Introduction
A framework for the
dimensions of quality
in higher education
Mohammad S. Owlia and
Elaine M. Aspinwall
The authors
Mohammad S. Owlia and Elaine M. Aspinwall are both
at the School of Manufacturing and Mechanical
Engineering, the University of Birmingham, UK.
Abstract
In any quality improvement programme, measurement
plays a vital role as it provides information for decision
making. Finding the characteristics of quality is a prerequi-
site for the measurement process. Despite recent research
on general service’s quality dimensions, little work has
been concentrated on public services and in particular
higher education. Examines conceptual models proposed
for different environments for consistency with higher
education. Reviews quality factors found in the relevant
literature and presents a new framework for the dimen-
sions of quality in higher education.
Quality Assurance in Education
Volume 4 · Number 2 · 1996 · pp. 12–20
© MCB University Press · ISSN 0968-4883
12
Quality dimensions, according to Grönroos
(1990), can be classified into three groups:
technical quality, functional quality and
corporate image. This is similar to those
proposed by Lehtinen and Lehtinen (1991) –
i.e. physical quality, interactive quality and
corporate quality. The dimensions associated
with technical quality are those that can
objectively be measured regardless of cus-
tomers’ opinion, while those concerned with
functional quality are related to the interac-
tion between the provider and recipient of the
service and are often perceived in a subjective
manner. Sometimes, the interaction between
customers themselves becomes important;
this is true for higher education when consid-
ering the influence of students on one
another. The corporate image dimension
relates to the overall picture of an organization
perceived by the customers; it is the result of a
combination of technical and functional
quality dimensions as well as factors like the
price of the product (or service) and the
reputation of the company.
Another categorization observed by
Ghobadian et al. (1994) differentiates between
those dimensions which are associated with
the quality of the final product or outcome of
the service and those which relate to internal
processes within the organization; they are
called “outcome” and “process” dimensions
respectively. The importance of the process
dimensions from the customers’ viewpoint
depends on the extent to which they partici-
pate in the process. In the manufacturing
sector customers do not normally deal with
production processes; however, in a service
context, customers often have some participa-
tion in the process of service delivery. This
participation may vary depending on the kind
of service (Lehtinen and Lehtinen, 1991). In
the case of higher education, students and
lecturers participate a great deal in the
processes, but other groups like employers
deal mainly with the final product of the
system, i.e. graduates. For the students and
lecturers themselves, the level of participation
may vary in different processes. This seems to
support the hypothesis that dimensions of
quality in higher education vary in level of
importance for different groups of customers.
Compared to conceptual models devel-
oped for products and general services, little
published work was found related to quality
 A framework for the dimensions of quality in higher education
Mohammad S. Owlia and Elaine M. Aspinwall
dimensions in public services and, in particu-
lar, higher education. This may be because of
the fact that market research has naturally
focused on commercial cases. In the following
sections, the quality dimensions for products,
software and services will be examined for
consistency with higher education. On this
basis, a specific framework for a higher educa-
tion environment will be proposed. The
validity of the framework will be investigated
through checking with quality factors
amassed from the literature.
Products’ quality dimensions
Quality of services, in general, differs from
quality of manufactured products due to its
special characteristics including intangibility,
simultaneity and heterogeneity (Dotchin and
Oakland, 1994; Ghobadian et al., 1994;
Parasuraman et al., 1985). This is certainly
true for higher education since most quality
attributes cannot be seen, felt, or touched in
advance; production and consumption of the
service are inseparable because personal
contact (e.g. between students and lecturer)
plays an important role; and quality varies
markedly in different circumstances (from
class to class, students to students, lecturer to
lecturer, etc.). Although the quality dimen-
sions of a product may seem remote from
those of a service like higher education, they
are still appropriate in providing ideas for
generalization.
Garvin (1987) proposed the following
eight dimensions for quality that, as he stated,
can define both product and service quality,
although they appear to be more product-
oriented:
(1) Performance. Performance is concerned
with the primary operating characteristics
of a product. For example, the perfor-
mance of a television set comprises sound
and picture clarity and natural colours.
For an educational environment, perfor-
mance would be interpreted as the prima-
ry capabilities expected of graduates. An
engineer, for instance, should have suffi-
cient knowledge to analyse a variety of
engineering problems.
(2) Features. Those characteristics that sup-
plement the basic performance functions
are called features. For higher education,
features may mean offering courses like
computer programming that are not
primary, although they can facilitate the
13
Quality Assurance in Education
Volume 4 · Number 2 · 1996 · 12–20
application of core skills. As Garvin
stated, drawing a line to separate perfor-
mance characteristics from features is
often difficult.
(3) Reliability. Reliability, defined as the
probability of a product working fault-
free within a specified time period,
appears to be more relevant to goods than
services. However, in a higher education
environment, an example of this feature
could be the degree to which the knowl-
edge, information and skills learned are
correct, accurate and up to date.
(4) Conformance. Conformance refers to the
extent to which a product meets estab-
lished standards/specifications. Applying
this to a service like higher education, it
can similarly be defined as the degree to
which an institution meets educational
standards as well as its own promises to
clients.
(5) Durability. Although durability, as a
measure of a product life, looks less
meaningful in this instance, an indirect
interpretation can refer to the degree to
which knowledge learned by the students
is retained by them, i.e. depth of learning.
(6) Serviceability. Serviceability, concerned
with repairs and field services, might
seem to be synonymous with durability,
i.e. more consistent with products. How-
ever, an aspect of this dimension which is
appropriate for higher education relates
to customers’ complaints. The way in
which an institution handles complaints
from students, staff, industry, govern-
ment, etc. can be considered as another
measure of quality in the sector.
(7) Aesthetics; and
(8) Perceived quality. These two dimensions,
as Garvin stated, include those features
which are subjective to the customers’
opinions. They can be compared with the
functional and corporate categories of
dimensions discussed earlier. Aesthetics
can be distinguished from performance as
it is a matter of personal judgement.
Perceived quality refers to the reputation-
al factors influencing the customers’
image of the corporation. Considering the
importance of the subjective dimensions
in the quality of service (Grönroos,
1984), it is not surprising that they make
up the main body of service dimensions
which will be discussed later.
 A framework for the dimensions of quality in higher education
Mohammad S. Owlia and Elaine M. Aspinwall
Table I summarizes the way in which the
products’ quality dimensions can be inter-
preted in higher education.
Software quality factors
The characteristics of software, as an intangi-
ble product, are felt to be more consistent
with higher education than manufactured
products. McCall et al. proposed 11 factors
for software quality which are widely used in
software engineering (Watts, 1987); the defin-
itions of each factor, together with a proposed
interpretation for higher education, follows:
(1) Correctness. The extent to which a piece
of software complies with its specifica-
tions is referred to as correctness. This is
similar to the definition of conformance
for products and so the same meaning
can be applied to higher education. The
word conformance seems to be better for
this common dimension.
(2) Reliability. The definition of reliability
corresponds to the degree to which a
piece of software is fault-free, i.e. the
focus here is on accuracy. The accuracy
of information given in courses is there-
fore the equivalent in higher education.
(3) Efficiency. Software efficiency is defined
as “the amount of computing resources
and code required by a program to per-
form a function” and includes both
execution and storage efficiency. A direct
interpretation might be the amount of
resources required for, say, presenting a
course; the “unit cost” is a good indica-
tor for this aspect. Since this meaning is
Table I Garvin’s dimensions of quality and higher education
Dimensions Definition in higher education
1 Performance Primary knowledge/skills required for
graduates
2 Features Secondary/supplementary knowledge and
skills
3 Reliability The extent to which knowledge/skills learned
are correct, accurate and up to date
4 Conformance The degree to which an institution/programme/
course meets established standards, plans
and promises
5 Durability Depth of learning
6 Serviceability How well an institution handles customers’
complaints
7 Aesthetics
8 Perceived quality
14
Quality Assurance in Education
Volume 4 · Number 2 · 1996 · 12–20
more relevant to “productivity” than
quality, we propose an alternative defini-
tion for efficiency in higher education
which is more relevant to a customer-
oriented approach. That is the extent to
which the knowledge/skills learned are
applicable in the future career of gradu-
ates.
(4) Integrity (security). There seems to be no
direct meaning for integrity, defined as
the “extent to which access to software or
data by unauthorised persons can be
controlled”, when it comes to higher
education. Here, on the contrary, an
open and easy access to information is
favoured, although the security of per-
sonal information of students as well as
staff is an important factor. The expan-
sion of information technology and the
application of computer networks in
communications will reinforce this.
Another possible interpretation relates to
scientific ethics which is mainly of con-
cern in research activities.
(5) Usability. Usability corresponds to the
effort required for learning and using a
piece of software. The equivalent dimen-
sion in higher education can relate to the
ease of learning and the degree of com-
munication between lecturer and stu-
dents. The expertise of lecturers plays
the dominant role in this dimension.
(6) Maintainability. Software maintainability
is defined as the effort required for error
detection and correction. Considering
the similarity between this and the ser-
viceability dimension of products, the
same interpretation regarding the han-
dling of customers’ complaints can be
made for higher education.
(7) Testability. The effort required to test the
structure and correctness of a program is
termed testability. The concept can be
generalized for a course of study address-
ing the extent to which the knowledge
learned is examinable. Since the quality
of learning and teaching is often judged
by the results of examinations, testability
becomes important in quality measure-
ment. How well examinations represent
the taught subjects can be another crite-
rion for teaching quality.
(8) Expandability;
(9) Portability;
(10) Reusability;
 A framework for the dimensions of quality in higher education
Mohammad S. Owlia and Elaine M. Aspinwall
(11) Interoperability. All these dimensions are
common in reflecting the degree of
software flexibility. Expandability is
concerned with the effort required for
modifications of a program; portability
relates to how easy a piece of software
can be transferred from one environment
to another; reusability corresponds to the
extent to which a program can be used in
other applications; and interoperability
relates to the effort required to couple
one program with another. The “flexibil-
ity” or “generality” of higher education
can be defined as the degree to which
knowledge/skills are applicable to those
areas other than the main discipline. As
the investigation of TQM’s role in higher
education revealed, professionalism in
academic environments is one factor that
can hinder interdisciplinary teamworking
(Bergman, 1993). Regardless of what the
“nominal” value for the characteristic is,
the significance of the dimension should
be acknowledged when measuring
quality.
Table II summarizes the dimensions of soft-
ware quality redefined for a higher education
environment.
Service quality dimensions
Viewing higher education (or education in
general) as a service (Dotchin and Oakland,
Table II Software quality factors and higher education
Dimensions Definition in higher education
1 Correctness The extent to which a programme/course
complies with the specified requirements
2 Reliability The degree to which knowledge/skills learned
are correct, accurate and up to date
3 Efficiency The extent to which knowledge/skills learned
are applicable to the future career of graduates
4 Integrity (security) The extent to which personal information is
secure from unauthorized access
5 Usability The ease of learning and the degree of
communicativeness in the classroom
6 Maintainability How well an institution handles customers’
complaints
7 Testability How fair examinations represent a subject
of study
8 Expandability Flexibility (generality)
9 Portability The degree to which knowledge/skills learned
10 Reusability are applicable to other fields
11 Interoperability
15
Quality Assurance in Education
Volume 4 · Number 2 · 1996 · 12–20
1994; Zimmerman and Enell, 1988) can
facilitate generalizing service quality dimen-
sions for this sector. However, the specific
characteristics of any service industry necessi-
tates finding its unique dimensions in addi-
tion to the common features with other ser-
vices. More careful generalization is required
for the case of higher education regarding its
complex characteristics. McElwee and
Redman (1993) used a model of service
quality dimensions (SERVQUAL) developed
by Parasuraman et al. (1985, 1988) as a basis
for an adapted model for higher education. In
view of the framework structure of
SERVQUAL, their main emphasis was placed
on functional (interactive) aspects of quality.
Hill (1995) also investigated the implications
of service quality theory for higher education.
Briefly addressing some quality dimensions,
he focused mainly on the application of a
perception-expectation model in this context.
In another study, Anderson (1995) used
SERVQUAL to evaluate the quality of an
administrative section in a university (office of
student services). This appeared to be suc-
cessful due to the compatibility between the
environment in this case and that around
which SERVQUAL was developed.
Table III shows a comparison of different
models of service quality dimensions found in
the literature. From these, the models by
Stewart and Walsh (1989) and Haywood-
Farmer (1988) focused on public services and
professional services respectively. Common or
similar items were observed according to their
definitions by the authors. The list by
Parasuraman et al. (1985) was used as a basis
for comparison since it appeared to be more
inclusive. Although their complementary
work (Parasuraman et al., 1988) resulted in a
new grouping (SERVQUAL), the initial
dimensions were more informative for inter-
pretation.
Combining the different findings, Table IV
compares the quality dimensions proposed for
products, software and services. The presence
of common or similar factors in the three
different areas suggests that there should be a
set of generalized dimensions defining quality
of any output, regardless of its nature.
Like product and software, the degree to
which a service is fault (mistake)-free is attrib-
uted to reliability. Other factors concerned are
accuracy, keeping promises and consistency.
The keeping promises aspect of reliability is
similar to the conformance and correctness
 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 III A comparison of service quality dimensions models

Parasuraman Sasser et al., Haywood- Schvaneveldt Grönroos, Stewart and

et al., 1985 1987 Farmer, 1988 et al., 1991 1990 Walsh, 1989
Reliability Consistency Accuracy Reliability, Reliability
Trustworthiness Accuracy
Mistake-free
Responsiveness Timeliness Responsiveness Timeliness
Understanding Diagnosis Understanding
customers Advice, guidance users’ needs
Attentiveness
Access Availability Ease of use Accessibility Ease of access
Competence Knowledge Professionalism Competence
Skill and skill Knowledge
Courtesy Attitude Warmth Emotion Attitudes and Courtesy and
Neatness behaviour respect
Politeness
Communication Communication Helpfulness in
contact
Credibility Honesty Reputation and Credibility
credibility
Security Security Confidentiality Security
Tangibles Condition Physical Environment Surroundings
facilities
Completeness Completeness Effective use of
technology
Handling Recovery Redress
complaints,
Solving problems
Flexibility Flexibility Capacity for
choice
Performance

dimensions of product and software respec- dimensions – understanding/knowing the cus-

tively. Consistency, as receiving the same ser-
vice each time (Sasser et al., 1978), is compa-
rable with variability reduction in manufac-
turing which in turn defines the conformance
of the product to specifications. In higher
education, while keeping promises relates to
the whole institution, freedom from mistakes
and consistency is mainly concerned with
teaching processes. McElwee and Redman
(1993) related reliability to performing the
service (lecture) at a designated time and
keeping accurate records of students’
performance; though the former seems to be
more consistent with a dimension like timeli-
ness.
Timeliness, as quick response to customers,
is one of the quality determinants in general
services; it appears less meaningful in the
classroom. However, the willingness and
readiness of lecturers to solve students’ prob-
lems and answer their questions remains
important. This interacts with two other
16
tomer and access. Understanding students and
their needs, or “diagnosis” according to Hay-
wood-Farmer (1988), is a prerequisite for
advice and guidance. Access can be seen in
two aspects: the degree to which staff are
available to respond to students’ enquiries
and the availability, as well as ease of use, of
academic facilities and services; the latter will
be considered as “tangibles”. Although cour-
tesy and respect as expected from ordinary
services staff appear less appropriate in a
higher education environment, a positive and
warm attitude from lecturers towards stu-
dents is obviously favoured.
Competence, a vital factor in higher educa-
tion, is essentially related to the knowledge of
the academic staff. Moreover, their familiarity
with practical applications as well as their
expertise in presentation skills should be
included. In this respect, the degree of com-
munication between students and lecturers is
paramount.
 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

Table V Service quality dimensions and higher education

Dimension Definition in higher education

Reliability The degree to which education is correct, accurate and up to date
How well an institution keeps its promises
The degree of consistency in educational processes (teaching)
Responsiveness Willingness and readiness of (academic) staff to help students
Understanding
customers Understanding students and their needs
Access The extent to which staff are available for guidance and advice
Competence The theoretical and practical knowledge of staff as well as other presentation skills
Courtesy Emotive and positive attitude towards students
Communication How well lecturers and students communicate in the classroom
Credibility The degree of trustworthiness of the institution
Security Confidentiality of information
Tangibles State, sufficiency and availability of equipment and facilities
Performance Primary knowledge/skills required for students
Completeness Supplementary knowledge and skills, use of computer
Flexibility The degree to which knowledge/skills learned are applicable to other fields
Redress How well an institution handles customers’ complaints and solves problems

aspect directly, some useful elements were
found. From the “quality features” developed
by Ashworth and Harvey (1994), “quality
criteria” by Harvey et al. (1992), “quality
elements” by Spanbauer (1992), “alumni
satisfaction scales” by Hartman and Schmidt
(1995), “quality criteria” by Jacobson (1992),
“curricula design factors” by Izquierdo
(1993), “teaching dimensions” by Madu and
Kuei (1993), a quality questionnaire by Yorke
(1995), and a quality function deployment
experiment (Ermer, 1995), factors detailing
curriculum, examinations, staff capabilities
and equipment were identified. The results of
Harvey et al. were based on an empirical study
on the opinions of all the stakeholders in
higher education. Some additional factors
were found regarding students’ soft skills
(Logothetis, 1993) and the expectations of
industry from graduates (Meshkati, 1991).
Adding these new items to the previous
findings, 30 attributes called “quality charac-
teristics” were developed. Based on similari-
ties, they were grouped into six dimensions
named tangibles, competence, attitude, con-
tent, delivery and reliability (see Table VI).
Analysing empirical results will show how
valid the groupings are and whether there is
overlap across the six dimensions.
Quality dimensions and customer groups
In higher education, the definition of cus-
tomer is quite different from that in manufac-
turing or general services since groups such as
18
students, employers, academic staff, govern-
ment and families are all customers of the
education system with a diversity of require-
ments. This is further exacerbated when it
comes to the choice of quality dimensions.
Investigating the framework developed for
these (Table VI) reveals that all attributes do
not render the same degree of interest and
feeling among different groups of customers.
For example, all six dimensions are relevant to
students, but their applicability to academic
staff and employers may be more tenuous
because they do not have the same level of
contact with the corresponding processes.
Employers as the “external customers” of
higher education are more concerned with the
“product” of the system, i.e. graduates, and
so the capabilities of graduates (Dimension 4)
as well as the reliability of the institution to
deliver them (Dimension 6) are of interest.
Note that these attributes are important to
two other groups of customers, i.e. families
and society (government), implying that
employers can be regarded as representatives
for all external customers.
On the other hand, academic staff use
university facilities (Dimension 1), they inter-
act with their colleagues, benefiting from their
“competence” (Dimension 2), and they care
about the “contents” (Dimension 4) of the
courses they teach as well as the “credibility”
(Dimension 6) of their institution. Table VII
lists the quality dimensions together with the
customers to whom they relate. For a more
 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
Mohammad S. Owlia and Elaine M. Aspinwall
Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp.
9-43.
Ermer, D.S. (1995), “Using QFD becomes an educational
experience for students and faculty”, Quality
Progress, Vol. 28 No. 5, pp. 131-6.
Garvin, D.A. (1987), “Competing on the eight dimensions
of quality”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 65 No. 6,
pp. 101-9.
Ghobadian, A., Speller, S. and Jones, M. (1994), “Service
quality: concepts and models”, International Journal
of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 11 No. 9,
pp. 43-66.
Grönroos, C. (1984), “A service quality model and its
marketing implementations”, European Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 4, 1984, pp. 36-44.
Grönroos, C. (1990), Service Management and Marketing,
Lexington Books, Lexington, MA.
Hartman, D.E. and Schmidt, S.L. (1995), “Understanding
student/alumni satisfaction from a consumer’s
perspective”, Research in Higher Education, Vol. 36
No. 2, pp. 197-217.
Harvey, L., Burrows, A. and Green, D. (1992), Criteria of
Quality: Summary, The University of Central
England, Birmingham.
Haywood-Farmer, J. (1988), “A conceptual model of service
quality”, International Journal of Operations &
Production Management, Vol. 8 No. 6, pp. 19-29.
Hill, F. (1995), “Managing service quality in higher educa-
tion: the role of the student as primary consumer”,
Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 3 No. 3,
pp. 10-21.
Izquierdo, F.A. (1993), “Quality-designed curricula”,
European Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 18
No. 4, pp. 339-44.
Jacobson, P. (1992), “A plea for more consistent definitions
of quality in education and research”, Quality and
Communication for Improvement: Proceedings of
the 12th European AIR Forum.
Lehtinen, U. and Lehtinen, J.R. (1991), “Two approaches to
service quality dimensions”, The Service Industries
Journal, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 287-303.
20
Quality Assurance in Education
Volume 4 · Number 2 · 1996 · 12–20
Logothetis, N. (1993), “Towards a quality management of
education”, EEC-Seminar in Total Quality in Educa-
tion, Denmark.
McElwee, G. and Redman, T. (1993), “Upward appraisal in
practice”, Education and Training, Vol. 35 No. 2,
pp. 27-31.
Madu, C.N. and Kuei, C. (1993), “Dimensions of quality
teaching in higher education”, Total Quality
Management, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 325-38.
Meshkati, N. (1991), “Industrial sector panel summary”, in
Petak, W.J. (Ed.), Second Annual Symposium on the
Role of Academia in National Competitiveness and
Total Quality Management, Los Angeles, CA.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L. (1985), “A
conceptual model of service quality and its implica-
tions for future research”, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 49, Fall, pp. 41-50.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L. (1988),
“SERVQUAL: a multiple-item scale for measuring
consumer perceptions of service quality”, Journal of
Retailing, Vol. 64 No. 1, pp. 12-40.
Sasser, W.E., Olsen, R.P. and Wyckoff, D.D. (1978), Man-
agement of Service Operations, Allyn & Bacon,
Boston, MA.
Schvaneveldt, S.J., Enkawa, T. and Miyakawa, M. (1991),
“Consumer evaluation perspectives of service
quality”, Total Quality Management, Vol. 2 No. 2,
pp. 149-61.
Spanbauer, S.J. (1992), A Quality System for Education,
ASQC Quality Press, Milwaukee, WI.
Stewart, J. and Walsh, K. (1989), The Search for Quality,
LGTB, Luton.
Watts, R.A. (1987), Measuring Software Quality, The
National Computing Centre, Oxford.
Yorke, M. (1995), “Self-scrutiny of quality in higher
education: a questionnaire”, Quality Assurance in
Education, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 10-13.
Zimmerman, C.D. and Enell, J. W. (1988), “Service indus-
tries”, in Juran, J.M. and Gryna, J.M. (Eds), Juran’s
Quality Control Handbook, 4th ed., McGraw-Hill,
New York, NY.