Advertisement

Devising smart strategic framework for assessment of quality in engineering education

  • Vivek B. KamatEmail author
  • Jayant K. Kittur
Original Article
  • 23 Downloads

Abstract

Establishment of more engineering colleges has raised the critical issue of quality for sustaining invisible competition, amidst financial challenges and market pressure. For assessment of quality and ascertaining its continual improvement, developing a quality framework is highly opportune in the present day context. Implementation of modified quality function deployment methodology is expected to ensure that attributes of quality of engineering educational services offered are customer driven and not guided only by the perceptions of service provider. In order to facilitate that the voice of customers is effectively heard and is translated into improvement in operations for quality enhancement, the paper discusses certain methodologies to narrow down the spectrum of opinions and ratings expressed by multiple stakeholders, into meaningful inferences. Carrying out Analytic Hierarchy Process analysis for establishing priorities for the improvement and corrective actions, renders it smart strategy for quality enhancement. Modified Expero model is then proposed to be invoked to asses and evaluate effectiveness of engineering education currently prevailing. The paper envisages describing overall methodology for the assessment of quality, using hybrid model which is expected to synergize the assessment exercise and neutralise influence of limitations of constituent methodologies and models.

Keywords

Quality function deployment Analytic hierarchy process Expero model Engineering education 

Notes

References

  1. Anggrainingsih R, Umam MZ, Setiadi H (2018) Determining e-learning success factor in higher education based on user perspective using fuzzy AHP. In: MATEC web of conferences, vol 154. EDP Sciences, p 03011Google Scholar
  2. Antuchevičiene J, Turskis Z, Zavadskas EK (2006) Modelling renewal of construction objects applying methods of the game theory. Technol Econ Dev Econ 12(4):263–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Apornak A (2017) Customer satisfaction measurement using SERVQUAL model, integration Kano and QFD approach in an educational institution. Int J Prod Qual Manag 21(1):129–141Google Scholar
  4. Benjamin CO, Pattanapanchai S (1993) A qfd framework for developing engineering laboratories. Int J Eng Educ 9:422–422Google Scholar
  5. Bergman B, Klefsjö B (2010) Quality from customer needs to customer satisfaction. Studentlitteratur AB, LundGoogle Scholar
  6. Brauers WKM et al (2008) Multi-objective contractor’s ranking by applying the moora method. J Bus Econ Manag 4:245–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brauers WK, Zavadskas EK (2006) The moora method and its application to privatization in a transition economy. Control Cybern 35:445–469MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. Brennan J, Shah T (2000) Quality assessment and institutional change: experiences from 14 countries. High Educ 40(3):331–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Burgar P (1994) Applying qfd to course design in higher education. In: Annual quality congress proceedings-american society for quality control, pp 257–257Google Scholar
  10. Cervai S, Cian L, Berlanga A, Borelli M, Kekäle T (2013) Assessing the quality of the learning outcome in vocational education: the expero model. J Workplace Learn 25(3):198–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chambers JM, Cleveland WS, Kleiner B, Tukey PA (1983) Graphical methods for data analysis. The Wadsworth & Brooks/cole statistics/probability series. Duxbury Press, CaliforniazbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. Chang IF, Ku ACH (1995) Engineering and technical education in taiwan: an observation based on tqm concept. In: ASEE annual conference proceedings, 2:2414–2419Google Scholar
  13. Chen C-L, Bullington SF (1993) Development of a strategic research plan for an academic department through the use of quality function deployment. Comput Ind Eng 25(1–4):49–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cheng YC, Tam WM (1997) Multi-models of quality in education. Qual Assur Educ 5(1):22–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Clayton M (1995) Treading the quality path: a progress report from Aston university. In: Total quality management. Springer, pp 450–453Google Scholar
  16. Desai S, Mantha S, Phalle V (2017) Comprehensive needs assessment study and deployment of qfd targeted at new wheelchair design. Iran Rehabil J 15(4):377–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dzemyda G, Šaltenis V (1994) Multiple criteria decision support system: methods, user’s interface and applications. Informatica 5(1–2):31–42MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. Erdil NO, Arani OM (2019) Quality function deployment: more than a design tool. Int J Qual Serv Sci 11(2):142–166Google Scholar
  19. Ermer DS (1995) Using qfd becomes an educational experience for students and faculty. Qual Prog 28(5):131Google Scholar
  20. Forman EH, Gass SI (2001) The analytic hierarchy process—an exposition. Oper Res 49(4):469–486CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. Hair JFJ, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE, Tatham RL (2006) Multivariate data analysis. Peason education ltd., LondonGoogle Scholar
  22. Hauser JR, Clausing D et al (1988) The house of quality. Harvard Business Review, pp 63-73Google Scholar
  23. Hillmer SC, Hillmer BH, Wilson B, Yochim J (1995) Applying quality function deployment to improve an mba education. In: Academic initiatives in total quality for higher education, pp 159–180Google Scholar
  24. Hwang C-L, Yoon K (1981) Methods for multiple attribute decision making. In: Multiple attribute decision making. Springer, pp 58–191Google Scholar
  25. Hwarng HB, Teo C (2001) Translating customers’ voices into operations requirements-a qfd application in higher education. Int J Qual Reliabil Manag 18(2):195–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jahanzaib M, Idrees M, Wasim A, Hussain S, Aziz H (2016) A framework for implementing quality function deployment (qfd) for utility services. IOSR J Bus Manag 18(4):92–99Google Scholar
  27. Jakimavičius M, Burinskienė M (2013) Multiple criteria assessment of a new tram line development scenario in vilnius city public transport system. Transport 28(4):431–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jaraiedi M, Ritz D (1994) Total quality management applied to engineering education. Qual Assur Educ 2(1):32–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kalibatas D, Turskis Z (2008) Multicriteria evaluation of inner climate by using moora method. Info Tech Control 37(1):79–83Google Scholar
  30. Kamat VB, Kittur JK (2017) Quantifying the quality of higher and technical education: salient perspectives. Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag 8(2):515–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Khanna S, Arya V (2015) Study of quality function deployment (QFD) in service industry. Int J Adv Eng Glob Technol 3(10):1233–1244Google Scholar
  32. Koç E (2015) Evaluation of the students’ expectations for an educational institution using quality function deployment method. Int J Econ Commer Manag 3(2348):0386Google Scholar
  33. Lam K, Zhao X (1998) An application of quality function deployment to improve the quality of teaching. Int J Qual Reliabil Manag 15(4):389–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Madu CN, Kuei C-H, Winokur D (1994) Total quality management in the university: a quality code of honor. Total Qual Manag 5(6):375–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Martens E, Prosser M (1998) What constitutes high quality teaching and learning and how to assure it. Qual Assur Educ 6(1):28–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Matorera D, Fraser WJ (2016) The feasibility of quality function deployment (qfd) as an assessment and quality assurance model. S Afr J Educ 36(3):1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Minds A (2010) National it/ites employability study. Gurgaon, IndiaGoogle Scholar
  38. Narang R (2012) How do management students perceive the quality of education in public institutions? Qual Assur Educ 20(4):357–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Oliver M (2000) An introduction to the evaluation of learning technology. J Educ Technol Soc 3(4):20–30Google Scholar
  40. Peldschus F, Zavadskas EK (2005) Fuzzy matrix games multi-criteria model for decision-making in engineering. Informatica 16(1):107–120MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  41. Pounder J (1999) Institutional performance in higher education: is quality a relevant concept? Qual Assur Educ 7(3):156–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Praničević DG, Peterlin J (2018) Multi-criteria decision making application in the education context. In: 2018 ENTRENOVA Conference ProceedingsGoogle Scholar
  43. Saaty TL (1994) How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process. Interfaces 24(6):19–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Saaty TL (2008) Relative measurement and its generalization in decision making why pairwise comparisons are central in mathematics for the measurement of intangible factors the analytic hierarchy/network process. RACSAM-Revista de la Real Academia de Ciencias Exactas, Fisicas y Naturales. Serie A. Matematicas 102(2):251–318CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  45. Sahney S, Banwet DK, Karunes S (2004) Customer requirement constructs: the premise for tqm in education: a comparative study of select engineering and management institutions in the indian context. Int J Prod Perform Manag 53(6):499–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Saracoglu BO (2013) Selecting industrial investment locations in master plans of countries. Eur J Ind Eng 7(4):416–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sarkar T (2007) Higher educational reforms for enhancing youth employment opportunity in India. CIPE international essay competitionGoogle Scholar
  48. Saaty TL (1988) Multi-criteria decision making: the analytical hierarchy process planning  priority  setting  resource allocation. RWS Publications, PittsburghGoogle Scholar
  49. Stensaker B (2006) Impact of quality processes paper presented at: embedding quality culture in higher education: A selection of papers from the 1st european forum for quality assurance, München 23–25 November. European Union Association, Brussels, pp 59-62Google Scholar
  50. Seow C, Moody T (1996) QFD as a tool for better curriculum design. In: Annual quality congress proceedings-american society for quality control, pp 21–28Google Scholar
  51. Shi Y (2016) Research on integrated education mode in college english teaching. In: SHS Web of Conferences, vol 25. EDP Sciences, p 01012Google Scholar
  52. Sivilevičius H, Zavadskas EK, Turskis Z (2008) Quality attributes and complex assessment methodology of the asphalt mixing plant. Balt J Road Bridge Eng 3(3):161–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Tribus M (1994) Total quality management in education: the theory and how to put it to work. In: Quality goes to school: readings on quality management in education. American Association of School Administrators, Arlington ,VA, pp 37–40Google Scholar
  54. Turskis Z (2008) Multi-attribute contractors ranking method by applying ordering of feasible alternatives of solutions in terms of preferability technique. Technol Econ Dev Econ 14(2):224–239CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  55. Wiklund H, Klefsjö B, Sandvik Wiklund P, Edvardsson B (2003) Innovation and tqm in swedish higher education institutions–possibilities and pitfalls. TQM Mag 15(2):99–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Wolniak R (2018) The use of QFD method advantages and limitation. Prod Eng Arch 18:14–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Zairi M (1995) Total quality education for superior performance. Train Qual 3(1):29–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Zavadskas EK, Antucheviciene J (2007) Multiple criteria evaluation of rural building’s regeneration alternatives. Build Environ 42(1):436–451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Zavadskas EK, Turskis Z (2010) A new additive ratio assessment (ARAS) method in multicriteria decision-making. Technol Econ Dev Econ 16(2):159–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Zavadskas EK, Kaklauskas A, Peldschus F, Turskis Z (2007) Multi-attribute assessment of road design solutions by using the copras method. Balt J Road Bridge Eng 2(4):195–203Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Society for Reliability Engineering, Quality and Operations Management (SREQOM), India and The Division of Operation and Maintenance, Lulea University of Technology, Sweden 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mechanical EngineeringGogte Institute of TechnologyBelagaviIndia

Personalised recommendations