ProceedingsoftheIETEC11Conference,KualaLumpur,Malaysia,CopyrightAuthorsnames,

2011

Quality improvement in higher education institutions

Constantin OPREAN
Lucian Blaga University of Sibiu
Sibiu, Romania
rector@ulbsibiu.ro

Claudiu Vasile KIFOR

Lucian Blaga University of Sibiu
Sibiu, Romania
claudiu.kifor@ulbsibiu.ro

Lucian Ionel CIOCA

Lucian Blaga University of Sibiu
Sibiu, Romania
lucian.cioca@ulbsibiu.ro

ABSTRACT
In many universities, quality management and accreditation is considered one and
the same, and therefore efforts are made to achieve the requirements imposed by
standards; unfortunately one of the most important aspect is ignored quality
continuous improvement. Improvement is a complex process and difficult to
implement if not supported by a structured methodology combined with quality
tools that interacts within the specific activities of the methodology. The paper
proposes an improvement methodology for higher education institutions and
describes an application of this methodology in the scientific research process.
Keywords: quality improvement, quality tools, methodology, higher education

Introduction
Quality - an essential principle and concept in the evolution of things and
phenomena has been long dealt with and thoroughly studied by specialists in
various areas. However, quality-related researches have never been
comprehensive or completed, precisely because of its complexity and the
multiplicity of approaches in order to unveil its essence. Therefore, any theoretical
approach to the concept of quality evinces contradictory opinions as well, and this
is not surprising for any thorough and objective research.
Any attempt to define quality levels entails even more controversial issues, as
these notions cannot be generally and unanimously accepted by everyone. The
Qualityimprovementinhighereducationinstitutions,ConstantinOpreanClaudiuVasile
KIFOR,LucianIonelCIOCA

ProceedingsoftheIETEC11Conference,KualaLumpur,Malaysia,CopyrightAuthorsnames,
2011

main reason of differentiated or even differing perceptions of these aspects stems

from the tremendous variety of its beneficiary, i.e. client.
The quality concept differs in regard with those expressions familiar but abstract
(Oprean & Kifor, 2008):

Quality is the ability to use (J.M. Juran);

Quality is conformity with specifications (P. Crosby);

Quality is conformity to requirements (C. Hersan);

Quality is determined by customer needs or user (P. Lyonnet);

Quality is zero defects, zero inventories, zero delays, zero accidents (P.
Crosby).

Those who adopt quality management in higher education have varying

perspectives on the approach. Some see quality management as a management
system with customer or student satisfaction as the crucial element (Ali, et al.,
2010) (Oprean, et al., 2008). Others see quality management as a philosophy
fostering change in an organization or the educational institutions. Academic
institutions have used both the approaches in applying quality management in
higher education settings (Ali, et al., 2010).
Quality management has four underlying broad objectives: planning, control
assurance and improvement (Oprean, et al., 2008); if quality assurance relates to
processes which assess whether minimum standards are in place in a higher
education institution or programme, quality improvement identifies developmental
processes, such as the strengths and weaknesses of institutions and their academic
provision.
Some major universities are starting to use principles of quality improvement in
daily operations and customer service to students; For example, "Penn State
University's Integrated Model adopts Deming's systematic view of organizations,
in which quality stems from the comprehensive interface between suppliers,
design, processes, output, and customers: By improving the competencies of
incoming students, by developing curricula more responsive to customer needs, by
improving the effectiveness and efficiency of instruction and administrative
operations, and by developing an effective feedback loop from customers to
process, Penn State University will be institutionalizing the continuous
improvement of the entire educational process." (Hoggl, et al., 1995).
Most quality systems claim to encourage improvement, but actually this has been
a secondary feature of most systems, especially when first implemented.
Compliance and accountability have been the dominant purposes and any
improvement element has been secondary. As systems move into second or third
phases, the improvement element has been given more attention. The most
effective improvement occurs when external processes mesh with internal
improvement activities. In the main, external processes tend to effect improvement
at the organisational level and may encourage better use of and investment in
Qualityimprovementinhighereducationinstitutions,ConstantinOpreanClaudiuVasile
KIFOR,LucianIonelCIOCA

ProceedingsoftheIETEC11Conference,KualaLumpur,Malaysia,CopyrightAuthorsnames,
2011

infrastructure. It is more difficult for external review to engage with the learningteaching interface. In essence, quality review should encourage continuous
improvement of the learning and teaching process, but evidence to date suggests
otherwise. The improvement function of quality monitoring procedures is to
encourage institutions to reflect upon their practices and to develop what they do.
Evaluation needs to be designed to encourage a process of continuous
improvement of the learning process and the range of outcomes. Arguably, the
assessment of value-added is at the core of any improvement-oriented, value-formoney and transformative approach to quality (Harvey, et al., 2003).

Improvement
institutions

methodology

in

Higher

Education

(HE)

Quality is never improved in general; improvement is achieved through a

succession of projects, starting with the most important problems. The deficiencies
to be addressed will be clearly specified and the estimated improvement will be
defined in measurable terms. A team is established and the necessary resources
and time are allocated in order to succeed (Kifor, 2006).
An improvement project can be defined as a problem identified in a given area and
scheduled for improvement. Once the problem is identified and defined, the
mission is established and the resources to remove it are identified as well.
Finally, the problem requires a solution. An improvement project is not complete
as long as the solution is not implemented and operating with demonstrated
efficacy.
There is an unanimous opinion in the literature that improvement is difficult if it is
not based on a methodology with clear steps, combined with tools capable of
facilitating the deployment of these stages (Kifor, 2006) (Oprean, et al., 2005).
The improvement methodology presented in this paper is based on six sigma
improvement methodology promoted by the Juran Institute for Quality (The Juran
Institute, 2002) (Kifor, 2006) but tailored to the particularities of the HE
institutions and completed with examples from the field.
The improvement process aims to reduce or eliminate losses that may occur due to
actual or potential deficiencies in various processes of HE institutions.
Improvement goals practically derive from strategic/operational objectives of the
organization. It is difficult to come up with solutions/improvement projects that
solve complex problems (such as for example the objective of improving the
university rankings); in this case it is advisable to divide the domain into sub
domains and each of them to start improvement projects.
However, the improvement projects may have as starting point a series of real
problems facing the organization:

improving the rate of exam graduates;

Qualityimprovementinhighereducationinstitutions,ConstantinOpreanClaudiuVasile
KIFOR,LucianIonelCIOCA

ProceedingsoftheIETEC11Conference,KualaLumpur,Malaysia,CopyrightAuthorsnames,
2011

reducing student drop-out during studies;

improving the perception of employers towards graduates;

attracting a greater number of candidates for admission;

increasing the international visibility by scientific publications.

improving performance in attracting grants for scientific research.

For an improvement process of to be effective, it must be conducted according to

the following phases:
Definition. In this phase, a serious performance problem, worthy of allocating
people and resources to solving it, is identified. A project is established, and a
team is formed, the responsibilities and resources for solving the problem are set.
Measurement/Analysis. The measurement phase determines, from data collection
and analysis, the baseline performance of the process that triggers the problem in
other words, what is happening at the certain moment. Once the what is identified
the next issue is to discover why is happening (which are the root causes). The
analysis phase seeks to discover the root causes of the major contributor(s) to the
problem. Theories are generated through brainstorming, and the resulted list of
theories is organized by means of cause effect diagram so the team can discover
specific theories of root causes. Finally the root causes are tested and the cause(s)
identified.
Improvement. Once the causes are clearly established, it is time to identify
solutions for improvement; such improvement will produce better results for both
the HE institution and its stakeholders (students, staff, and community). The team
will use tools to select from among a number of possible alternatives, to plan the
rollout of the improvement, including how to prevent or overcome resistance to
the challenge required by the improvement.
Control. The work of the improvement team does not end as long as a procedure/a
regulation is not established to maintain results. Control is what prevents the
problem from returning and holds the gains realised from the improvement. All
the effort invested in correcting a problem may be in vain if there are no control
elements that are implemented.
Multiplying Results. Once the improvement team gets positive results, there are
two more important activities to be performed:

to support employees with similar problems to apply what the team learned
from the improvement project;

to nominate other projects for settlement. When correcting the deficiencies,

we often discover new ones that have been hidden for years. These should be
distributed to other teams to be resolved.
Qualityimprovementinhighereducationinstitutions,ConstantinOpreanClaudiuVasile
KIFOR,LucianIonelCIOCA

ProceedingsoftheIETEC11Conference,KualaLumpur,Malaysia,CopyrightAuthorsnames,
2011

CASE STUDY: QUALITY IMPROVEMENT IN RESEARCH

ADMINISTRATION AT LBUS

Scientific research is, by all means, a central point of Lucian Blaga University
of Sibiu (LBUS) vision, through which the universitys target to become a
convergence centre, a mainstay of science, culture and humanism with national
and international recognition, and intended for all those meeting the thoroughness
and the value acceptance criteria.
As part of the university continuous improvement process, the performance
indicators are permanently monitored, weak areas identified and proposals are
formulated for implementation.
Problem definition. Such a weak area was identified when analysing the
revenues from scientific research during the last 6 years (fig. 1). For some periods
it was a very good evolution in our research funding, and the budget even doubled
from year to year; anyway in 2009 we attracted about the same budget comparing
as in 2008 and this represents a concern for us. We defined this situation as a
problem and from this point on an improvement project had to be defined and
implemented. A project team was appointed, coordinated by the director of
scientific research department. Part of the figures from this case study are real,
some are abstract.

RON (Romanian
curency)

12000000
10240890 10413889

8000000
4,618,914

4000000
2,492,434
1,272,238
731096
Year

0
2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Figure 1: Revenue from scientific research (2004 2009).

Measurement. Description of the process which generates the issue. Problems
occur because one or more activities within the organization are not performing
properly; it is necessary to address an understanding of the process, identifying
those activities and their mode of operation in time. We analyzed in this stage the
Qualityimprovementinhighereducationinstitutions,ConstantinOpreanClaudiuVasile
KIFOR,LucianIonelCIOCA

ProceedingsoftheIETEC11Conference,KualaLumpur,Malaysia,CopyrightAuthorsnames,
2011

procedures/work instructions for scientific research activity and also other

regulations that could impact the results; data at faculties/departments level was
collected and analysed in order to identify critical areas.
Analysis. Identifying and analysing causes of the problem. In order to identify the
causes, we used the cause - effect diagram; this diagram does not identify a root
cause, it simply presents the potential causes that can contribute to the observed
effect; anyway, this graphical representation allows us to focus our search to
identify the root cause and help the team understand the problem.
The resulted cause effect diagram for the defined problem Low results in
funding attraction for R & D is presented in figure 2.
Management /
System

Enviroment

Does not offer

counceling
Insuficient
personell
Financial
indicator

Doesn't
stimulate the
performance
No co-finance

Salaries

Inefficient Lobby

Higher
competition

Dispersed
structures

Decrease of
founding /
oportunities

Doesn't invest
in own
resources

Lack of researh
positions

Difficulties in
filling
application

Lack of
intranet

Lack of
communication with
the administration

Promotions
Not enough
Too many
teaching
activities

Performance is
not rewarded
Positions
Irelevant Criteria

Old
equipments

Insufficient
equipment

Unt
Ability to
write
proposals

N t

Figure 2: Cause and effect diagram.

One great advantage of the cause - effect diagram is that allows all the team
members to focus on the specific problem which has to be solved in a systematic
and structured manner. Before accepting a potential cause as being real, the team
must test it. If data is not available or incomplete, the team must collect it
regarding potential causes. In order to test the potential causes, the team must
decide which potential causes must be tested, plan data collection, collect data and
analyze the results. The team will choose afterwards to test the root causes; these
are located on the ends of the branches, or there are causes that cannot be detailed
further. These causes might be marked on the diagram for an easier observation. If
the data indicates that a cause is not relevant or has an insignificant share in
producing the effect, that cause can be removed from the analysis.
Qualityimprovementinhighereducationinstitutions,ConstantinOpreanClaudiuVasile
KIFOR,LucianIonelCIOCA

ProceedingsoftheIETEC11Conference,KualaLumpur,Malaysia,CopyrightAuthorsnames,
2011

To illustrate this process of testing the basic causes/roots, we return to the diagram
in Fig. 2 where the potential cause "too many teaching activities" could contribute
in a significant proportion to the defined problem; testing this hypothesis would
mean achieving a correlation chart to test the correlation between the indicator
number of students / occupied positions and initiative in attracting research
projects.
Table 1 presents such a situation at faculties level, where faculties who show a
higher value of the indicator number of students/occupied posts, records a low
initiative in attracting research projects, that is a negative correlation between the
two factors (Figure 3) and the cause is confirmed in this case.
Table 1: The intent on attracting research funds (research proposals).

Indicator/Faculty

F1

F2

Theintentonattractingresearch
funds

Rel. number of students 62

/ occupied position
The intent on attracting 0
research funds

F3

F4

F5

F6

F7

F8

F9

F10

F11

25

18

34

12

15

22

56

23

61

30

13

11

14
12
10
8
6
4
y=0.1058x+7.7163
R=0.1747

2
0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Rel.numberofstudents/occupied position

Figure 3: Correlation diagram.

The process can be repeated to test the relevance of other factors using correlation
diagram or other instruments of quality. For some reasons it is recommended
preparing a questionnaire to be completed afterwards by the teachers/researchers.

Qualityimprovementinhighereducationinstitutions,ConstantinOpreanClaudiuVasile
KIFOR,LucianIonelCIOCA

ProceedingsoftheIETEC11Conference,KualaLumpur,Malaysia,CopyrightAuthorsnames,
2011

The problems analysis often highlights many causes, as stated before. Some of
these causes affect a significant proportion of the problem but there are also
causes which have a small or even insignificant influence. This aspect results from
testing the potential causes identified through the cause effect diagram. It is a
waste of time and resources trying to solve all possible causes, because the result
could not justify the effort; the purpose of the improvement process is to produce
significant results with limited resources.
Pareto principle says that the sources, causes of problems can be divided into two
categories: vital causes - a small number of causes contributing to the most
important part of the problem and large number of minor causes which,
individually and collectively, contribute in a small proportion to the problem
(Kifor, 2006). For the improvement projects the vital causes will be considered
and not the minor ones. By assessing the impact of factors on a given effect,
Pareto chart highlights the most important causes of a quality problem, those that
should be thoroughly investigated.
After testing the significant root causes from figure 2 we manage to represent the
Pareto chart with the most important causes (figure 4).

Figure 4: Pareto diagram.

Improvements planning and implementation. Once the improvement team has
identified the root causes of the problem, it is ready to identify the alternatives /
improvements.
Improvement phase begins by setting the improvement method that will better
remove / reduce the causes. The improvement team must consider a lot of room
for improvement and to agree on the most effective and efficient ones.
Qualityimprovementinhighereducationinstitutions,ConstantinOpreanClaudiuVasile
KIFOR,LucianIonelCIOCA

ProceedingsoftheIETEC11Conference,KualaLumpur,Malaysia,CopyrightAuthorsnames,
2011

The first task of the team is to identify alternatives for specific causes, and in this
regard brainstorming proves to be a valuable tool in this step. A matrix model for
selecting the alternatives is presented in Table 2 for the cause: Performance is not
rewarded and using a scale from 1 to 5 to evaluate the alternatives according to
the defined criteria, we will find Alternative 1: staff evaluation criteria the best
solution for the specific cause.
Table 2: Identifying alternatives.
Selection criteria

Alternative 1
Alternative2
Alternative 3
Staff evaluation Rewarding based Promotion based
criteria
on results
on results
Costs/benefits relationship
3
1
2
Cultural resistance
2
1
1
Implementation time
Results

2
7

3
5

2
5

Once the improvement team selected an alternative for improvement, the process
of improvement is planned by following these activities:

insuring that the improvement allows the achievement of project objectives. It

is likely that the team may need to consider the objectives of the project, to
verify that the improvement will lead to desired results and that all team
members agree on this point;

determining the needed resources. The team must determine, as accurately as

possible, the resources necessary to implement the proposed improvements.
These resources include people, money, time, etc.;

establishing the procedures and other necessary changes. Before the

implementation of the solution, the team must set clear procedures for
adoption of the proposed remedy. The team must also describe what changes
are required in organizational policies, procedures, systems, work
instructions, existing relations between compartments;

assessing the requirements for human resources - the success of any

improvement depends on the people who will implement the necessary
changes. It may be necessary staff training, but these trainings will be decided
according to the necessary training resources.

Such improvement plan could be seen in table 3, for the solution found in table 2.
Culture change. By their nature, efforts to improve lead to organizational changes.
The intended effect of change is to offer something better to the internal and
external customers - a better product or service, more efficient work process, low
losses etc. The real effect, even if technologically seems attractive, has a social
consequence. Any change can be seen by those affected as a threat and until the
threat is neutralized, the change will be difficult. Objection to change of those
Qualityimprovementinhighereducationinstitutions,ConstantinOpreanClaudiuVasile
KIFOR,LucianIonelCIOCA

ProceedingsoftheIETEC11Conference,KualaLumpur,Malaysia,CopyrightAuthorsnames,
2011

affected, such as teachers, auxiliary personnel, or laboratory technicians, is

defined as "cultural resistance".
Table 3: Implementation plan.

No

Cause(s)

Performa
nce
not
rewarded

Solution

Staff
evaluatio
n criteria

Resources

2
hours/da
y for 2
months vicedean
s

Responsible

Deadline

Effectiveness
analysis

Vicedeans

30.10.20
10

In course of
realization

Cultural resistance is a natural consequence of the change, especially any sudden

change altering customs, traditions, statute or established practice. Most people
are not happy to hear that the current working style is not acceptable, especially if
the practice takes many years. Cultural resistance to such change will occur even
among those who will benefit from the change proposed and really believe in it. It
is advisable therefore to be provided an "incubation period" for improvements to
be implemented.
Table 4 presents the sources of resistance that may arise in implementing a project
and the difficulties in project implementation but also countermeasures that the
improvement team can identify.

Table 4: Necessary cultural transformation.

Resistance source

Obstructions

Countermeasures

Financial Director

High cost

Presentation of the feasibility study /

impact

Disbelief
Head of department Outdated mentality
Introduction refusal

Education
Awareness of the benefits

Control. By designing and implementing controls, the improvement team should

ensure that improvements are implemented and maintained. Control means
measuring actual performance and comparing it against the desired performance,
and action on the gaps. The control prevents the recurrence of the problems, and
maintains the achievements obtained through improvement.

Qualityimprovementinhighereducationinstitutions,ConstantinOpreanClaudiuVasile
KIFOR,LucianIonelCIOCA

ProceedingsoftheIETEC11Conference,KualaLumpur,Malaysia,CopyrightAuthorsnames,
2011

The team will own and apply quality tools in order to develop and implement new
controls. If new controls are not adopted, it is likely that improvement efforts are
lost when the problem recurs.
Results reproduction and new projects establishment. Project results are
maximized through reproduction, a process for other departments of the
organization to implement the improvements developed by the improvement team,
but appropriately modified for use in a different location, if needed. In this stage,
new projects that can be started are also identified.
These activities make sure that an effective improvement is applied to a problem,
but also is applied to similar problems, which means that the organization
continues to make improvements. If the root cause was identified and
satisfactorily remediated, the lessons learned can be applied to similar problems.
During an improvement project, it is very likely that the team might meet new
problems, which must be approached accordingly. As these are discovered, the
team must inform the management or those responsible for these problems, and
recommend new improvement projects if necessary.
This step has several justifications:

In defining the aim of the project, the improvement team is considering only
vital causes and excludes most of those identified. Sometimes some of these
"neglected" causes should be reviewed and became a base for a new project;

As the team discovers the root cause of a problem, other associated

deficiencies can also be found, but poorly documented.

CONCLUSIONS

When facing different problems, we tend to point quickly the causes of the
problem and then to come up with solutions. But have we found, indeed all the
causes of the problem? Are we willing to go to the "root" and not to appreciate
only very general causes like students, teachers, procedures, etc..? Are we then
sure that we identified the best solution, implement it and that really works?
In our opinion the answer to these questions came from answering another
question: Do we really want to improve? If Yes, we suggest to do this based on a
structured methodology supported by quality tools in specific steps. A quality
improvement methodology was presented in this paper together with a case study
on quality improvement in a higher education institution. The methodology is
quite simple, does not involve large resources and, if implemented correctly, can
bring results in short time.

Qualityimprovementinhighereducationinstitutions,ConstantinOpreanClaudiuVasile
KIFOR,LucianIonelCIOCA

ProceedingsoftheIETEC11Conference,KualaLumpur,Malaysia,CopyrightAuthorsnames,
2011

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Papers published with support from Partnership National Research Program, code
12092/2008.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Hoggl, R. V. & Hogg, M. C. (1995). Continuous Quality Improvement in Higher

Education. International Statistics Review, 35-49.
Harvey, L. & Askling, B. (2003). Quality in higher education. The Dialogue
between Higher Education Research and Practice, 69-83.
Harvey, l. (2007). Quality culture, quality assurance and impact. Brussels:
European Association for quality assurance in higher education.
Kifor C.V., Oprean, C., Georgescu, N. & Negulescu S.C. (2009). Engineering
Education: Dense Teaching for Life - Long Learning. In Oprean, C. et al (Eds.).
5th Balkan Region Conference on Engineering and Bussiness Education (pp. 659 665). Sibiu: Lucian Blaga University of Sibiu Publishing House.
Kifor, C.O. (2006). Ingineria calitatii. Imbunatatirea sase sigma. Sibiu: Lucian
Blaga University of Sibiu Publishing House.
Murad Ali & Rajesh Kumar Shastri. (2010). Implementation of Total Quality
Management in Higher Education. Asian Journal of Business Management 2(1):
9-16.
Oprean, C. & Kifor, C.V. (2008). Quality Management. Wismar: Callidus.
Oprean, C., Kifor, C.V., Negulescu, S.C. & Barbat, B. E. (2009). Innovating
engineering education to face the knowledge society. In Oprean, C. et al (Eds.).
5th Balkan region conference on engineering education (pp. 80 - 85). Sibiu:
Lucian Blaga University of Sibiu Publishing House.
Oprean, C. & Kifor, C.V. (2005). Managementul integrat al calitatii (Quality
integrated management). Sibiu: Lucian Blaga University of Sibiu Publishing
House.
Oprean, C., Kifor, C.V. & Georgescu, N. (2005). Applying six sigma approach in
problem based learning projects. In 8th UICEE Annual Conference on engineering
education (pp. 31 - 36). Kingston: UICEE.
Oprean, C., Lobont, L., Kifor, C.V. & Negulescu, S.C. (2008). How to integrate
knowledge and quality in higher education systems. In 3rd North East Asia
International Conference on Engineering and Technology Education (pp. 193 200). Taichung: Taichung University Press.
HM Inspectorate of Education (2006). Quality management in higher education.
Self evaluation for quality improvement. Livingston, UK.
Qualityimprovementinhighereducationinstitutions,ConstantinOpreanClaudiuVasile
KIFOR,LucianIonelCIOCA

ProceedingsoftheIETEC11Conference,KualaLumpur,Malaysia,CopyrightAuthorsnames,
2011

SR ISO IWA Quality management systems. Guidelines for application of ISO

9001:2000 in education, 2009.
The Juran Institute. (2002). Six sigma training kit. New York: MCGraw Hill.

Qualityimprovementinhighereducationinstitutions,ConstantinOpreanClaudiuVasile
KIFOR,LucianIonelCIOCA