Common frameworks in higher education service quality management typical features and shortcomings

COMMON FRAMEWORKS IN HIGHER EDUCATION SERVICE QUALITY MANAGEMENT:
TYPICAL FEATURES AND SHORTCOMINGS
Tran Thi Thu Huong
VNU University of Education
Abstract: In the current time, both stakeholder’s demand for accountability and the need for higher education
institutions (HEIs) to address quality concerns are rising daily, which resulted in the establishment of many
accrediting organizations or centers, as well as a variety of quality assessment toolkits with a variety of techniques
appropriate for national and regional settings. This study gives a brief literature review of common frameworks
in quality management, which are in practice in higher education globally. Based on these findings, the author
provides recommendations for suitable implementation practices in higher education in Vietnam as the country
transitions from a conventional university model to an increasingly independent institution. The research employs
a document-based approach with publications indexed in the Web of Science and Scopus database considered for
the review. According to research findings, the world quality assurance system for higher education confronts four
key issues requiring a paradigm shift in approach. The research is critical for the scientific foundation and practice
of guaranteeing the quality of higher education in general and accreditation in particular.
Keywords: HEISQUAL, Higher Education, Kaizen, Lean, Quality management, Service quality, SERVQUAL, TQM.

1.

INTRODUCTION

With significant impacts on organizational performance, cost reduction, customer happiness, customer loyalty, and
profitability, “quality” has become a primary concern for practitioners and researchers alike. Nonetheless, it is not easy
to describe (Dicker et al., 2019). Quality has defied traditional definitions since it is contextual, particularly in the service
sector, and perhaps subjectively based on various elements such as industry, segment, consumer demand, organizational
culture, and time (Van Kemenade et al., 2008). On the other hand, Deming, Crosby, and Juran established the framework
for developing relevant criteria for establishing quality as a management science. Crosby asserts that quality perfection
involves “conformance to requirements” and that quality must be defined as a quantitative criterion based on measurable
objectives rather than experience or personal preferences (Crosby, 1979). According to Juran (1986), quality excellence
is a concept of managerial breakthrough that may be attained through the quality triad. According to Deming, businesses
cannot achieve quality perfection until their leadership is taught about the value of quality - its responsibilities, principles,

and processes (Krishnaiah & Rao, 1988). Researchers have been working relentlessly to better understand quality
perspectives across the service industry, and the higher education sector is no different. Most higher education academics
and policymakers refer to excellence as “fitness for purpose” (Vroeijenstijn, 1990).
Additionally, the literature study reveals that the higher education system in Vietnam and many other countries
face serious quality difficulties (Jiang, 2015). To begin, many higher education institutions fail to identify students as
consumers, and their primary need is to be served. According to Woodall et al. (2014), students show more tendency
to behave like customers. In the industry, the emphasis on quality is mainly on the consumer; however, there is
discussion over who the client is in higher education. Second, the absence of a standardized method for evaluating
the performance of higher education institutions is a significant quality concern. Because educational processes and
outcomes are intangible, considering them is considerably different from assessing the output of a manufacturing
process with physical characteristics and well-established measuring tools (Does et al., 2002). According to Roffe
(1998), although performance indicators are few and straightforward in the education business, they are various and
complicated in higher education, making them more challenging to quantify. Thirdly, teaching and learning are distinct
from other services and cannot be divided into two components: teaching and learning.


COMMON FRAMEWORKS IN HIGHER EDUCATION SERVICE QUALITY MANAGEMENT: TYPICAL FEATURES AND SHORTCOMINGS 

57

In contrast to items or services, education cannot be purchased simply by paying money. Higher education
institutions bear a more outstanding obligation than other sectors to educate students for life, not only for employment.
The commitment of colleges and universities to deliver advanced education has evolved into a more strategic concern.
Finally, the fast expansion of Vietnam’s community college system brought higher education facilities within the
Geographic reach of the majority of the country’s people, but only after colossal expenditure. There is a need to protect
this investment through superior quality.
The study aims to review the concepts, principles and shortcomings of the most frequently utilized quality
management frameworks for higher education, from the first conceptions of total quality management (TQM) to the
most recent evolution of higher education institution service quality (HEISQUAL). The review considers publications
that are indexed in the Scopus database. The goal of the search in the chosen articles was to find out what worked and

what did not in various quality management approaches in higher education.
Each part below begins with an overview of the quality definitions, followed by its elements. Each section is
followed by the shortcomings of TQM, Kaizen, Lean, SERVQUAL, ISO 21001:2018 and HEISQUAL in integrating
service quality management into higher education.

2.

METHODOLOGY

This study was conducted as a literature review of ISI and Scopus-indexed articles in the Web of Science database,
conference proceedings, university reports, and books related to different approaches or models in quality management.
The author used these keywords in the search engine: quality constructs, quality management model or approach
plus literature review, quality assurance/management plus literature review TQM, Lean, Kaizen, Service Quality
(SERVQUAL), ISO 21001:2018 – Management system for educational organizations (EOMS) and Higher Education
Institution Service Quality (HEISQUAL). Firstly, 236 documents that matched the keywords were found. Then 105
publications that directly studied these models in the context of higher education were selected. The researched papers
were published from the 1950s to 2021.

3.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

3.1. Total Quality Management (TQM)
TQM is a philosophy of management that dates back to the 1950s and got prominence in the 1980s. Houston
(1988) produced a list of the management philosophy’s fundamental ideas. As a result, its essential characteristics
include: quality is determined by consumers; senior management is accountable for quality improvement; quality
improves as processes improve; and quality improvement is an ongoing activity (Houston, 1988). TQM is defined by
the Chartered Quality Institute as a management strategy that is quality-driven, employee-driven, and oriented on longterm success (ISO 8402:1994). Customer satisfaction enables this achievement, which benefits both employees and
society as a whole. TQM is an organizational culture characterized by greater customer satisfaction achieved through
continuous improvement (CIs), in which all employees actively engage from an organizational perspective (Dahlgaard

et al., 1998).
As described by the British Standard Institution, TQM is a “management philosophy and organizational practices
that strive to harness the organizations’ staff and material resources in the most effective way to fulfill their objectives.”
Customer focus, leadership, employee involvement, process approach, system approach to management, continuous
improvement, fact-based decision-making, and mutually beneficial supplier relationship are the eight principles of
comprehensive quality management.
The most critical assurance of a successful TQM deployment is the use of TQM principles (Salleh et al., 2018).
Additionally, to execute TQM effectively, it is critical to ensure that everyone is completely engaged and dedicated to
the process.
Shortcomings of TQM


58

PROCEEDINGS OF 2 nd HANOI FORUM ON PEDAGOGICAL AND EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES

While many corporations across the globe have embraced TQM, implementing it in nonprofit organizations, like
higher education institutions, presents several obstacles and problems. Numerous other higher education institutions have
excelled in announcing TQM plans but have not fully implemented them or reaped significant benefits (Sunder, 2016).
First, customer identification is a vital stage in the TQM implementation process. While TQM successfully
improved the HEI’s procedures, it was unclear who the customer was or how the customer‘s voice was collected.
According to Kanji et al. (1999), HEI clients include present and prospective students, workers, employers, government,
and industry.
Second, many educators are concerned that adopting TQM to academics may generate widespread resistance to
change. They notice that higher education is a humanistic undertaking in which academic autonomy and academic
freedom are respected and specialized faculties vigorously defend their turf (Satterlee, 1996). According to Tannock
J. (1991), a TQM program in the education sector cannot be successful unless the organization undergoes a cultural
revolution. In this respect, it is critical to develop a few key performance indicators and metrics that enable the
identification of quality concerns in institutions and cultural traits. These indicators must be set to meet crucial customer
satisfaction questions. These might include curriculum design, student satisfaction levels, instructor aptitude and skills,

student pass rates on tests, and appraisal of university infrastructure.
Finally, a shortcoming of TQM is the missed chance to measure TQM applications, the lack of a dedicated toolbox,
and the difficulty of measuring certain TQM concepts such as employee participation (Bayraktar et al., 2008). Harari
(1997) estimates that around one-fifth of TQM programs in the United States and Europe have resulted in significant or
even verifiable improvements in quality, productivity, competitiveness, or financial performance. According to Ewell
(1993), the rise in TQM activities during the 1990s was prompted by the decade’s dire economic conditions in higher
education rather than any genuine effort to improve educational offerings.

3.2. Kaizen
The Kaizen movement, or Continuous Improvement (CI), came after the TQM era. “Continuous improvement”
is derived from Kaizen – a Japanese term created and popularized by Masaaki Imai (Imai, 1986). Kaizen‘s goal is to
establish a long-term organizational culture of excellence centered on generating value for customers by continually
solving issues and eliminating waste by everyone, everywhere in the organization (inefficiencies). Quality, pricing,
and delivery (speed) must be considered when determining customer value (Imai, 1986, 1997). According to Parsons
et al. (2019), Kaizen may be interpreted as “change for the better,” which meets the demands of organizations. The
CI cycle entails creating customer needs, satisfying those demands, assessing performance, and reviewing customer
requirements for areas where improvements may be made (Chang, 2005). According to Manos (2007), continuous
improvement is a sequence of modest and steady improvements produced over time. Seven concepts underpin Kaizen:
generate customer value; (ii) remove waste; (iii) engage people; (iv) go to Gemba; (v) manage visually; (vi) process and
outcomes; and (vii) pull and flow (Coimbra, 2009).
CI research emphasized leadership skills in the education sector, particularly in higher education institutions,
acknowledging their critical role in the success of their high-quality programs. Numerous studies on higher education
providers’ quality management ideas were done during the CI movement, emphasizing micro CIs (Kregel, & Coners,
2021). According to the research, Kaizen reduced syllabus ambiguity regarding class participation and assignments,
decreased syllabus variation in format and course description, and influenced duplicate instructional materials such as
case studies or journal articles (Emiliani, 2005). Many case studies in the literature describe Kaizen’s implementation
in higher education as a good option for continual quality improvement (Yen et al., 2020). According to Arsyad et al.
(2021), discipline, good order (organization), honesty, trust, communication, peaceful living and nonviolent value,
neatness, serenity, and habit development are the significant universal and educational values Kaizen possesses in
general. Benevolence and compassion will arise from such ideals. Continuous improvement attempts in education

have mostly failed during the last century, according to Parsons et al., 2019. This situation, however, can be turned
around with a kaizen approach. In the context of Vietnamese higher education, Yen et al. (2020) said that implementing
Kaizen in Vietnamese universities is a good option for continual quality improvement at both the university and course
management levels.


COMMON FRAMEWORKS IN HIGHER EDUCATION SERVICE QUALITY MANAGEMENT: TYPICAL FEATURES AND SHORTCOMINGS 

59

Shortcomings of Kaizen movement
Although Kaizen has demonstrated many successful practices in higher education, fundamental issues have
proven to be highly resistant to CI campaigns. For instance, faculty members are often apprehensive of any change that
threatens to erode their grasp over course and degree requirements or their capacity to award marks (Sunder, 2016).
According to prior research, even an adequately implemented Kaizen system does not ensure long-term profitability
(Macleod & Baxter, 2001). Kaizen initiatives, notably in the higher education sector, have several faults. The main issue
was that students were not involved in developing the CI culture. Students must understand that they are both clients
and suppliers of the educational system. As a result, students cannot entrust their education entirely to their professors.
According to Dahlgaard et al. (1995), they share equal obligations to keep the CI pledge. Another significant issue of the
CI programs was the lack of a transparent project management methodology, which impacted the institution‘s overall
quality excellence. The Kaizen events also lacked on-the-job training, which was a big flaw. Following completion of
the required schooling, both employees and university students must begin on-the-job training. The most significant
way to learn is to apply the approaches to issues they can see and desire to solve. To implement on-the-job training, a
learning plan should be developed (Kanji & Wallace, 1994). According to the literature review on higher education,
curriculum improvement, experiential learning, sponsorship, faculty time allocation, teaching practice vs. research,
faculty status, tenure, student access, distance learning, and technology use are among the significant challenges that
universities face today as a long-term impediment to CI (Koch & Fisher, 1998).

3.3. Lean
Lean is defined as a collection of waste reduction processes in a company that does not provide value. The two

pillars of the Lean philosophy are continuous improvement and respect for people. The use of lean tool identification
methods requiring direct knowledge exchange that is readily documented helps keep lean ideas alive (Mrugalska &
Wyrwicka, 2017; Pakdil et al., 2018; Gupta & Sharma, 2018). Lean tools (also known as a lean toolbox) are recognized
as a medium used by institutions to reduce, modify, and show the change (Mrugalska & Wyrwicka, 2017; Pakdil et al.,
2018). According to Tapping et al. (2002), the three phases of Lean adoption include understanding demand, enhancing
flow, and level-loading the process. The Womack and Jones model (Tischler, 2006), the most frequently used in Lean
implementations, incorporates five Lean principles:
(1) understand the consumers’ value and desire;
(2) map value-added and non-value-added operations;
(3) flow – execute the job in such a way that it flows smoothly through the process;
(4) pull – create precisely what customers request when they require it;
(5) perfection – continuous improvement.
The use of Lean concepts in higher education has resulted in considerable gains (Sunder, 2016). Reduced lead
times, increased throughput, minimal infrastructure costs, and increased student satisfaction are just a few of the
advantages.
Furthermore, a few writers have claimed that waste in higher education institutions may be divided into four
types. People waste is a type of waste that happens when colleges fail to appropriately capitalize on employers’ and
workgroups’ knowledge, skills, and talents. Process waste is a term referring to waste that occurs when the design or
implementation of work at a university has any errors. Information waste is a type of waste that happens when the amount
of information provided is insufficient to support the university‘s activities. Asset waste occurs when a university‘s
resources (both human and material) are not used effectively. Many colleges and universities have implemented a Lean
effort to enhance process efficiency by systematically reducing waste and non-value-added operations.
Despite its superiority to other qualitative methodologies in higher education, Lean has its shortcomings.
According to the American Society for Quality, initiating a Lean project at a university might be challenging due to
the inability to employ standard methodologies provided in the literature (Salewski & Klein, 2013). The majority of
students feel that Lean is more about applying common sense than learning anything new. Because of Lean’s non-


60

PROCEEDINGS OF 2 nd HANOI FORUM ON PEDAGOGICAL AND EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES

scientific character, students are hesitant to express an interest in enrolling in university-level Lean programs. Nothing
is more complicated or hazardous than building a new order of things, according to Kotter & Schlesinger (2008).
This is true with Lean for higher education, as no study findings indicate that Lean was a success at universities
after only eight weeks of implementation. Another challenge that many colleges faced when implementing Lean for
the first time was deciding which version to utilize. This is because Lean has taken numerous forms and evolved into
a variety of practices. Another significant flaw with Lean is that it produces numerous minor improvements rather than
a single enormous breakthrough for excellence. This is incompatible with the need for substantial progress in many
instances. Lean is viewed as a toolbox rather than a concept or attitude for change. Liker & Hoseus (2009) examined
several similar initiatives by higher education institutions that failed Lean.

3.4. Service Quality (SERVQUAL)
In 1985, Parasuraman et al. identified 10 components of service quality: reliability, responsiveness, competence,
accessibility, courtesy, communication, credibility, security, customer understanding and tangibles. Later in 1988, these
10 components were reorganized into five dimensions: Reliability, Assurance, Tangibles, Empathy, and Responsiveness.
Only three of the original 10 components remain unique – Reliability, Tangible, and Responsiveness – while the remaining
seven components were consolidated into two aggregate dimensions of Assurance and Empathy. SERVQUAL was
intended to assess the quality of service across a range of service environments, including higher education.
SERVQUAL is a research model that measures consumers’ perceptions of service quality and expectations for
service. The anticipation and perception are then compared to determine if the perception is more or less than the
expectation. It examines students’ opinions of the quality of service given by higher education institutions in the
context of higher education. According to Leisyte & Westerheijden (2014), students are considered equal partners
or stakeholders who take an active role in developing the institution’s strategy. They are responsible for internal and
external assessments, quality assurance, curriculum development, and a range of other factors. In addition, ensuring
that a higher education institution meets its strategic objectives is the purpose of quality assurance.
SERVQUAL is a quality management system comprising five dimensions (tangible, reliability, responsiveness,
assurance, and empathy) and twenty components. SERVQUAL was used to assess the five quality aspects of service. The
five dimensions and their associated definitions are as (1) Tangible: Physical facilities, equipment and staff appearance;
(2) Reliability: Ability to conduct the service accurately and dependably; (3) Responsiveness: the willingness of the

staff in helping customers and providing prompt service. (4) Assurance: competence, courtesy, credibility and security;
(5) Empathy: access, communication, understanding the customers.
Shortcomings of SERVQUAL
Theoretically
First, the SERVQUAL model’s validity as a general instrument for assessing service quality across various service
sectors has been challenged. That a mere updating of the SERVQUAL items is not sufficient to measure service quality
across service contexts, including higher education;
Second, the Perception (P) minus Expectation (E) gap rarely assesses service quality. The perception score was
shown to be the primary contributor to the gap score due to a generalized response propensity to rate expectations high;
Third, SERVQUAL is process-driven, while the combination of process and outcome is a more significant
predictor of customer choice than process or outcome alone.
Fourth, SERVQUAL’s five dimensions are not ubiquitous. Items do not always load on the expected parameters.
Users should work with the original ten dimensions rather than only the amended five.
Finally, SERVQUAL is built on an expectation model rather than an attitude model; therefore, it fails to draw on
the extensive literature on the psychology of perception.
Operationally
First, the term “expectation” is polysemic because customers often use criteria other than expectations to assess
service quality.


COMMON FRAMEWORKS IN HIGHER EDUCATION SERVICE QUALITY MANAGEMENT: TYPICAL FEATURES AND SHORTCOMINGS 

61

Second, SERVQUAL 4 of 5 questions cannot capture each service quality dimension’s diversity or contextspecific meaning.
Third, a customer’s perception of the service quality may vary depending on the Moment Of Truths (MOTs).
Services are provided through many MOTs between service personnel and clients. Additionally, data indicate that
customers judge the quality of service based on these frequent interactions.
Fourth, the scale has reversed polarization results in responder inaccuracy. The SERVQUAL questionnaire
contains 22 items. Thirteen statement pairs are favorably phrased, while nine are negatively worded. The negative

section includes the entirety of the responsiveness and empathy assertions. The phrasing of items produces data quality
issues and casts doubt on the instrument’s validity.
Lastly, repeated administration of the instrument results in monotony and disorientation. Respondents appear to
be perplexed by the dual administration of the SERVQUAL Expectation and Perception versions, jeopardizing data
quality. Apart from the administration times, respondents must complete both questions in a single session, creating
tiredness and boredom.
Numerous research in the educational literature has criticized SERVQUAL for some reasons. One of the
shortcomings of SERVQUAL in the higher education context is that most of its components are too broad to apply in
academia. It must be modified and mainly related to higher education by identifying their determinants from students‘
perspectives (Abdullah, 2006). SERVQUAL’s modified version for higher education institutions demonstrates a lessened
reliance on the primary and secondary factor structures (Trivellas & Dargenidou, 2009). According to Brochado (2009),
the SERVQUAL model is inapplicable to HEIs since the services provided by HEIs are more diversified than those
offered by restaurants or banks. O’Neill & Palmer (2004) identified three psychometric drawbacks to SERVQUAL’s
use in higher education institutions: reliability, variance limitation, and discriminant validity.

3.5. ISO 21001:2018 – Management system for educational organizations (EOMS)
The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) recently published a new management system standard
ISO 21001:2018 called Management system for educational organizations (EOMS). This standard is intended to help
educational institutions work on their continuous improvement path by applying a robust, standardized management
system than the more commonly used ISO 9001:2015 quality management system. It can fix a problem in ISO
9001 that the general terminologies in ISO 9001 are straightforward for manufacturing companies but might lead to
ambiguity in educational practices. PDCA cycle is employed in ISO 21001:2018. There are 8 domains mentioned with
detailed criteria, suggested processes, measures and tools accompanied by possible actions. The eight domains are
Context of the organization, Leadership, Planning, Support, Operation, Performance Evaluation and Improvement.
The eleven principles of EOMS are also very good guidelines for educational managers and leaders to follow in the
implementation process of quality management. This set of standards shows some advantages over ISO 9001. Firstly,
being distinctively tailored for education, many terms used in ISO 21001 are very specific, most notably the adoption
of the words “learner” (including “other beneficiaries”) for “customer” and “curriculum” and “courses” and their
associated attributes such as learning outcomes, assessment, grades, etc. for “products.” Secondly, the standard also
acknowledges that the customers of education, unlike those in regular companies, are actively involved in the process,

thus demanding more intensive communication be established between the institution as the service provider and its
learners. Thirdly, the scope of ISO 21001 is broader and deeper than that of ISO 9001 as can be seen from the additional
clauses or indicators. This somewhat indicates that the management of an educational institution is more complex than
the management of most organizations. Lastly, special needs education is emphasized as it is mentioned frequently
throughout the standard.

3.6. Higher Education Institution Service Quality (HEISQUAL)
HEISQUAL was developed by Abbas (2020) to address both technical and operational aspects of service quality. It
proposes seven service quality themes: teacher profile, curriculum, facilities and infrastructure, support and management
staff, employment quality, safety and security, and students’ skill development. HEISQUAL is distinct from other
commonly used instruments. One of the distinctions between HEISQUAL and other service quality evaluation models


62

PROCEEDINGS OF 2 nd HANOI FORUM ON PEDAGOGICAL AND EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES

is that other instruments were developed with a broad viewpoint and are not industry-specific. When they are applied
to a particular sector, they must be changed, raising questions about discriminant validity, reliability, and variance
restriction. HEISQUAL was established primarily to measure the quality of services provided by higher education
institutions. Another difference between HEISQUAL and other instruments is the width of the instrument‘s elements
and dimensions.
Considering the social and technical developments over the previous two decades, HEISQUAL encompasses both
fundamental and advanced quality aspects in higher education institutions. Traditional service quality indicators in higher
education, such as instructor profile, infrastructure and facilities, and extracurricular activities, and modern indicators,
such as employment quality, safety and security, and personality development, are all included in HEISQUAL. Another
distinction is that other tools focus exclusively on operational issues and overlook technological considerations.
Operational aspects are solely concerned with creating and providing products and services and are unconcerned with
the result. Additionally, these tools assess quality and performance on a broad scale. HEISQUAL was established to
focus on students’ views of service quality in higher education institutions and includes questions about processes and

results, such as students’ skills and personality development.

4.

CONCLUSIONS

While it is evident that higher education institutions have acknowledged the need of quality excellence and
adopted several quality management systems, they have not yet realized all of the benefits due to drawbacks. Among
the most common models in service quality management, HEISQUAL has offered a clear chance for researchers to
contemplate the issue while it is still in its early stages of implementation in the HE service. Compared to manufacturing
or other services, the HEI literature reveals cases that are diverse and complicated (Gulden et al., 2020). As a result,
future studies can demonstrate how to adapt the HEISQUAL for use in higher education. The success criteria of
HEISQUAL and its shortcoming in implementation in higher education institutions are other essential topics that may
pique researchers’ attention.
Because all players in the HE business may not have the expertise of organized problem-solving or quality
excellence, a specific model for higher education is crucial and educational managers, researchers, and quality managers
should choose a suitable framework for their system.
In the specific context of Vietnam’s educational system, HEISQUAL and ISO21001:2018 (which has been
converted into TCVN 21001:2019) are strongly recommended to use among institutions because they have detailed
guidance and are market-oriented. Specially, ISO 21001:2018 has a Vietnamese version and it can be applied in any
educational organization at all levels.

REFERENCES
Abbas, J. (2020). HEISQUAL: A modern approach to measure service quality in higher education institutions. Studies in
Educational Evaluation, 67, 100933. />Abdullah, F. (2006). Measuring service quality in higher education: three instruments compared. International Journal of
Research & Method in Education, 29(1), 71-89.
Arsyad, A., Nur, N. A., Nurhikmah, N., & Azhar, S. (2021). The educational value of Kaizen quality management. Lentera
Pendidikan: Jurnal Ilmu Tarbiyah dan Keguruan, 24(1), 131-143. />Bayraktar, E., Tatoglu, E. and Zaim, S. (2008), “An instrument for measuring the critical factors of TQM in Turkish higher
education”, Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 551-574
Brochado, A. (2009). Comparing alternative instruments to measure service quality in higher education. Quality Assurance

in education.
Chang, H. H. (2005). The influence of continuous improvement and performance factors in total quality organization. Total
Quality Management & Business Excellence, 16(3), 413-437.
Coimbra, E. A. (2009). Total flow management. Achieving excellence with kaizen and lean supply chains. Zug, Switzerland:
Kaizen Institute Consulting Group Ltd
Cooper, J. (2009), “The integration of a Lean manufacturing competency-based training course into university curriculum”,
Online Journal of Workforce Education and Development, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 1-12
Crosby, P. B. (1979). Quality is free-if you understand it. Phillip Crosby Associates II, Inc. Journal.


COMMON FRAMEWORKS IN HIGHER EDUCATION SERVICE QUALITY MANAGEMENT: TYPICAL FEATURES AND SHORTCOMINGS 

63

Dahlgaard, J.J. and Ostergaard, P. (2000), “TQM and Lean thinking in higher education”, Sinergie, Rapporti di ricerca N.9,
ASQ Quality Press, Luglio
Deming, W.E. (1993), The New Economics: For Industry, Government & Education, MIT
Dicker, R., Garcia, M., Kelly, A., & Mulrooney, H. (2019). What does ‘quality’ in higher education mean? Perceptions of
staff, students and employers. Studies in Higher Education, 44(8), 1425-1441. />1445987
Emiliani, M. L. (2005). Using kaizen to improve graduate business school degree programs. Quality Assurance in Education,
Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 37-52.
Evans, J. R. (2013). Insights on the future of quality management research. Quality Management Journal, 20(1), 48-55.
Ewell, P.T. (1993), “Total quality and academic practice: the idea we’ve been waiting for?”, Change, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 49-55.
Gulden, M., Saltanat, K., Raigul, D., Dauren, T., & Assel, A. (2020). Quality management of higher education: Innovation
approach from perspectives of institutionalism. An exploratory literature review. Cogent Business & Management, 7(1),
1749217. />Harari, O. (1997), “Ten reasons why TQM doesn’t work”, Management Review, Vol. 86 No. 1, pp. 38-44.
Houston, A. (1988), “Administration and management”, in Dockstader, S.L. (Ed.), A Total Quality Management Process
Improvement Model, Navy Personnel Research and Development Center, San Diego, CA, pp. 7-8
Imai, M. (1986). Kaizen. The key to Japan’s competitive success. United States of America: McGraw-Hill
Imai, M. (1997). Gemba kaizen. A commonsense, low-cost approach to management. Singapore: McGraw-Hill Book Co.

Immelt, J.R. (2006), “Growth as a process”, Harvard Business Review, June, pp. 60-70
Jiang, K. (2015), “Undergraduate teaching evaluation in China: progress and debate”, International Higher Education, Vol.
58 No. 1. />Johnson, J.A. (2006), “Designing new housing at the University of Miami: a dmadv/dfss case study”, Quality Engineering,
Vol. 18 No. 3, p. 299.
Juran, J.M. (1986), “The quality triology: a universal approach to managing for quality”, Quality Progress, Vol. 19 No. 8, pp. 19-24
Kanji, G.K. and Wallace, W. (1994), “Learning to learn”, Proceedings of the 4th ICOTS Conference, Marrakesh, 25-30 July.
Koch, J.V. and Fisher, J.L. (1998), “Higher education and total quality management”, Total Quality Management, Vol. 9 No.
8, pp. 659-668
Kotter, J.P. and Schlesinger, L.A. (2008), “Choosing strategies for change”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 86 No. 8, pp.
130-139.
Kregel, I., & Coners, A. (2021). Kaizen and Its Role in the Higher Education Sector. In Lean for Higher Education: Research
And Practice (pp. 21-38). />Krishnaiah, P.R. and Rao, C.R. (1988), Handbook of Statistics, Vol. 7, Springer, London, pp. 1-6.
Leisyte, L., & Westerheijden, D. F. (2014). Stakeholders and quality assurance in higher education. In Drivers and barriers to
achieving quality in higher education (pp. 83-97). Brill Sense.
Liker, J.K. and Hoseus, M. (2009), “Human resource development in Toyota culture”, International Journal of Human
Resources Development and Management, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 34-50.
Macleod, A. and Baxter, L. (2001), “The contribution of business excellence models in restoring failed improvement
initiatives”, European Management Journal, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 392-403.
Maguad, B.A. and Krone, R.M. (2012), Managing for Quality in Higher Education – A Systems Perspective, Ventus
Publishing, Los Angeles, CA.
Maleyeff, J., Arnheiter, E.A. and Venkateswaran, V. (2012), “The continuing evolution of Lean Six Sigma”, The TQM
Journal, Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 542-555
Manos, A. (2007), “The benefits of kaizen and kaizen events”, Quality Progress, Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 47-48
Mrugalska, B., & Wyrwicka, M. K. (2017). Towards Lean Production in Industry 4.0. Procedia Engineering, 182, 466–473.
/>Mukondeleli, G.K., Jan, H.C. and Bernard, J.W. (2012), Proceedings of the 2012, International Conference on Industrial
Engineering and Operations Management, Istanbul, 3-6 July.
O’Neill, M. A., & Palmer, A. (2004) Importance‐performance analysis: a useful tool for directing continuous quality
improvement in higher education. Quality assurance in education.
Pakdil, F., Toktaş, P., & Leonard, K. M. (2018). Validation of qualitative aspects of the Lean Assessment Tool (LAT). Journal
of Manufacturing Technology Management, 29(7), 1094–1114. />Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1985). A conceptual model of service quality and its implications for future

research. Journal of marketing, 49(4), 41-50.
Parsons, David; MacCallum, Kathryn (2019). Agile and Lean Concepts for Teaching and Learning (Bringing Methodologies
from Industry to the Classroom). Kaizen and Education. (Chapter 4), 63–92.  />

64

PROCEEDINGS OF 2 nd HANOI FORUM ON PEDAGOGICAL AND EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES

Roffe, I.M. (1998), “Conceptual problems of continuous quality improvement and innovation in higher education”, Quality
Assurance in Education, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 74-82
Salewski, A. and Klein, V. (2013), “How to launch Lean in a university”, ASQ, available at: www.abdn.ac.uk/staffnet/
documents/how-to-launch-lean-in-a-university.pdf (accessed 20 October 2021).
Salleh, N. M. et al. (2018). Critical success factors of total quality management implementation in higher education
institution: UTM case study. In AIP conference proceedings (Vol. 2044, No. 1, p. 020007). AIP Publishing LLC. https://
doi.org/10.1063/1.5080060
Satterlee, B. (1996), “Continuous improvement and quality implications for higher education”, ERIC Number: ED399845,
available at: />Sunder M, V. (2016). Constructs of quality in higher education services. International Journal of Productivity and Performance
Management, 65(8), 1091-1111. />Tannock, J.D. (1991), “Industrial quality standards and total quality management in higher education”, European Journal of
Engineering Education, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 353-360.
Tapping, D., Shuker, T. and Luyster, T. (2002), Value Stream Management, Productivity Press, New York, NY.
Tischler, L. (2006), “Bringing Lean to the office”, Quality Progress, Vol. 39 No. 7, pp. 32-41.
Trivellas, P., & Dargenidou, D. (2009). Leadership and service quality in higher education: the case of the Technological
Educational Institute of Larissa. International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences.
Van Kemenade, E., Pupius, M., & Hardjono, T. W. (2008). More value to defining quality. Quality in Higher education, 14(2),
175-185. />Vroeijenstijn, T.I. (1990), “Autonomy and assurance of quality: two sides of one coin”, Higher Education Research and
Development, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 21-38
Welch, J. and Welch, S. (2007), Winning, HarperCollins Canada Limited, CA
Woodall, T., Hiller, A. and Resnick, S. (2014), “Making sense of higher education: students as consumers and the value of the
university experience”, Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 48-67.
Yen, P. T. M., Trang, D. N. H., & Linh, D. T. T. (2020). Literature Review on Applying Kaizen in University and Lessons for

Vietnamese Universities. American Journal of Creative Education, 3(2), 62-69. />