Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Table I summarizes the way in which the more relevant to “productivity” than
products’ quality dimensions can be inter- quality, we propose an alternative defini-
preted in higher education. tion for efficiency in higher education
which is more relevant to a customer-
oriented approach. That is the extent to
Software quality factors
which the knowledge/skills learned are
The characteristics of software, as an intangi- applicable in the future career of gradu-
ble product, are felt to be more consistent ates.
with higher education than manufactured (4) Integrity (security). There seems to be no
products. McCall et al. proposed 11 factors direct meaning for integrity, defined as
for software quality which are widely used in the “extent to which access to software or
software engineering (Watts, 1987); the defin- data by unauthorised persons can be
itions of each factor, together with a proposed controlled”, when it comes to higher
interpretation for higher education, follows: education. Here, on the contrary, an
(1) Correctness. The extent to which a piece open and easy access to information is
of software complies with its specifica- favoured, although the security of per-
tions is referred to as correctness. This is sonal information of students as well as
similar to the definition of conformance staff is an important factor. The expan-
for products and so the same meaning sion of information technology and the
can be applied to higher education. The application of computer networks in
word conformance seems to be better for communications will reinforce this.
this common dimension. Another possible interpretation relates to
(2) Reliability. The definition of reliability scientific ethics which is mainly of con-
corresponds to the degree to which a cern in research activities.
piece of software is fault-free, i.e. the (5) Usability. Usability corresponds to the
focus here is on accuracy. The accuracy effort required for learning and using a
of information given in courses is there- piece of software. The equivalent dimen-
fore the equivalent in higher education. sion in higher education can relate to the
(3) Efficiency. Software efficiency is defined ease of learning and the degree of com-
as “the amount of computing resources munication between lecturer and stu-
and code required by a program to per- dents. The expertise of lecturers plays
form a function” and includes both the dominant role in this dimension.
execution and storage efficiency. A direct (6) Maintainability. Software maintainability
interpretation might be the amount of is defined as the effort required for error
resources required for, say, presenting a detection and correction. Considering
course; the “unit cost” is a good indica- the similarity between this and the ser-
tor for this aspect. Since this meaning is viceability dimension of products, the
same interpretation regarding the han-
Table I Garvin’s dimensions of quality and higher education dling of customers’ complaints can be
made for higher education.
Dimensions Definition in higher education (7) Testability. The effort required to test the
1 Performance Primary knowledge/skills required for structure and correctness of a program is
graduates termed testability. The concept can be
2 Features Secondary/supplementary knowledge and generalized for a course of study address-
skills ing the extent to which the knowledge
3 Reliability The extent to which knowledge/skills learned learned is examinable. Since the quality
are correct, accurate and up to date of learning and teaching is often judged
4 Conformance The degree to which an institution/programme/ by the results of examinations, testability
course meets established standards, plans becomes important in quality measure-
and promises ment. How well examinations represent
5 Durability Depth of learning the taught subjects can be another crite-
6 Serviceability How well an institution handles customers’ rion for teaching quality.
complaints (8) Expandability;
7 Aesthetics (9) Portability;
8 Perceived quality (10) Reusability;
14
A framework for the dimensions of quality in higher education Quality Assurance in Education
Mohammad S. Owlia and Elaine M. Aspinwall Volume 4 · Number 2 · 1996 · 12–20
(11) Interoperability. All these dimensions are 1994; Zimmerman and Enell, 1988) can
common in reflecting the degree of facilitate generalizing service quality dimen-
software flexibility. Expandability is sions for this sector. However, the specific
concerned with the effort required for characteristics of any service industry necessi-
modifications of a program; portability tates finding its unique dimensions in addi-
relates to how easy a piece of software tion to the common features with other ser-
can be transferred from one environment vices. More careful generalization is required
to another; reusability corresponds to the for the case of higher education regarding its
extent to which a program can be used in complex characteristics. McElwee and
other applications; and interoperability Redman (1993) used a model of service
relates to the effort required to couple quality dimensions (SERVQUAL) developed
one program with another. The “flexibil- by Parasuraman et al. (1985, 1988) as a basis
ity” or “generality” of higher education for an adapted model for higher education. In
can be defined as the degree to which view of the framework structure of
knowledge/skills are applicable to those SERVQUAL, their main emphasis was placed
areas other than the main discipline. As on functional (interactive) aspects of quality.
the investigation of TQM’s role in higher Hill (1995) also investigated the implications
education revealed, professionalism in of service quality theory for higher education.
academic environments is one factor that Briefly addressing some quality dimensions,
can hinder interdisciplinary teamworking he focused mainly on the application of a
(Bergman, 1993). Regardless of what the perception-expectation model in this context.
“nominal” value for the characteristic is, In another study, Anderson (1995) used
the significance of the dimension should SERVQUAL to evaluate the quality of an
be acknowledged when measuring administrative section in a university (office of
quality. student services). This appeared to be suc-
cessful due to the compatibility between the
Table II summarizes the dimensions of soft-
environment in this case and that around
ware quality redefined for a higher education
which SERVQUAL was developed.
environment.
Table III shows a comparison of different
models of service quality dimensions found in
Service quality dimensions the literature. From these, the models by
Stewart and Walsh (1989) and Haywood-
Viewing higher education (or education in
Farmer (1988) focused on public services and
general) as a service (Dotchin and Oakland,
professional services respectively. Common or
similar items were observed according to their
Table II Software quality factors and higher education definitions by the authors. The list by
Parasuraman et al. (1985) was used as a basis
Dimensions Definition in higher education
for comparison since it appeared to be more
1 Correctness The extent to which a programme/course inclusive. Although their complementary
complies with the specified requirements work (Parasuraman et al., 1988) resulted in a
2 Reliability The degree to which knowledge/skills learned new grouping (SERVQUAL), the initial
are correct, accurate and up to date dimensions were more informative for inter-
3 Efficiency The extent to which knowledge/skills learned pretation.
are applicable to the future career of graduates Combining the different findings, Table IV
4 Integrity (security) The extent to which personal information is compares the quality dimensions proposed for
secure from unauthorized access products, software and services. The presence
5 Usability The ease of learning and the degree of of common or similar factors in the three
communicativeness in the classroom different areas suggests that there should be a
6 Maintainability How well an institution handles customers’ set of generalized dimensions defining quality
complaints of any output, regardless of its nature.
7 Testability How fair examinations represent a subject Like product and software, the degree to
of study which a service is fault (mistake)-free is attrib-
8 Expandability Flexibility (generality) uted to reliability. Other factors concerned are
9 Portability The degree to which knowledge/skills learned accuracy, keeping promises and consistency.
10 Reusability are applicable to other fields The keeping promises aspect of reliability is
11 Interoperability similar to the conformance and correctness
15
A framework for the dimensions of quality in higher education Quality Assurance in Education
Mohammad S. Owlia and Elaine M. Aspinwall Volume 4 · Number 2 · 1996 · 12–20
Table IV General service quality dimensions and their equivalents for equipment and facilities such as workshops,
products and software laboratories, library, computer and informa-
tion systems play a key role in the learning as
Service Product Software
well as the teaching processes. Support facili-
Reliability Reliability Reliability ties like accommodation, sports centres,
Conformance Correctness restaurants, and the general environment
Performance Performance should also be included in this dimension.
Completeness Features Table V shows a comprehensive list of
Durability service quality dimensions together with
Handling complaints Serviceability Maintainability proposed interpretations for a higher educa-
Solving problems tion environment.
Aesthetics
Perceived quality
Efficiency Quality factors in higher education
Security Integrity The set of attributes found from discussing
Ease of use Usability the quality dimensions of products, software,
Communication and general services provided a basis for
Understanding customers further investigation. One method of examin-
Testability ing the “content validity” of the dimensions is
Flexibility Expandability to check the proposed list with those pub-
Reusability lished as quality factors specific to higher
Portability education. The question is, “is this set of
Interoperability dimensions exhaustive?”
Competence There was a problem with some models in
Access which the dimensions of “quality” were mixed
Courtesy with the dimensions of “quality manage-
Credibility ment”. For example, while “content” of a
Responsiveness programme is directly related to quality itself,
Tangibles the “planning” for the programme is a dimen-
sion of the management of the service.
Credibility is generally related to the reputa-
Although the managerial factors may affect
tion and trustworthiness of an organization as the quality of service in some way, they should
perceived by the customers; it can be grouped be treated differently; they measure different
into the “image” category of dimensions. The subjects. Drawing a line to separate out the
same meaning can be applied to higher educa- two areas is not always easy but a criterion for
tion institutions. The reputation of the insti- the distinction can be whether the dimension
tution is normally based on graduates’ effec- can directly be evaluated by the consumer of
tiveness in the workplace. How an organiza- the product or service. Notice that this classi-
tion responds to customers’ opinions and how fication is different from the “outcome” and
well it solves associated problems is always of “process” categories of dimensions discussed
importance to clients. Entitled recovery earlier as both are “quality” and not “quality
(Grönroos, 1990), redress (Stewart and Walsh, management” dimensions.
1989), and handling complaints, solving prob- Another problem was whether or not the
lems (Haywood-Farmer, 1988), this dimen- beginners’ capabilities should be considered
sion can be generalized for higher education, in the quality framework as it is seen in some
considering students as the main customers. proposed quality factors. If the service that an
The dimension security, common with institution provides is the subject of quality
software quality factors, can be attributed to measurement, as is normally the case, the
the confidentiality of information. Performance background of students cannot represent the
and completeness of service are equivalent to performance of the institution when aggregat-
the performance and features dimensions of ing all the dimensions. Rather, the “value
products. This is also true for flexibility which added” is what should be taken into account.
was discussed under software factors. Considering the above points, the literature
The tangibles dimension of service quality was investigated in an attempt to discover
seems to be more important in the case of additional quality dimensions. Although few
higher education. The quality and quantity of references addressed the quality dimension
17
A framework for the dimensions of quality in higher education Quality Assurance in Education
Mohammad S. Owlia and Elaine M. Aspinwall Volume 4 · Number 2 · 1996 · 12–20
aspect directly, some useful elements were students, employers, academic staff, govern-
found. From the “quality features” developed ment and families are all customers of the
by Ashworth and Harvey (1994), “quality education system with a diversity of require-
criteria” by Harvey et al. (1992), “quality ments. This is further exacerbated when it
elements” by Spanbauer (1992), “alumni comes to the choice of quality dimensions.
satisfaction scales” by Hartman and Schmidt Investigating the framework developed for
(1995), “quality criteria” by Jacobson (1992), these (Table VI) reveals that all attributes do
“curricula design factors” by Izquierdo not render the same degree of interest and
(1993), “teaching dimensions” by Madu and feeling among different groups of customers.
Kuei (1993), a quality questionnaire by Yorke For example, all six dimensions are relevant to
(1995), and a quality function deployment students, but their applicability to academic
experiment (Ermer, 1995), factors detailing staff and employers may be more tenuous
curriculum, examinations, staff capabilities because they do not have the same level of
and equipment were identified. The results of
contact with the corresponding processes.
Harvey et al. were based on an empirical study
Employers as the “external customers” of
on the opinions of all the stakeholders in
higher education are more concerned with the
higher education. Some additional factors
“product” of the system, i.e. graduates, and
were found regarding students’ soft skills
so the capabilities of graduates (Dimension 4)
(Logothetis, 1993) and the expectations of
as well as the reliability of the institution to
industry from graduates (Meshkati, 1991).
deliver them (Dimension 6) are of interest.
Adding these new items to the previous
Note that these attributes are important to
findings, 30 attributes called “quality charac-
teristics” were developed. Based on similari- two other groups of customers, i.e. families
ties, they were grouped into six dimensions and society (government), implying that
named tangibles, competence, attitude, con- employers can be regarded as representatives
tent, delivery and reliability (see Table VI). for all external customers.
Analysing empirical results will show how On the other hand, academic staff use
valid the groupings are and whether there is university facilities (Dimension 1), they inter-
overlap across the six dimensions. act with their colleagues, benefiting from their
“competence” (Dimension 2), and they care
about the “contents” (Dimension 4) of the
Quality dimensions and customer groups courses they teach as well as the “credibility”
In higher education, the definition of cus- (Dimension 6) of their institution. Table VII
tomer is quite different from that in manufac- lists the quality dimensions together with the
turing or general services since groups such as customers to whom they relate. For a more
18
A framework for the dimensions of quality in higher education Quality Assurance in Education
Mohammad S. Owlia and Elaine M. Aspinwall Volume 4 · Number 2 · 1996 · 12–20
Table VI Quality dimensions and their corresponding characteristics in higher Table VII Quality dimensions and customer groups
education
Dimensions Customers
Dimensions Characteristics (1) Tangibles Students, staff
(1) Tangibles Sufficient equipment/facilities (2) Competence Students, staff
Modern equipment/facilities (3) Attitude Students
Ease of access (4) Content Students, staff, employers
Visually appealing environment (5) Delivery Students
Support services (accommodation, sports, ...) (6) Reliability Students, staff, employers
(2) Competence Sufficient (academic) staff
Theoretical knowledge, qualifications each characteristic in a particular dimension
Practical knowledge
and then treat them as the only customer. An
Up to date
alternative which works in both circumstances
Teaching expertise, communication.
is to reconcile all the relevant customers by
(3) Attitude Understanding students’ needs
assigning weights when calculating individual
Willingness to help
or total scores.
Availability for guidance and advice
Giving personal attention
Emotion, courtesy Conclusions
(4) Content Relevance of curriculum to the future jobs of
students The conceptual framework proposed for
Effectiveness quality dimensions in higher education (Table
Containing primary knowledge/skills VI) provides a basis for the measurement and,
Completeness, use of computer consequently, improvement of quality in this
Communication skills and teamworking environment. It is based on a study of possible
Flexibility of knowledge, being cross-disciplinary interpretations of quality dimensions in non-
(5) Delivery Effective presentation educational contexts as well as reviewing
Sequencing, timeliness published quality factors proposed for higher
Consistency education. An empirical study is needed to
Fairness of examinations examine the validity of the framework; this is
Feedback from students the next stage in our research programme.
Encouraging students Taking a customer-oriented approach, as
(6) Reliability Trustworthiness supported by philosophies like TQM, high-
Giving valid award lights the need for further identification/
Keeping promises, match to the goals clarification of the role that “customers” play
Handling complaints, solving problems in higher education. A first step in satisfying
customer needs is the determination of how
comprehensive listing, the quality characteris- quality dimensions/factors are perceived by
tics can be substituted for the dimensions. each group. This information, together with
Such diverse involvement of customers in the prioritized objectives of a particular insti-
the processes causes problems when taking tution, will form the platform from which a
decisions on quality attributes. Treating the quality programme can be developed.
individual characteristics as the basis for
quality improvement, the question is which References and further reading
group of customers should be prioritized for
satisfaction. Obviously, when only one group Anderson, E. (1995), “High tech v. high touch: a case study
of TQM implementation in higher education”,
(e.g. students) is present in the process, no
Managing Service Quality, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 48-56.
problem arises since there are no contra-
Ashworth, A. and Harvey, R.C. (1994), Assessing Quality in
dictory requirements. If the characteristics are
Further and Higher Education, Jessica Kingsley,
to be combined into a total quality score, London.
another difficulty is that customer groups do Bergman, B. (1993), “Quality in academic leadership”,
not provide a homogeneous data set on the EEC-Seminar in Total Quality in Education, Denmark.
characteristics. Dotchin, J.A. and Oakland, J.S. (1994), “Total quality
A solution to the first case (individual management in services – Part 1: Understanding
items) is to define a “dominant” customer for and classifying services”, International Journal of
19
A framework for the dimensions of quality in higher education Quality Assurance in Education
Mohammad S. Owlia and Elaine M. Aspinwall Volume 4 · Number 2 · 1996 · 12–20
Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. Logothetis, N. (1993), “Towards a quality management of
9-43. education”, EEC-Seminar in Total Quality in Educa-
Ermer, D.S. (1995), “Using QFD becomes an educational tion, Denmark.
experience for students and faculty”, Quality McElwee, G. and Redman, T. (1993), “Upward appraisal in
Progress, Vol. 28 No. 5, pp. 131-6. practice”, Education and Training, Vol. 35 No. 2,
Garvin, D.A. (1987), “Competing on the eight dimensions pp. 27-31.
of quality”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 65 No. 6, Madu, C.N. and Kuei, C. (1993), “Dimensions of quality
pp. 101-9. teaching in higher education”, Total Quality
Ghobadian, A., Speller, S. and Jones, M. (1994), “Service Management, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 325-38.
quality: concepts and models”, International Journal Meshkati, N. (1991), “Industrial sector panel summary”, in
of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 11 No. 9, Petak, W.J. (Ed.), Second Annual Symposium on the
pp. 43-66. Role of Academia in National Competitiveness and
Grönroos, C. (1984), “A service quality model and its Total Quality Management, Los Angeles, CA.
marketing implementations”, European Journal of Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L. (1985), “A
Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 4, 1984, pp. 36-44. conceptual model of service quality and its implica-
Grönroos, C. (1990), Service Management and Marketing, tions for future research”, Journal of Marketing,
Lexington Books, Lexington, MA. Vol. 49, Fall, pp. 41-50.
Hartman, D.E. and Schmidt, S.L. (1995), “Understanding Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L. (1988),
student/alumni satisfaction from a consumer’s “SERVQUAL: a multiple-item scale for measuring
perspective”, Research in Higher Education, Vol. 36 consumer perceptions of service quality”, Journal of
No. 2, pp. 197-217. Retailing, Vol. 64 No. 1, pp. 12-40.
Harvey, L., Burrows, A. and Green, D. (1992), Criteria of Sasser, W.E., Olsen, R.P. and Wyckoff, D.D. (1978), Man-
Quality: Summary, The University of Central agement of Service Operations, Allyn & Bacon,
England, Birmingham. Boston, MA.
Haywood-Farmer, J. (1988), “A conceptual model of service Schvaneveldt, S.J., Enkawa, T. and Miyakawa, M. (1991),
quality”, International Journal of Operations & “Consumer evaluation perspectives of service
Production Management, Vol. 8 No. 6, pp. 19-29. quality”, Total Quality Management, Vol. 2 No. 2,
pp. 149-61.
Hill, F. (1995), “Managing service quality in higher educa-
tion: the role of the student as primary consumer”, Spanbauer, S.J. (1992), A Quality System for Education,
Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 3 No. 3, ASQC Quality Press, Milwaukee, WI.
pp. 10-21. Stewart, J. and Walsh, K. (1989), The Search for Quality,
Izquierdo, F.A. (1993), “Quality-designed curricula”, LGTB, Luton.
European Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 18 Watts, R.A. (1987), Measuring Software Quality, The
No. 4, pp. 339-44. National Computing Centre, Oxford.
Jacobson, P. (1992), “A plea for more consistent definitions Yorke, M. (1995), “Self-scrutiny of quality in higher
of quality in education and research”, Quality and education: a questionnaire”, Quality Assurance in
Communication for Improvement: Proceedings of Education, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 10-13.
the 12th European AIR Forum. Zimmerman, C.D. and Enell, J. W. (1988), “Service indus-
Lehtinen, U. and Lehtinen, J.R. (1991), “Two approaches to tries”, in Juran, J.M. and Gryna, J.M. (Eds), Juran’s
service quality dimensions”, The Service Industries Quality Control Handbook, 4th ed., McGraw-Hill,
Journal, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 287-303. New York, NY.
20