The management of quality function deployment in a MEder's programme

Abstract

At attainment of independence in 1980 the Zimbabwe Government adopted an egalitarian approach to the provision of education. Primary education was made compulsory and by 2008, the number of primary schools had increased by 136.98% and enrolments by 1980.38%. At the secondary school level the number of schools increased by 1132.77% with enrolment galloping to a figure of 1155.74%. At pre-university level student enrolments shot to 1125.86%. The ripple effect propagated right into higher education, putting constraints on quality of academic staff, quality and supply of resources, and the content and processes of management, leadership and instruction. A gradual reduction in State funding and its total withdrawal for postgraduate level forced universities to device own self-funding strategies. To meet the multiplicity of demands from multiple stakeholders the Chinhoyi University of Technology Graduate Business School (CUTGBS) adopted a QFD approach. The purpose of the case study was to assess and evaluate the response of a university business school (CUTGBS) to a QFD-based model for assuring quality in a structured master s degree programme. A multi-method approach that included in-depth interviews, focus groups, documents analyses and observations was used to assess and evaluate the response of staff in the CUTGBS to the model and to the manner in which the model was rolled out. Interviews involved academics, non-academic staff, students, alumni and senior managers within the CUTGBS. Interviews were also held with staff in the Ministry of Higher Education and Training, industry, and the Zimbabwe Council on Higher Education (ZimCHE), the national quality assurance agency. The purpose of the study was to contribute to our understanding of how staff in the educational services sector respond to Business-based quality models by assessing and evaluating the adoption of QFD in a university Business School. A better understanding of quality management in terms of the tools and stages of the QFD model should create a new dimension of quality management in higher education against the domains of context, inputs, processes and market-orientation. The CUTGBS took a structured and deliberative approach in the adoption of QFD. A coreteam of permanently employed academics and non-pedagogic staff constituted the core QFD team which had the key strategic role for the CUTGBS. There were evidences of team-workquality on the parameters proclaimed by Hoegl and Gemeunden (2001). The CUTGBS staff participated in running Voice of Customer based on a Six Sigma paradigm. There was marginal use of Affinity Diagram, Tree Diagram and Kano s model in the treatment of Voice of Customer, a situation that has the danger of skewing decisions in favour of the domineering members of the team. However in situations of ideal speech situation (Harbermas, 1995) and deliberative democracy (Gutmann and Thompson, 2004) it has the advantage of deep-going aspect-by-aspect deliberations. Much of the normative and regulative requirements of the quality assurer were treated as voice of market and thus escalated to the CUTGBS policy regime. Student Evaluation of Teaching Effectiveness (SETE) were used for Customer Satisfaction Performance evaluations, Goal Setting, and for scoping Target Value within the QFD paradigm. In essence QFD was adopted creatively and implemented on a selective incremental approach. Being a case study, the findings of this study have an indicative rather than a conclusive value. However the validation study indicated the feasibility of using QFD as a quality assurance model within the higher education system.