Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

An Inno-Qual performance system for higher education

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Due to the overall decrease in quality of Taiwanese universities in recent years and the resulting drastic loss of competitive advantage against foreign countries, improving the Taiwanese university system has become an urgent issue requiring immediate attention. Evidence suggests focusing on total quality management (TQM) and that innovation is the key way to effectively upgrade the operation performance and is thus highly advised. Although there are a number of measurement models for TQM and innovation, early models evaluate the performance of each element separately, making evaluation inefficient and inappropriate for practice. There is a new measurement system, the network hierarchical feedback system (NHFS), which integrates the concept and characteristics of both elements; however, the major concern is that the NHFS does not take external organization-oriented improvement into account, such as service quality in higher education, especially in innovation orientation. Additionally, due to the above dilemmas faced by Taiwanese universities, attracting more students has now been a major priority. Thus, we argue that in order to successfully attract potential students, improving TQM and innovation cannot just focus on internal organization-oriented improvement, and we further extend the effectiveness and suitability of the NHFS to a novel and more utilizable performance measurement system, the solid Inno-Qual performance system (IQPS). A hybrid model based on a decision-making trial and evaluation laboratory, a fuzzy analytic network process (FANP), an importance–performance analysis along with in-depth interviews; a fuzzy analytic hierarchical process, and a technique for order preference according to similarity to an ideal solution were adopted to complete the construction. The IQPS is the first measurement system with the most effective characteristics of TQM and innovation embedded for both new and traditional universities of different types. It is intended to enhance and evaluate performance on both external and internal organization-oriented levels, generating synergy and performance improvement.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abdullah, F. (2006). Measuring service quality in higher education: HEdPERF versus SERVPERF. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 24(1), 31–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Acs, Z. J., Anselin, L., & Varga, A. (2001). Patents and innovation counts as measures of regional production of new knowledge. Research Policy, 31, 1069–1085.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Antony, J., Leung, K., Knowles, G., & Gosh, S. (2002). Critical success factors of TQM implementation in Hong Kong industries. International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, 19(5), 551–566.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Athiyaman, A. (1997). Linking student satisfaction and service quality perceptions: The case of university education. European Journal of Marketing, 31(7), 528–540.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baugher, K. H. (1991). LEARN: The student quality team process for improving teaching and learning. In D. L. Hubbard (Ed.), Continuous quality improvement: Making the transition to education. Maryville, MO: Prescott Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Besterfield, D. (2003). Quality control (7th ed.). New York: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bosworth, D., & Rogers, M. (2001). Market value, R&D and intellectual property: An empirical analysis of large Australian firms. The Economic Record, 77(239), 323–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brah, S. A., Wong, J. L., & Rao, B. M. (2000). TQM and business performance in the service sector: A Singapore study. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 20(11), 1293–1312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burkhalter, B. B. (1996). How can institutions of higher education achieve quality within the new economy? Total Quality Management, 7, 153–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caruana, A. (2002). Service loyalty: The effects of service quality and the mediating role of customer satisfaction. European Journal of Marketing, 36(7/8), 811–830.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, M. C. (2005). Creativity comes from living field. Journal of Shih-Yu, 456, 13–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, J. K., & Chen, I. S. (2008). VIKOR method for selecting universities for future development based on innovation. Journal of Global Business Issues, 2(1), 53–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, J. K., & Chen, I. S. (2009a). TQM measurement model for the biotechnology industry in Taiwan. Expert Systems with Applications, 35(5), 8789–8798.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, J. K., & Chen, I. S. (2009). A network hierarchical feedback system for Taiwanese universities based on the integration of total quality management and innovation. Applied Soft Computing. doi: 10.1016/j.asoc.2012.03.003.

  • Chen, J. K., & Chen, I. S. (2010a). A pro-performance appraisal system for the university. Expert Systems with Applications, 37(3), 2108–2116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, J. K., & Chen, I. S. (2010b). Using a novel conjunctive MCDM approach based on DEMATEL, fuzzy ANP and TOPSIS as an innovation support system for Taiwanese higher education. Expert Systems with Applications, 37(3), 1981–1990.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, S. J., & Hwang, C. L. (1992). Fuzzy multiple attribute decision making: Methods and applications. Berlin: Springer.

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Clayton, M. (1995). Encouraging the kaizen approach to quality in a university. Total Quality Management, 6, 593–601.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cronin, J., & Taylor, S. A. (1992). Measuring service quality: A reexamination and extension. Journal of Marketing, 56, 55–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daft, R. L. (2004). Organization theory & design. New York: West.

    Google Scholar 

  • Damanpour, F. (1996). Innovation effectiveness, adoption and organizational performance. In M. A. West & J. L. Farr (Eds.), Innovation and creativity at work (pp. 125–141). Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deng, W. (2007). Using a revised importance–performance analysis approach: The case of Taiwanese hot springs tourism. Tourism Management, 28(2007), 1274–1284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Department of Higher Education. (2004). Operation book. Taipei: Taiwan Assessment and Evaluation Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dinh, T. H., Barbara, I., & Tritos, L. (2006). The impact of total quality management on innovation Findings from a developing country. International Journal of Quality & Reliability, 23(9), 1092–1117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dzinkowski, R. (2000). The measurement and management of intellectual capital: An introduction. Management Accounting, 78(2), 32–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Escrig-Tena, A. B. (2004). TQM as a competitive factor: A theoretical and empirical analysis. International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, 21(6), 612–637.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fairweather, J. S. (2000). Diversification or homogenization: How markets and governments combine to shape American higher education. Higher Education Policy, 13, 79–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farina, C., & Kelly, M. (1983). Innovation policy and the social sciences. Policy Studies Review, 3(1), 21–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gabus, A., & Fontela, E. (1972). World problems, an invitation to further thought within the framework of DEMATEL. Geneva: Battelle Geneva Research Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gambardella, A., & Torrisi, S. (2000). The economic value of knowledge and inter-firm technological linkages: An investigation of science-based firms. Dynamo TSER Project (Contract no. SOE1-CT97-1078).

  • Gözaçan Borahan, N., & Ziarati, R. (2002). Developing quality criteria for application in the higher education sector in Turkey. Total Quality Management, 13(7), 913–926.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grant, D., Mergen, E., & Widrick, S. (2002). Quality management in US higher education. Total Quality Management, 13(2), 207–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griliches, Z. (1990). Patent statistics as economic indicators: A survey. Journal of Economic Literature, 28, 1661–1707.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guthrie, J., & Petty, R. (2000). Intellectual capital: Australian annual reporting practices. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 1(3), 241–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, B. H. (1999). Innovation and market value. NBER Working Paper # 6984, Cambridge, MA.

  • Hall, L. A., & Bagchi-Sen, S. (2002). A study of R&D, innovation, and business performance in the Canadian biotechnology industry. Technovation, 22, 231–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, B. H., Jaffe, A., & Trajtenberg M. (2000). Market value and patent citations: A first look. Working Paper # 00-277. Berkeley, CA: University of California at Berkeley, Department of Economics.

  • Han, S. B., Chen, S. K., & Ebrahimpour, B. (2007). The impact of ISO 9000 on TQM and business performance. Journal of Business and Economic Studies, 13(2), 1–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill, F. M. (1995). Managing service quality in higher education: The role of the student as primary consumer. Quality Assurance in Education, 3(3), 10–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ho, S. K., & Wearn, K. (1996). A TQM model for enabling student learning. Innovations in Training and Education International, 33, 178–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang, J. J., Tzeng, G. H., & Ong, C. S. (2005). Multidimensional data in multidimensional scaling using the network process. Pattern Recognition Letters, 26(6), 755–767.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Huang, J. J., Tzeng, G. H., & Ong, C. S. (2007). Marketing segmentation using support vector clustering. Expert Systems with Applications, 32(2), 313–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hwang, C. L., & Yoon, K. S. (1981). Multiple attribute decision making: Method and applications. New York: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ismail, S. (2006). Examining the effects of contextual factors on TQM and performance through the lens of organizational theories: An empirical study. Journal of Operations Management, 25(2007), 83–109.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacqueline, A. M., Coyle, S., & Paula, C. M. (2003). The role of individual differences in employee adoption of TQM orientation. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 62(2003), 320–340.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39, 31–36.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Keng, B. O., Nooh, A. B., Veeri, A., Lorraine, V., & Loke, A. K. Y. (2007). Does TQM influence employees’ job satisfaction: An empirical case analysis? International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 24(1), 62–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kenneth, M. Y., & Cynthia, E. M. (2004). Causation or covariation: An empirical re-examination of the link between TQM and financial performance. Journal of Operations Management, 22(2004), 291–311.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krause, D. E. (2004). Influence-based leadership as a determinant of the inclination to innovative and of innovate-related behavior: An empirical investigation. The Leadership Quarterly, 15, 79–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liou, J. H., Tzeng, G. H., & Chang, H. C. (2007). Airline safety measurement using a hybrid model. Journal of Air Transport Management, 13(2007), 243–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martilla, J. A., & James, J. C. (1977). Importance–performance analysis. Journal of Marketing, 41(1), 77–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matzler, K., Bailom, F., Hinterhuber, H. H., Renzl, B., & Pichler, J. (2004). The asymmetric relationship between attribute-level performance and overall customer satisfaction: A reconsideration of the importance–performance analysis. Industrial Marketing Management, 33, 271–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDougall, G. H. G., & Levesque, T. (2000). Customer satisfaction with services: Putting perceived value into the equation. Journal of Services Marketing, 14(5), 392–410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meek, V. L. (2000). Diversity and marketisation of higher education: Incompatible concepts. Higher Education Policy, 13, 23–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nusrah, S., Ramayah, T., & Norizan, M. S. (2006). TQM practices, service quality, and market orientation: Some empirical evidence from a developing country. Management Research News, 29(11), 713–728.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Sullivan, M. A. (2000a). Contents for corporate control: Corporate governance and economic performance in the United States and Germany. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Sullivan, M. A. (2000b). Contests for corporate control: Corporate governance and economic performance in the United States and Germany. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Opricovic, S., & Tzeng, G. H. (2004). Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS. European Journal of Operational Research, 156(2004), 445–455.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Ordaz, C. C., Lara, A. B. H., & Cabrera, R. V. (2005). The relationship between top management teams and innovative capacity in companies. The Journal of Management Development, 24(8), 683–704.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Owlia, M. S., & Aspinwall, E. M. (1997). TQM in higher education—A review. International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, 14(5), 527–543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ozden, B., & Birsen, K. (2006). An analytical network process-based framework for successful total quality management (TQM): An assessment of Turkish manufacturing industry readiness. International Journal of Production Economics, 105(2007), 79–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, 41–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V., & Berry, L. L. (1994). Reassessment of expectations as a comparison standard in measuring service quality: Implications for further research. Journal of Marketing, 58(1), 111–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prajogo, D. I., & Sohal, A. S. (2003). The relationship between TQM practices, quality performance, and innovation performance: An empirical examination. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 20(8), 901–918.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robbins, S. P., & Coulter, M. (2002). Management. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowley, J. (1997). Beyond service quality dimensions in higher education and towards a service contract. Quality Assurance in Education, 5(1), 7–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saaty, J. T. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process. Columbus: McGraw-Hill.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Sakthivel, P. B., Rajendran, G., & Raju, R. (2005). TQM implementation and students’ satisfaction of academic performance. The TQM Magazine, 17(6), 573–589.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sakthivel, P. B., & Raju, R. (2006). Conceptualizing total quality management in engineering education and developing a TQM educational excellence model. Total Quality Management, 17(7), 913–934.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schoenecker, T., & Swanson, L. (2002). Indicators of firm technological capability: Validity and performance implications. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 49(1), 36–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shieh, H. M., & Wu, K. Y. (2002). The relationship between total quality management and project performance in building planning phase: An empirical study of real estate industries in Taiwan. Total Quality Management, 13(1), 133–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sila, I., & Ebrahimpour, M. (2002). An investigation of the total quality management survey based research published between 1989–2000: A literature review. International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, 19(7), 902–970.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spanbauer, S. J. (1989). Measuring and costing quality in education. Appleton, WI: Fox Valley Technical College Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Srikanthan, G., & Dalrymple, J. (2002). Developing a holistic model for quality in higher education. Quality in Higher Education, 8(3), 215–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stanley, L. L., & Wisner, J. D. (2002). The determinants of service quality: Issues for purchasing. European Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management, 8(2002), 97–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Subramaniam, M., & Youndt, M. A. (2005). The influence of intellectual capital on the types of innovative capabilities. Academy of Management Journal, 48(3), 450–463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sureshchandar, G. S., Rajendran, C., & Anantharaman, R. N. (2002). The relationship between management’s perception of total quality service and customer perceptions of service quality. Total Quality Management, 13(1), 69–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tan, K. C., & Kek, S. W. (2004). Service quality in higher education using an enhanced SERVQUAL approach. Quality of Higher Education, 10(1), 17–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teas, R. K. (1994). Expectations as a comparison standard in measuring service quality: An assessment of a reassessment. Journal of Marketing, 58(1), 132–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teng, J. Y., & Tzeng, G. H. (1993). Transportation investment project selection with fuzzy multi-objective. Transportation Planning and Technology, 17, 91–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toivanen, O., Stoneman, P., & Bosworth, D. (2002). Innovation and the market value of UK. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 64(39), 39–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tushman, T., & Nadler, D. (1986). Organizing for innovation. California Management Review, 28(3), 74–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tzeng, G. H., Chiang, C. H., & Li, C. W. (2007). Evaluating intertwined effects in e-learning programs: A novel hybrid MCDM model based on factor analysis and DEMATEL. Expert Systems with Applications, 32, 1028–1044.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Buren, M. E. (2000). Making knowledge count: Knowledge management systems and the human element. Unpublished manuscript, University of Missouri, Columbia.

  • Wanger, M., & Schaltegger, S. (2004). The effect of corporate environment strategy choice and environmental performance on competitiveness and economic performance: An empirical study of EU manufacturing. European Management Journal, 22(5), 557–572.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilkins, H., Merrilees, B., & Herington, C. (2007). Towards an understanding of total service quality in hotels. Hospitality Management, 26(2007), 840–853.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolfe, R. A. (1994). Organizational innovation: Review, critique and suggested research directions. Journal of Management Studies, 3(3), 405–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yen, S. R., & Chang, M. H. (2005). A case study of innovation management at schools: Contents and programs. Journal of Mediate Education, 56(3), 28–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yu, R., & Tseng, G. H. (2006). A soft computing method for multi-criteria decision making with dependence and feedback. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 180(2006), 63–75.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to express appreciation to those who enquired anonymous for their kind assistance on partial questionnaire distribution, collection, and interviews. The authors would also like to appreciate anonymous reviewers for their valuable and constructive review comments on the initial version of this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Graduate Institute of Futures Studies, Tamkang University, 4F, No. 20, Lane 22, WenZhou St., Taipei, Taiwan

    Jui-Kuei Chen

  2. School of Business, Trinity College Dublin, College Green, Dublin 2, Ireland

    I-Shuo Chen

Authors
  1. Jui-Kuei Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. I-Shuo Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jui-Kuei Chen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Chen, JK., Chen, IS. An Inno-Qual performance system for higher education. Scientometrics 93, 1119–1149 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0759-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0759-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation