvement of people.
Quality assurance (QA) and quality culture are import-
ant ingredients in a quality improvement initiative,
according to Rehnuma (2020). In her study at a private
Bangladeshi HEI she pointed out that there are challenges
in implementing quality improvement. Staff involvement,
staff motivation, transparency, effective leadership, and
student focus are requirements and dimensions for a
quality culture. The paper evaluates the quality culture
from academic and administrative stakeholders.
QUALITY MANAGEMENT JOURNAL 43
Prakash (2018) found that the quality constructs of
student satisfaction and service quality received more
attention. Educational institutions are embracing qual-
ity management to get stakeholder satisfaction and
improve processes. Administrative quality relates to
the infrastructure and administrative processes (Lola
2013). Quality management follows a disciplined way
of work and has shown improved results for customer
service, staff and faculty morale, and administrative
processes (Prakash 2018). In an HEI, the expectation
of various stakeholders generates demand for quality
in educational services.
A study by Tarı and Dick (2016) brought out the
quality management implementation issues, models,
techniques and tools, and dimensions from the litera-
ture in HEIs. The study identified people manage-
ment, process management, understanding of
stakeholders’ expectations, leadership, information,
and analysis as important dimensions. The study also
identified the lack of empowerment of the staff and
employee training as barriers to the implementation
of quality management. By analyzing the approaches
to quality management, the study brings out the focus
needed to improve quality in HEIs. Quality manage-
ment is applicable in all aspects of HEIs, including
nonacademic and administrative.
The issue of quality is addressed more usefully as a
process, where key elements of higher education are
measured. The foundation of the quality culture is
built in the process through concepts such as per-
formance, standards, norms, accreditation, bench-
marks, and outcomes.
Jain, Sinha, and Sahney (2011) conceptualized the
dimensions of service quality in higher education. In
the era of competition between institutions, students
have more choices and options than before. The insti-
tutions must understand student expectations and
adopt TQM concepts. Technical and management edu-
cation have a major share in higher education.
Educational institutions should incorporate TQM in
their activities and processes. It is important to under-
stand the customer expectations properly so the sys-
tems leading to customer satisfaction and delight can
be designed. They studied the stakeholders as follows:
faculty, administrative staff, students, and industry. The
study was confined to engineering and management
institutions at the graduate and post-graduate level in
and around Delhi (Jain, Sinha, and Sahney 2011).
Critical success factors of TQM implementation are
closely linked to quality improvement in higher edu-
cation (Rodriguez, Valenzuela, and Ayuyao 2018).
This study found people empowerment, continuous
44 R. V. MULAY AND V. T. KHANNA
quality improvement, leadership commitment, and
stakeholder satisfaction to be critical factors. The HEIs
can apply these in their business processes to improve
performance.
Falling quality standards in the Indian HEIs (qual-
ity of students and infrastructure, lack of vision, fac-
ulty members, project guidance, and so on) have
emerged as a grave concern for all stakeholders
(Sayeda, Chandrasekharan, and Lokachari 2010).
TQM, if properly implemented, can enable organiza-
tions to cope with the fast-changing environments in
a sustainable manner (Hackman and Wageman 1995).
The concepts of TQM have been successfully applied
to the field of education by the developed countries.
Sakthivel and Raju (2006) developed a comprehensive
TQM model using the relationship of commitment of
top management, educational service quality, customer
value, and customer satisfaction. They conceptualized
nine dimensions relating to TQM in engineering edu-
cation and developed a model called the TQM 9-C
EDEX Model (EDEX represents educational excellence).
According to their study, committed leadership and
continuous support from top management are essential
for the successful implementation of a quality manage-
ment system in an engineering institution.
TQM in higher education involves improving
the quality of courses, input instructional processes,
resource management processes and structures, student
support service, and linkages with the world of work
and other organizations (Tulsi 2001). Educational insti-
tutions are now concerned with the quality of the over-
all service experience they provide to the customer
(Jain, Sinha, and Sahney 2013).
Sahu, Shrivastava, and Shrivastava (2013) discussed
the factors of TQM for addressing the quality aspects
at technical institutions. According to them, adminis-
tration is one of the factors. Though the role of
administrative staff is important, the institutions must
take a closer look at the administrative set up to iden-
tify possible areas of improvement.
Management leadership helps improve performance
by influencing other TQM practices (Ahire and
O’Shaughnessy 1998; Anderson et al. 1995; Flynn,
Schroeder, and Sakakibara 1995; Wilson and Collier
2000). Good leadership provides the proper resources
for employee development. Quality improvement also
requires employee involvement by creating a conducive
and open work culture (Adebanjo and Kehoe 1999).
Kaynak (2003) summarized the relationship between
TQM and firms’ performance. Hendricks and Singhal
(1996, 1997) found that implementing an effective TQM
program improves the performance of firms. Based on
the literature, Kaynak (2003) identified three dimensions
of a firm related to TQM. These are: 1) financial and
market performance; 2) quality performance; and 3)
inventory performance. He has also stated, “Financial per-
formance is a function of operating performance, while
operating performance is a function of continuous
improvement.” The study by Kaynak (2003) found that
process management is positively related to firm perform-
ance. In his study on firm performance, Kaynak found
that TQM implementation leads to process improvement,
which in turn can result in lower scrap and rework costs,
and better productivity.
There are critical barriers to the implementation of
TQM in academia (Matthews 1993). Important among
them are: 1) a lack of consensus about the meaning
or implications of quality and excellence; and 2) the
reluctance of a college or university to play a creative
role in TQM implementation.
As TQM is critical for an education institution,
personnel (staff) should be ready and trained to
implement TQM. Staff must display a culture of
commitment (Sabet et al. 2012). With quality
improvement, they can satisfy customers, increase
their loyalty, and thus become more profitable.
Accreditations are helpful in quality improvement
(Alajoutsija, Kettunen, and Sohlo 2018), and they also
help in continuous improvement. By assessing quality,
peers help the faculty and staff improve (Darley and
Luethge 2019).
Quality function deployment for quality
improvement in higher education services
Ginn and Zairi (2005) defined quality function
deployment (QFD) as a system for translating cus-
tomer requirements into appropriate institutional
requirements at every stage of the product develop-
ment cycle. Hwarng and Teo (2001) demonstrated the
implementation of QFD in an HEI at an operational
level. Listening correctly to the voice of the customer
is necessary to improve quality.
In the face of stakeholder demands and expectations,
educational institutions are realizing the importance of
customer-centric practices. Educational administrators
are addressing the efforts to determine, design, imple-
ment, and measure quality (Sahney 2012). Technical
and managerial education has a major stake in India.
Understanding the customer’s needs is an import-
ant aspect of a quality philosophy. An open, caring
attitude toward the needs of students is advocated and
is an important aspect of the relationship between stu-
dents and staff (Owlia and Aspinwall 1998).

Growth of privatization in higher education
Changed financing patterns have had an impact on
the regulations, efficiency, and quality aspects of
higher education (Joshi and Ahir 2013). The majority
of professional institutions such as engineering and
management are in the private sector (Private Sector
Participation in the Indian Higher Education FICCI
Summit 2011. Retrieved from http://www.ey.com/
Publication/vwLUAssets/Private_sector_participation_in_
Indian_higher_education/$FILE/Private_sector_participa-
tion_in_Indian_higher_education.pdf).
In the 1980s, there was a huge demand for higher
education to fulfill the needs of the industry (Sinha
2014). Government seats were limited, and the pay-
ment capacity of people increased. This, along with
the economic reforms of the 1990s, gave an impetus
to private (or nonsubsidized) education. Privatization
has resulted due to a sort of state system failure (Joshi
and Ahir 2013). Within a small duration of five years,
from 2001 to 2006, unaided private higher education
accounted for 63 percent (from 43 percent in 2001) of
the total higher education institutions and 52 percent
(from 33 percent in 2001) of total higher education
enrollment (FICCI 2011).
Studies done by the National Knowledge Commission
(2006) showed that government and government-aided
institutions have increased by a small number, while pri-
vate institutions have grown in large numbers.
For the past few years, more private institutions
than public ones have been found in developing coun-
tries and emerging economies of the world (Agarwal
2006). Supporters of privatization believe that privat-
ization of higher education will lead to improvement.
Opponents of privatization think private institutions
are trying to gain profits. In Asian countries, the
growth of private education is in response to demand.
Insufficient public resources and a new liberalized
environment are the two most important factors for
the growth of private higher education.
Process in an operations system
A process is a collection of activities or interrelated
tasks that take in one or more inputs and produce an
output that is of value to the customer (Hammer and
Champy 1995). The success of an organization is deter-
mined by the performance of all its processes (Anupindi
et al. 2013). The details of the transformation of inputs
to outputs must be examined to improve the perform-
ance of a process and the value it creates. Activities
form the building block of the process. A process view
in an organization helps in evaluating the process and
QUALITY MANAGEMENT JOURNAL 45
studying ways in which it can be designed, restructured,
and improved. To improve performance, a firm must
retain customers by providing services that exceed their
expectations. Customer expectations are usually in terms
of attributes of process outputs, such as cost, response
time, quality, and variety.
Administrative processes and quality in higher
education services
Service quality in a higher education setting comprises
seven dimensions: input quality, curriculum, academic
facilities, industry interaction, interaction quality, sup-
port facilities, and nonacademic processes, according
to Jain, Sinha, and Sahney (2013). They measured ser-
vice quality w.r.t. the administrative processes from
the students’ perspective only.
Teeroovengadum, Kamalanabhan, and Seebaluck
(2016) have provided a model for measuring service
quality. The factors “administrative quality” and
“administrative processes” match two of the authors’
dependent variables. However, the authors’ study
delves more into the three specific administrative
processes, which they have not covered. Their varia-
bles span across processes.
Orientation toward quality and competitiveness in
higher education has been gaining ground among pol-
icymakers and stakeholders of the HEIs, according to
Sahney, Banwet, and Karunes (2010). Their study
identified some critical elements of quality manage-
ment in higher education. The study obtained an
internal perspective about quality from the administra-
tive staff, as they are an important internal customer
in the chain of activities of an HEI. If the internal cus-
tomer is satisfied, a good service will be provided. The
authors define an educational system that comprises
various subsystems and processes, with inputs and
outputs that are synchronized to produce value. They
considered variables such as customer focus, adminis-
trative competence, administrative arrangement, effect-
ive and efficient leadership, among others. Many
researchers considered the external customer for the
educational system.
Sahu, Shrivastava, and Shrivastava (2013) noted
that factors such as the roles of senior management;
TQM-related training for administrative staff and fac-
ulty; and training in communication, etiquette, per-
sonality, mannerisms, and smooth functioning of
nonteaching activities have potential for improving
the institution’s performance through quality
implementation.
46 R. V. MULAY AND V. T. KHANNA
Research gap
A literature review revealed there are very few studies
that examine the application of quality management
and stakeholder expectations in HEIs. There have
been studies on designing quality in academic settings
(Sahney, Banwet, and Karunes 2010), student partici-
pation (Teeroovengadum, Kamalanabhan, and
Seebaluck 2016), and the effectiveness of the teaching-
learning process (Jain, Sinha, and Sahney 2011). But
there are very few studies on quality improvement in
the admissions or placement process. Moreover, there
are very few studies in nonaided professional engin-
eering and management colleges in Maharashtra.
A major gap that has not been addressed here is
the relationship between the administrative processes
of admissions, exam, and placement and its impact on
quality (based on stakeholder expectations). It would
be interesting to study the link between these three
processes and quality improvement in professional
HEIs. Having ascertained the important variables that
define the processes and quality, it would be interest-
ing to find how these variables relate to each other.
The present study tries to address the aforemen-
tioned issues in the interest of HEIs.
Research objectives
Based on the literature review and the gaps, the
authors have identified the following objective.

To study the impact of the variables from the aca-
demic processes (admissions, exams, and place-
ments) and its effect on quality improvement in
the professional HEIs.
Identification of variables
Independent variables are:
IV1 The admission process (AD)
IV2 The exam process (EX)
IV3 The placement process (PL)
Dependent variables are:
DV1 Quality management and leadership (TQML)
DV2 Staff interaction (SI)
DV3 Institute productivity (IP)
DV4 Quality control and measurement (QC)
Hypothesis formed
Based on these objectives and variables, the hypothe-
ses formulated are:
To test the impact of the admission process on
quality improvement:
H11a There is a significant impact of the admission
process on quality management and leadership (TQML).
H11b There is a significant impact of the admission
process on staff interaction (SI).
H11c There is a significant impact of the admission
process on the institute productivity (IP).
H11d There is a significant impact of the admission
process on quality control and measurement (QC).
To test the impact of the examination process
on quality improvement:
H12a There is a significant impact of the examination
process on quality management and leadership (TQML).
H12b There is a significant impact of the examination
process on staff interaction (SI).
H12c There is a significant impact of the examination
process on the institution’s productivity (IP).
H12d There is a significant impact of the examination
process on quality control and measurement (QC).
To test the impact of the placement process on
quality improvement:
H13a There is a significant impact of the placement
process on quality management and leadership (TQML).
H13b There is a significant impact of the placement
process on staff interaction (SI).
H13c There is a significant impact of the placement
process on the institute productivity (IP).
H13d There is a significant impact of the placement
process on quality control and measurement (QC).
Research methodology
The study was empirical in nature. With the help of
surveys, the study described the relationship between
the academic institutions’ processes and quality based
on stakeholder expectations. The research relates the
quality improvement aspects with the quality of proc-
esses in professional HEIs.
The following processes in academic institutions were
studied. The activities carried out in these processes
(transactions) considered for the study of quality are:
1. Examination
2. Placement
3. Admissions
The factor analysis indicated the constructs (factors)
that constituted quality in the context of the study.
Though quality has many dimensions, definitions, tools

and techniques, and models, this study was based on
stakeholder expectations.
Questionnaire design and pilot study
The stakeholder expectations from the activities of the
process and quality were converted into relevant
scales. The transactions occurring in the three proc-
esses were considered in developing the scales. Also,
scales were referred from the following pub-
lished sources.
1. Baldwin, L.M. 2002. Total Quality Management in
Higher Education The Implications Of Internal
And External Stakeholder Perception. Ph.D. diss.,
New Mexico State University.
2. Jain, R., G. Sinha, and S. Sahney. 2011.
Conceptualizing service quality in higher educa-
tion. Asian Journal on Quality, 12(3): 296 – 314.
doi: 10.1108/15982681111187128
The survey questionnaire was designed using varia-
bles from existing literature as well as from expert
opinions (head of institutions, process owners, and
stakeholders). The questionnaire was tested by experts
in allied fields. The pilot study was administered at
four institutions in the city of Mumbai with a total of
150 respondents. After getting satisfactory results of
the pilot study, the revised final questionnaire (on 5-
point Likert scale) was designed and used for data col-
lection. Minimal personal/demographic data/informa-
tion was collected.
Sampling and data collection
The study was restricted to private (unaided) institu-
tions and colleges affiliated with state universities in
the Maharashtra state of India. As mentioned previ-
ously, unaided institutions are those that do not
receive monetary aid or grants from the government
to run the institution. Such institutions are owned
and run by private entities. Only management and
engineering institutions were considered for this
study, because they fall under the same regulatory
bodies such as the All India Council of Technical
Education (AICTE) and the University Grants
Commission (UGC). Also, there are a large number
of such institutions in the state, and the study will
be useful to them. The data were collected from 12
engineering colleges and eight management colleges
in five major cities of Maharashtra. The cities
QUALITY MANAGEMENT JOURNAL 47
selected were based on the administrative regions of
Maharashtra.
Judgemental and quota sampling was used to select
the engineering and management colleges and
respondents. In the aforementioned institutions, the
survey was given to approximately 900 respondents,
of which 780 forms were received back, resulting in a
response rate of 86.6 percent. After cleaning the data
and removing the improperly filled-out forms, a data
set of 725 respondents was prepared for analysis. The
respondents included the three process owners wher-
ever possible and the stakeholders, such as faculty,
support staff, and students. Heads of the institutions
(director/principal) were also surveyed wherever pos-
sible. Among the stakeholders (target audience), the
available respondents were selected to answer the
questionnaire. From each institution, about 50
respondents were contacted, and the survey question-
naire was given to them. The respondents comprised
about 10 faculty members, 10 administrative staff, and
30 students. Wherever possible, the faculty and staff
from the admissions, exams, and placements depart-
ments were included. The questions were organized
based on the pilot study and the dependent and inde-
pendent variables. The students included undergradu-
ate as well as post-graduate students.
Data analysis and findings
Based on the authors’ objectives and hypothesis, a the-
oretical construct was designed (see Figure 1). Based
on the construct, the study discusses the relationship
and impact between the variables identified. PLS 3
software was used to test the hypotheses.
Outer model assessment
Table 1 shows that the composite reliability of the
constructs was higher than the minimum requirement
of 0.70, and construct convergent validity (average
validity extracted (AVE)) was higher than the 0.5
value (Hair et al. 2014). The factor loadings should be
greater than 0.6. This is true for the authors’ data.
Table 2 shows the constructs and the factor loadings
for the corresponding items.
Discriminant
The square root of AVE is higher than the intercon-
struct correlations. This validates discriminant validity
(that is, all constructs are different). Fornell and
Larcker’s (1981) criterion, as quoted by Jain et al.
48 R. V. MULAY AND V. T. KHANNA

Figure 1. Schematic representation of the constructs for correlation and regression.

Source: Author’s analysis.

Table 1. Reliability and validity.

Cronbach’s alpha rho_A Composite reliability Average variance extracted (AVE)
Admissions process 0.87 0.87 0.898 0.524
Exams process 0.616 0.621 0.838 0.722
Institute productivity 0.819 0.824 0.869 0.526
Staff interaction 0.875 0.878 0.903 0.571
Placements process 0.779 0.79 0.85 0.533
Quality control and measurement of processes 0.83 0.833 0.876 0.541
Quality management and leadership 0.862 0.863 0.893 0.51
Source: Author’s analysis

(2018), showed that the square root of AVE values of All indicator loadings were higher than their respect-
all the reflective constructs was higher than the inter- ive cross-loadings, thus validating the discriminant
construct correlations, indicating discriminant validity. validity (Jain et al. 2018) (see Table 3 and 4).
 QUALITY MANAGEMENT JOURNAL 49

Table 2. Factor loadings.

CONSTRUCTS
Admissions Process
AD33 0.671
AD34 0.668
AD35 0.717
AD36 0.763
AD37 0.774
AD38 0.716
AD39 0.739
AD40 0.736
Exams process
EX41 0.831
EX43 0.868
Institute productivity
IP14 0.641
IP15 0.753
IP16 0.77
IP24 0.714
IP25 0.757
IP26 0.709
Placements process
PL47 0.596
PL48 0.716
PL50 0.776
PL52 0.778
PL53 0.768
Quality control and measurement
QC27 0.668
QC28 0.758
QC29 0.751
QC30 0.766
QC31 0.735
QC32 0.734
Staff interaction
SI12 0.749
SI13 0.751
SI19 0.749
SI20 0.777
SI21 0.747
SI22 0.752
SI23 0.767
Quality management and leadership
TQML10 0.713
TQML11 0.709
TQML2 0.706
TQML3 0.729
TQML4 0.765
TQML5 0.704
TQML7 0.718
TQML8 0.666
Source: Author’s analysis

Structural model assessment In the model, the four variables (quality manage-
ment and leadership, staff interaction, institution
The path coefficients were obtained by applying a
productivity, and quality control) had R2 values of
nonparametric, boot-strapping routine (Vinzi
0.472, 0.393, 0.441, and 0.533, respectively, suggesting
et al. 2010).
sufficient predictive accuracy of the structural model.

T statistic Discussion, implications, and future scope of

Table 5 shows the path coefficients obtained by run-
ning bootstrapping. The p and t statistical values help
the authors to accept or reject the hypotheses. The
results are shown in Table 6.A t-value less than 1.96
means these hypotheses are not accepted (Jain et al.
2018). A summary of the hypothesis is presented in
Table 6 (see also Figure 2).
the study
Discussion
The study identifies the variables and factors that
impact quality in the process of HEIs. This research
has resulted in a framework for linking stakeholder
expectations with quality when the service delivery
50 R. V. MULAY AND V. T. KHANNA

Table 3. Discriminant analysis.

Quality Quality
Admissions Exams Institute Staff Placements control and management
process process productivity interaction process measurement and leadership
Admissions process 0.724
Exams process 0.622 0.85
Institute productivity 0.619 0.46 0.725
Staff interaction 0.592 0.492 0.703 0.756
Placements process 0.634 0.52 0.575 0.501 0.73
Quality control and measurement 0.674 0.495 0.716 0.64 0.642 0.736
Quality management and leadership 0.664 0.481 0.72 0.69 0.551 0.675 0.714
Source: Author’s analysis
Note: Square root of AVE across diagonal in above Table 3.

Table 4. CROSS loadings (factor loadings).

Quality Quality
Admissions Exams Institute OB and staff Placements control and management
process process productivity interaction process measurement and leadership
AD33 0.671 0.508 0.411 0.455 0.402 0.482 0.481
AD34 0.668 0.36 0.456 0.375 0.466 0.488 0.442
AD35 0.717 0.477 0.48 0.449 0.508 0.525 0.524
AD36 0.763 0.471 0.415 0.424 0.449 0.476 0.476
AD37 0.774 0.488 0.452 0.481 0.484 0.491 0.501
AD38 0.716 0.369 0.422 0.389 0.408 0.449 0.429
AD39 0.739 0.444 0.459 0.409 0.468 0.498 0.463
AD40 0.736 0.47 0.483 0.436 0.473 0.487 0.516
EX41 0.524 0.831 0.366 0.383 0.397 0.392 0.4
EX43 0.533 0.868 0.413 0.449 0.483 0.447 0.417
IP14 0.391 0.274 0.641 0.484 0.373 0.417 0.482
IP15 0.401 0.319 0.753 0.507 0.436 0.506 0.518
IP16 0.478 0.38 0.77 0.564 0.419 0.542 0.556
IP24 0.435 0.296 0.714 0.459 0.381 0.501 0.498
IP25 0.528 0.384 0.757 0.548 0.474 0.604 0.577
IP26 0.445 0.333 0.709 0.49 0.409 0.522 0.495
PL47 0.325 0.302 0.335 0.315 0.596 0.326 0.286
PL48 0.472 0.375 0.439 0.368 0.716 0.472 0.418
PL50 0.501 0.425 0.43 0.394 0.776 0.511 0.442
PL52 0.474 0.388 0.421 0.372 0.778 0.493 0.407
PL53 0.516 0.399 0.464 0.379 0.768 0.513 0.439
QC27 0.44 0.358 0.463 0.449 0.413 0.668 0.442
QC28 0.528 0.369 0.572 0.52 0.467 0.758 0.541
QC29 0.533 0.426 0.517 0.524 0.522 0.751 0.508
QC30 0.484 0.359 0.539 0.479 0.507 0.766 0.496
QC31 0.479 0.355 0.519 0.421 0.459 0.735 0.499
QC32 0.506 0.316 0.548 0.425 0.456 0.734 0.489
SI12 0.446 0.338 0.531 0.749 0.366 0.471 0.513
SI13 0.474 0.402 0.562 0.751 0.389 0.491 0.555
SI19 0.37 0.342 0.498 0.749 0.326 0.442 0.467
SI20 0.427 0.386 0.498 0.777 0.386 0.492 0.493
SI21 0.437 0.364 0.5 0.747 0.324 0.442 0.514
SI22 0.449 0.337 0.513 0.752 0.369 0.49 0.491
SI23 0.51 0.418 0.601 0.767 0.468 0.542 0.597
TQML10 0.469 0.332 0.529 0.493 0.377 0.501 0.713
TQML11 0.479 0.353 0.538 0.506 0.399 0.502 0.709
TQML2 0.473 0.352 0.566 0.492 0.407 0.481 0.706
TQML3 0.491 0.355 0.504 0.484 0.407 0.449 0.729
TQML4 0.482 0.347 0.507 0.52 0.39 0.483 0.765
TQML5 0.455 0.315 0.523 0.505 0.398 0.521 0.704
TQML7 0.515 0.36 0.517 0.488 0.407 0.508 0.718
TQML8 0.424 0.333 0.425 0.455 0.361 0.406 0.666
Source: Author’s analysis.

takes place. Management can thus take proactive steps is based on stakeholder expectations). The quality of
to improve the quality of education services. deliverables is expressed in four broad groups based
Most institutions, including HEIs, are adopting on the factor analysis. These groups are:
some type of quality program, such as ISO certifica-
tions. The study will help institutions target the fac- 1. Quality management and leadership
tors that affect the quality of their deliverables (which 2. Employee/staff Interaction
 QUALITY MANAGEMENT JOURNAL 51

Table 5. Structural relationships.

Original Sample Standard T statistics
sample (O) mean (M) deviation (STDEV) (jO/STDEVj) P Values
Admissions Process -> Institute Productivity 0.396 0.398 0.055 7.256 0
Admissions Process -> Staff Interaction 0.379 0.38 0.057 6.653 0
Admissions Process -> Quality Control and Measurement 0.422 0.422 0.043 9.781 0
Admissions Process -> Quality Management and Leadership 0.493 0.494 0.041 11.949 0
Exams Process -> Institute Productivity 0.061 0.063 0.046 1.343 0.18
Exams Process -> Staff Interaction 0.164 0.168 0.05 3.274 0.001
Exams Process -> Quality Control and Measurement 0.053 0.054 0.038 1.382 0.168
Exams Process -> Quality Management and Leadership 0.069 0.073 0.043 1.618 0.106
Placements Process -> Institute Productivity 0.292 0.292 0.048 6.108 0
Placements Process -> Staff Interaction 0.176 0.176 0.047 3.71 0
Placements Process -> Quality Control and Measurement 0.347 0.347 0.045 7.753 0
Placements Process -> Quality Management and Leadership 0.203 0.199 0.038 5.337 0
Source: Author’s analysis.

Figure 2. SmartPLS 3 model output.

Source: Author’s analysis.

3. Institute productivity Among the three processes, admissions has the

4. Quality control and measurement practices of
the Institute
All three processes relate to and impact the four
quality constructs, as highlighted in Figure 1.
Among the three processes studied, the admissions
process affects quality (as measured by quality man-
agement and leadership) of the institution the most.
Admissions is more strongly related to quality (as
measured by staff interaction) than the exam and
placement processes.
strongest effect on quality (as measured by institute
productivity), followed by the placement process. The
regression results show that the admissions and place-
ment processes are significant in impacting quality (as
found by control and measurement). The admissions
process has the most significant impact on quality (as
indicated by staff interaction). If the admissions and
placement processes are of high quality, the institution
is more likely to have better outcomes in selecting
better students and also have better outcomes in
placement. As a whole, the admissions process
52 R. V. MULAY AND V. T. KHANNA
Table 6. Summary of hypothesis.
Sr. No Hypothesis T value
1 H11a There is a significant impact of the 11.949
admission process on the quality
management and leadership (TQML)
2 H11b There is a significant impact of the 6.653
admission process on the staff
interaction (SI)
3 H11c There is a significant impact of the 7.256
admission process on the institute
productivity (IP)
4 H11d There is a significant impact of the 9.781
admission process on the quality
control and measurement (QC)
5 H12a There is a significant impact of the 1.618
examination process on the quality
management and leadership (TQML)
6 H12b There is a significant impact of the 3.274
Examination Process on the Staff
Interaction (SI)
7 H12c There is a significant impact of the 1.343
examination process on the institute
productivity (IP)
8 H12d There is a significant impact of the 1.382
examination process on the quality
control and measurement (QC)
9 H13a There is a significant impact of the 5.337
placement process on the quality
management and leadership (TQML)
10 H13b There is a significant impact of the 3.71
placement process on the staff
interaction (SI)
11 H13c There is a significant impact of the 6.108
placement process on the institute
productivity (IP)
12 H13d There is a significant impact of the 7.753
placement process on the quality
control and measurement (QC)
Source: Author’s analysis.
impacts quality more than the placements process, fol-
lowed by the exams process.
None of the variables are negatively related, mean-
ing that any improper or incorrect activity in the
processes will lead to a deterioration in the institu-
tion’s quality and, conversely, improvement of the
activities in the processes will lead to better perform-
ance (as measured by the four dependent variables in
this study) and hence better service to the customers.
The authors’ study has empirically brought out the
relationship and impact of some of the important
processes and dimensions in the HEIs. The applic-
ability of quality management in administrative
processes and the importance of quality manage-
ment dimensions such as people management, pro-
cess management, understanding of stakeholder
expectations, leadership, and information and ana-
lysis have been identified by studies in the
P value Decision Interpretation
0.00 Reject H01a Admissions process is significant
Accept H11a variable in determining the quality
(as indicated by quality management
and leadership)
0.00 Reject H01b Admissions process is significant
Accept H11b variable in determining the quality
(as indicated by staff interaction)
0.00 Reject H01c Admissions process is significant
Accept H11c variable in determining the quality
(as indicated by institute
productivity)
0.00 Reject H01d Admissions process is significant
Accept H11d variable in determining the quality
(as indicated by quality control and
measurement)
0.106 Accept H02a Exam process is NOT a significant
variable in impacting the quality as
indicated by quality management
and leadership.
0.001 Accept H12b Exam process is a significant variable in
determining the quality (as indicated
by staff interaction)
0.18 Accept H02c Examination process is NOT a
significant variable in determining
the quality (as indicated by institute
productivity)
0.168 Reject H12d Examination process is NOT a
significant variable in determining
the quality (as indicated by quality
control and measurement)
0.00 Reject H03a Placement process is significant variable
Accept H13a in determining the Quality (as
indicated by Quality Management
and Leadership)
0.00 Reject H03b Placement process is significant variable
Accept H13b in determining the quality (as
indicated by staff interaction)
0.00 Reject H03c Placements process is significant
Accept H13c variable in determining the quality
(as indicated by institute productivity)
0.00 Reject H03d Placements process is significant
Accept H13d variable in determining the quality
(as indicated by quality control and
measurement)
aforementioned literature. The authors’ study builds
on some of these aspects.
This study builds on the work of Kaynak (2003),
who found that process management is positively
related to firm performance. The authors’ study also
found that process variables have a positive relation-
ship with quality variables. Process improvement can,
therefore, result in fewer defects and delays, and better
productivity.
The authors’ study tries to examine the educational
transformation model by Sahney (2012). That model
explains the input-process-output transformation. It
considers the management, technical, and social con-
structs of the processes and the assessment of the
dimensions across the four categories of the customers.
A study that established relationships between the
customer requirements with design characteristics was
done by Sahney, Banwet, and Karunes (2010). However,

their model is not specific to the administrative process
and is generic. The dependent variables in the authors’
study are similar to the ones used by them.
Teeroovengadum, Kamalanabhan, and Seebaluck
(2016) described a model for measuring service quality.
They used correlation and exploratory factor analysis
to arrive at the factors. The factors “administrative
quality” and “administrative processes” match two of
the authors’ dependent variables. However, the authors’
study delves more into the three specific administrative
processes, which they did not covered. Their variables
span across the processes.
Some of the scales the authors used are adopted
from the study “Conceptualizing service quality in
higher education” by Jain, Sinha, and Sahney (2011).
They covered nonacademic processes, staff interaction,
and input quality. The focus of their study was on the
dimensions and developing a scale. The authors’ study
builds on some of those scales to come up with qual-
ity based on the three specific processes under study.
Their study was for management, engineering, and
other technical courses like pharmacy/computer-appli-
cation, and so on, whereas the authors conducted the
study in private (unaided) colleges and institutes in
five administrative regions of Maharashtra.
Managerial implications
The admissions process and the placements process are
significant in affecting quality (as indicated by quality
management and leadership). The exams process, how-
ever, is not significant in affecting quality, as indicated
by leadership. Hence, the institution must improve and
maintain the admissions and placement process activ-
ities to have good quality from these aspects.
Admissions, exams, and placements are significant
processes in determining quality (as indicated by staff
interaction). The institution should focus on maintain-
ing and improving the activities in these processes, so
staff interaction exhibits the required level of quality.
Admissions and placements are significant proc-
esses in determining quality (as indicated by quality
control and measurement practices). The institution’s
administrators should pay close attention to these
processes in this context. Any flaw in the process can
disturb quality control and measurement and nega-
tively affect the quality of the institution.
As far as institute productivity is concerned, admis-
sions and placements are significant processes in
determining quality, as indicated by institute product-
ivity. The exams process is not significant in affecting
quality, as indicated by institute productivity.
QUALITY MANAGEMENT JOURNAL 53
Improvements in the exams process will lead to
improvements in quality, as indicated by staff inter-
action. Improvements in the admissions and/or place-
ments process will lead to improvement of quality, as
indicated by the four factors in this study. Additionally,
the institution must focus on each of the constructs
and the items therein that define quality, as per
this study
The exams process was not a significant variable in
the quality of the institution, as found in this study.
The activities in an exams process are mostly hygiene
factors and are necessary but not sufficient conditions,
hence not predicting quality.
Quality is measured mainly in terms of quality
management and leadership and has significant
impacts as far as admissions and placement processes
are concerned, because these processes are more based
on human interface and leadership, which is captured
in the respective DVs. The exams process has more of
an evaluation component and is not significant.
From an impact point of view, the institutions
must focus first on admissions, then on placements,
and lastly on exams. The test results presented in the
previous section help the authors to validate the
hypothesis. The arguments presented here are in line
with the authors’ objectives for this study.
Most institutions, including those in higher educa-
tion, get involved in quality programs like ISO certifica-
tions, NAAC, and NBA accreditation because the
quality of processes is becoming important in today’s
competitive context. Additionally, the study is important
in the current times when collaborations with foreign
universities and setting up of foreign institute campuses
and industry-specific programs are growing in India.
The steps taken toward the monitoring and control of
quality will contribute to waste elimination. This is an
important managerial implication especially w.r.t. pri-
vate HEIs. Improvement of processes will help in the
improvement in the quality of the institutions and, in
turn, may help in better performance in admissions and
placements, thus providing a competitive edge.
Theoretical implications
The study provides a framework for understanding
how quality is impacted during the execution of proc-
esses. By finding some of the constructs (factors) that
constitute service quality, the model presents a way to
measure the quality of the processes. The model can
be extended to understand the quality impacts for
other processes and dimensions. The model presented
in the study helps one understand which processes are
54 R. V. MULAY AND V. T. KHANNA
most significant in impacting a particular factor (con-
struct) of quality. From this, one can determine which
processes need improvement.
Improving service quality and thereafter sustaining
the same has become a prerequisite for HEIs. The
contribution of this research to the existing literature
is that most studies on quality management in higher
education primarily focus on teaching, learning, stu-
dent issues, infrastructure, pedagogy, and so on, with
very few studies on the relationship and impact of
administrative processes on quality.
Limitations of the study
Several administrative processes are involved in an aca-
demic institution. For the purpose of this study and to
evolve the model, the authors have restricted it to
admissions, examination, and placement processes only.
The study was restricted to unaided engineering
(technology) and management (business) institutions
affiliated with the state university in the major city of
Maharashtra. To have uniformity in the type of institu-
tions for study purposes, the researchers did not study
private universities, government-aided institutions,
deemed universities, and so on. Some of the stakehold-
ers, such as students’ parents and recruiters, are diffi-
cult to track and reach, and hence are not considered.
Conclusion
The study identified the relationship and impact of the
processes on quality. The model can be extended to find
the relationship between other academic processes and
dimensions/aspects of quality in HEIs. This will help the
institutions determine what aspects they need to focus
on to improve their quality and, thus, their service.
Future scope of the research
In the future, this study will be useful for other types of
professional higher education institutions, such as medi-
cine, law, etc. This model can be used for institutions
in private universities, deemed universities, government
institutions, central universities, and so on, as well.
The study will thus help institutions to understand
where slippages can happen, such as failure to meet
delivery schedule and costs due to mistakes and delays
in the process. The model can be extrapolated/modi-
fied to study other processes or quality concepts (such
as costs of quality and voice of the customer) to
understand how the processes and quality relate to
each other.
Acknowledgements
The authors wishes to thank Dr. Nikunj Kumar Jain, faculty
of Operations and Supply Chain Management, Institute of
Management Technology, Ghaziabad, Delhi NCR, India, for
providing guidance and responding to queries about the
partial least square method and tools. The authors thank
the editors and reviewers for their valuable comments and
suggestions. This has helped improve the manuscript.
About the Authors
Rahul V. Mulay is currently an assistant professor in the
Department of Operations Management at K.J. Somaiya
Institute of Management, Somaiya Vidyavihar University,
Mumbai. He has nine years academic experience as an
assistant professor in operations management. He has pre-
sented and published papers at national conferences and in
journals. He has prior industry experience of more than 12
years in engineering services, and supply chain software
applications. Mulay’s area of interest is quality management
in services industry, and he is currently pursuing his PhD
in the same. He can be contacted at email: rahulmulay@
somaiya.edu
Dr. Vandana Tandon Khanna has a doctorate in services
marketing from Kurukshetra University. She is presently a
professor in the Department of Marketing at K.J. Somaiya
Institute of Management, Somaiya Vidyavihar University,
Mumbai. She has more than 20 years of post-graduate
teaching experience at reputed management institutions.
She has both presented and published in national and inter-
national conferences and journals. She is an approved PhD
guide for Somaiya Vidyavihar University, University of
Mumbai and Co-guide at Lincoln University Malaysia. She
is a member of the advisory council of International Journal
of Marketing Principles and Practices and the International
Institute of Marketing Professional in Canada. Dr. Khanna
can be contacted email: vandanat@somaiya.edu
References
Adam, E. E., L. M. Corbett, B. E. Flores, N. J. Harrison, T. S.
Lee, B. H. Rho, J. Ribera, D. Samson, and R. Westbrook.
1997. An international study of quality improvement
approach and firm performance. International Journal of
Operations & Production Management 17 (9):842–73.
Adebanjo, D., and D. Kehoe. 1999. An investigation of quality
culture development in UK industry. International Journal of
Operations & Production Management 19 (7):633–49.
Agarwal, P. 2006. Higher education in India the need for
change. Working paper number 180, Indian Council for
Research on International Economic Relations.
Ahire, S. L., and K. C. O’Shaughnessy. 1998. The role of top
management commitment in quality management: An
empirical analysis of the auto parts industry.
International Journal of Quality Science 3 (1):5–37.
Alajoutsija, K., K. Kettunen, and S. Sohlo. 2018. Shaking the
status quo: Business accreditation and positional competi-
tion. Academy of Management Learning & Education 17
(2):203–25.

Anderson, J. C., M. Rungtusanatham, R. G. Schroeder, and
S. Devaraj. 1995. A path analytic model of a theory of
quality management underlying the deming management
method: Preliminary empirical findings. Decision Sciences
26 (5):637–58.
Anupindi, R., S. Chopra, S. D. Deshmukh, J. A. V.
Mieghem, and E. Zemel. 2013. Managing business process
flows. 3rd ed. New Delhi: Dorling Kindersley.
Baldwin, L. M. 2002. Total quality management in higher edu-
cation the implications of internal and external stakeholder
perception. PhD diss., New Mexico State University.
Sayeda, B., R. Chandrasekharan, and P. S. Lokachari. 2010.
An empirical study of Total Quality Management in
engineering educational institutions of India.
Benchmarking: An International Journal 17 (5):728– 67.
Chamila, R. P., and R. H. Chandana. 2016. Integrating sustain-
ability education into international marketing curricula.
International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education
17 (1):123–48. doi: 10.1108/IJSHE-03-2014-0041.
Charantimath, P. M. 2011. Total Quality Management.
Noida, India: Pearson Education.
Choudhury, K. 2015. Evaluating customer-perceived service
quality in business management education in India. A
study in topsis modeling. Asia Pacific Journal of
Marketing and Logistics 27 (2):208–25.
Darley, W. K., and D. J. Luethge. 2019. Management and
business education in Africa: A post-colonial perspective
of international accreditation. Academy of Management
Learning & Education 18 (1):99–111. doi: 10.5465/amle.
2016.0086.
Deshmukh, S. G. 2006. Some perspectives on Total Quality
Management (TQM) in technical institutes. The Journal
of Engineering Education 29 (3):44–59. doi: 10.16920/jeet/
2006/v14i3-4/113367.
Dyer, J. S. 1970. The use of PPBS in a public system of
higher education. Academy of Management Journal 13
(3):285–99.
Flynn, B. B., R. G. Schroeder, and S. Sakakibara. 1995. The
impact of quality management practices on performance
and competitive advantage. Decision Sciences 26 (5):659–91.
Gandhi, M. M. 2014. Total Quality Management in higher
education in India. International Journal of
Organizational Behaviour & Management Perspectives 3
(4):1200–11.
Ginn, D., and M. Zairi. 2005. Best practice QFD application:
An internal/external benchmarking approach based on
Ford Motors’ experience. International Journal of Quality
& Reliability Management 22 (1):38–58.
Hackman, J. R., and, and R. Wageman. 1995. Total Quality
Management: Empirical, conceptual and practical issues.
Administrative Science Quarterly 40 (2):309–42. doi: 10.
2307/2393640.
Hair, J. F., G. T. M. Hult, C. Ringle, and M. Sarstedt. 2014.
A primer on partial least squares structural equation mod-
eling (PLS-SEM). 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Halai, N. 2013. Quality of private universities in Pakistan:
An analysis of higher education commission rankings
2012. International Journal of Educational Management
27 (7):775–86.
Hammer, M., and J. Champy. 1995. Reengineering the cor-
poration a manifesto for business revolution. 1st ed.
London: Nicholas Brealey.
QUALITY MANAGEMENT JOURNAL 55
Hendricks, K. B., and V. R. Singhal. 1996. Quality awards
and the market value of the firm: An empirical investiga-
tion. Management Science 42 (3):415–36.
Hendricks, K. B., and V. R. Singhal. 1997. Does implement-
ing an effective TQM program actually improve operating
performance? Empirical evidence from firms that have
won quality awards. Management Science 43 (9):1258–74.
Hwarng, H. B., and C. Teo. 2001. Translating customers’
voices into operations requirements - A QFD application
in higher education. International Journal of Quality &
Reliability Management 18 (2):195–226.
Jain, N. K., S. Kamboj, V. Kumar, and Z. Rahman. 2018.
Examining consumer-brand relationships on social media
platforms. Marketing Intelligence & Planning 36 (1):63–78.
Jain, R., G. Sinha, and S. Sahney. 2011. Conceptualizing ser-
vice quality in higher education. Asian Journal on Quality
12 (3):296– 314.
Jain, R., G. Sinha, and S. Sahney. 2013. Developing a scale
to measure students’ perception of service quality in the
Indian context. The TQM Journal 25 (3):276–94.
Joshi, K. M., and K. V. Ahir. 2013. Indian higher education:
Some reflections. Intellectual Economics 7 (1):42–53.
Joglekar, M. V., S. Kulkarni, and S. S. Sahasrabudhe. 1999.
Performance evaluation of technical education institute as
a system for Total Quality. The Journal of Engineering
Education 13 (1–2):117–30.
Kaynak, H. 2003. The relationship between Total Quality
Management practices and their effects on firm perform-
ance. Journal of Operations Management 21 (4):405–35.
Kumar, M., and S. Jha. 2012. Revitalising management edu-
cation in India: A strategic approach. Journal of
Management & Public Policy 3 (2):5–17.
Lola, C. D. 2013. A framework for analyzing performance
in higher education. Working Paper No. 13-24, Business
Economic Series-03. Universidad Carlos III de Madrid,
Madrid.
Manatos, M. J., C. S. Sarrico, and M. J. Rosa. 2017. The
integration of quality management in higher education
institutions: A systematic literature review. Total Quality
Management 28 (1–2):159–75.
Matthews, W. E. 1993. Total Quality Management in aca-
demia - The missing element in higher education.
Journal of Quality and Participation 1993:102–8.
Owlia, M. S., and E. M. Aspinwall. 1998. A framework for
measuring quality in engineering education. Total Quality
Management 9 (6):501–18. doi: 10.1080/0954412988433.
Panda, A., and N. K. Jain. 2018. Compulsive smartphone
usage and users’ ill-being among young Indians: Does per-
sonality matter? Telematics and Informatics 35 (5):1355–18.
Pandi, A. P., and U. S. Rao. 2007. Implementation of Total
Quality Management in engineering education. The
Indian Journal of Technical Education 30 (2):82–6.
Pitman, G., J. Motwani, A. Kumar, and C. H. Cheng. 1995.
QFD application in an educational setting: A pilot field
study. International Journal of Quality & Reliability
Management 12 (6):63–72.
Prakash, G. 2018. Quality in higher education institutions:
Insights from the literature. The TQM Journal 30 (6):732–48.
Quinn, A., G. Lemay, P. Larsen, and D. M. Johnson. 2009.
Service quality in higher education. Total Quality
Management 20 (2):139–52.
56 R. V. MULAY AND V. T. KHANNA
Rehnuma, N. 2020. Evolution of quality culture in an HEI:
Critical insights from university staff in Bangladesh.
Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability
32:53–81. doi: 10.1007/s11092-019-09313-8.
Rodriguez, J., M. Valenzuela, and N. Ayuyao. 2018. TQM
paradigm for higher education in the Philippines. Quality
Assurance in Education 26 (1):101–14.
Sabet, H. S., Z. S. Saleki, B. Roumi, and A. Dezfoulian.
2012. A study on Total Quality Management in higher
education industry in Malaysia. International Journal of
Business and Social Science 3 (17):208–15.
Sahney, S. 2012. Designing quality for the higher educa-
tional system. Asian Journal on Quality 13 (2):116–37.
Sahney, S., D. K. Banwet, and S. Karunes. 2004. A
SERVQUAL and QFD approach to Total Quality
Education: A student perspective. International Journal of
Productivity and Performance Management 53 (2):143–66.
doi: 10.1108/17410400410515043.
Sahney, S.,. D. K. Banwet, and S. Karunes. 2010. Quality
framework in education through application of interpretive
structural modeling. An administrative staff perspective in
the Indian context. The TQM Journal 22 (1):56–71.
Sahu, A., R. R. Shrivastava, and R. L. Shrivastava. 2013.
Critical success factors for sustainable improvement in
technical education excellence. A literature review. The
TQM Journal 25 (1):62–74.
Sakthivel, P. B., and R. Raju. 2006. Conceptualizing Total
Quality management in engineering education and devel-
oping a TQM educational excellence model. Total
Quality Management 17 (7):913–34.
Sakthivel, P. B., G. Rajendran, and R. Raju. 2005. TQM
implementation and students’ satisfaction of academic
performance. The TQM Magazine 17 (6):573–89. doi: 10.
1108/09544780510627660.
Singh, J., A. Singla, and S. Bansal. 2007. A productivity
measurement model for technical education institution.
Productivity 48 (2):206–11.
Sinha, S. 2014. Issues and challenges of higher education in
India. International Journal of Applied Services Marketing
Perspectives 3 (3):1152–7.
Sirvanci, M. B. 2004. Critical issues for TQM implementa-
tion in higher education. The TQM Magazine 16 (6):
382–86.
Tarı, J. J., and G. Dick. 2016. Trends in quality management
research in higher education institutions. Journal of
Service Theory and Practice 26 (3):273–96.
Teeroovengadum, V., T. J. Kamalanabhan, and A. K.
Seebaluck. 2016. Measuring service quality in higher edu-
cation Development of a hierarchical model (HESQUAL).
Quality Assurance in Education 24 (2):244–58.
Tulsi, P. K. 2001. Total Quality in higher education, reforms
and innovations in higher education. New Delhi: AIU.
Vinzi, V. E., W. W. Chin, J. Henseler, and H. Wang.
2010. Handbook of partial least squares: Concepts,
methods and applications. Berlin: Springer Science &
Business Media.
Wilson, D. D., and D. A. Collier. 2000. An empirical inves-
tigation of the Malcolm Baldrige national quality award
causal model. Decision Sciences 31 (2):361–90.
Wright, T. 2010. University presidents’ conceptualizations of
sustainability in higher education. International Journal of
Sustainability in Higher Education 11 (1):61–73.
Bibliography
Hair, J. F., W. C. Black, B. J. Babin, R. E. Anderson, and
R. L. Tatham. 2006. Multivariate data analysis. 6th ed.
New York: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Kumar, P., J. Maiti, and A. Gunasekaran. 2018. Impact of
quality management systems on firm performance.
International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management
35 (5):1034–59.
Niu, R. H., and Y. Fan. 2015. An in-depth investigation on
quality management practices in China. International
Journal of Quality & Reliability Management 32 (7):736–53.
ASQ. 2020. What is a Quality Management System (QMS)?
Accessed 29 May 2020. https://asq.org/quality-resources/
quality-management-system.