Quality Management Systems in Higher Education

Armand Faganel and Slavko Dolinšek

University of Primorska
Slovenia

Quality management systems in Higher Education have been de-

veloped for a number of years to improve professional standards.
Several attempts have been made to develop methods that would
be modelled on   and , but some of these models
were developed to evaluate a business process in the quality field.
Education is looking for a management concept that would direct
the collective efforts of all managers and employers toward satis-
fying customer expectations by continually improving activities.
One of the flexible and easy to implement models is related to
the European Quality Award model and is developed by the Eu-
ropean Foundation for Quality Management ().  and
other quality systems in , required by the accreditation bodies
in view of programmes accreditation are needed for the assurance
of quality and management leadership.


A quality assurance system in higher education has to incorporate sev-
eral elements to be harmonized with the  higher education system.
These are: the formation of an independent agency; internal evaluations
on the level of institutions or programmes; external evaluations from
experts’ commissions; involvement of students in internal and external
evaluations; publishing of the results of evaluations; and international
cooperation and networking of the agency.
Quality management systems () in higher education () have
been developed for a number of years to improve professional standards.
Slovenian higher education is looking for a management concept that
would direct the collective efforts of all managers and employers toward
satisfying customer expectations by continually improving activities.
Being quality minded in higher education means caring about the ex-
pectations of students and other customers as well as all involved parties,
and ensuring they are met. Students’ perceptions thus provide impor-
tant information for lecturers if learners’ needs are to be fulfilled. An
assessment of the quality of teaching programmes comes at a time when
the concern for quality in higher education is probably at an all-time


Armand Faganel and Slavko Dolinšek

high. All processes in any organization (higher education institution)

contribute directly or indirectly to quality as the customer (student) de-
fines it. This will determine whether students’ needs have been met (Ar-
caro ). Quality systems in higher education have been important
for decades. They help us improve professional standards by compar-
ing them with international educational qualifications. Several attempts
have been made to develop quality certifications in this field such as the
method   and others that derive from the manufacturing indus-
try (Dolinšek and Rupnik ).

    

 An international comparison of higher education systems is important.
Slovenia can thus be more competitive in the process of becoming part
of the European higher education area. Quality assurance of higher edu-
cation institutions, their pedagogical, research and other activities, rep-
resent the priority of strategic documents, such as the National higher
education programme in the Republic of Slovenia. Most European coun-
tries have established a quality assurance system that is coordinated by a
national agency or suitable body on the state level. In Slovenia we have
already begun to establish our quality assurance system, for the moment
as a regular self-evaluation activity inside the higher education institu-
tions and formal commissions (Kump ).
Barnett (in Kump ) restricted different comprehensions of quality
assurance in higher education on three concepts:
• Objectivistic concept of quality, which includes an instrumental mea-
surement of quality. This means that it is possible to identify and
quantify several points of higher education. A methodology is used
which is common to the whole higher education system and which
is focused on results.
• Relativistic concept of quality excludes absolute measures that could
allow us to evaluate quality. For a division of reality and a valuable
insight into the same reality, there are no absolute evidences of va-
lidity. The relativistic view can be ‘fitness for purpose’, although the
relativism of this understanding is only apparent; its real purpose is
classifying and grading. All institutions are equal, but some of them
are more equal than others. Barnett distinguishes the hierarchical
form of ‘fitness for purpose’ (relation between different higher ed-
ucation institutions – ‘different and unequal’) and the parallel form
Quality Management Systems in Higher Education

of ‘fitness for purpose’ (relation between different higher education

institutions – ‘different but equal’).
• Evolutionary concept of quality is part of the internal culture of insti-
tutions. The evolutionary view, which is marginalized in until today
discussions, represents the view of members of the academic com-
munity (employees and students). This does not mean that in self-
evaluation they do not consider external interests of employers or
professional bodies. In the self-evaluation process the institutions
often invite external bodies for help. External advisers are included
into the internal process upon the invitation of academic commu-
nity members that want to improve the quality of their own work.
This is the internal view to higher education quality, which is not 
imposed from outside.
According to the  Supplement to the law of higher education,
Slovenia has to establish an autonomous national agency for quality as-
sessment in higher education. The responsible body for its foundation
is the government that works in agreement with higher education in-
stitutions. The agency will have the role of an independent and neutral
harmonizer of different interest groups from the higher education field.
The roles of the agency are the following: it runs external evaluations,
nominates commissions for evaluations of programmes and the higher
education institution, collects and analyses self-evaluation reports, pub-
lishes reports of external evaluations, etc. A Council of  in higher ed-
ucation gives an expert opinion about the quality of programmes and
delivers the accreditation of programmes and the institution before the
establishment of a higher education institution as well as renews their
accreditation every seven years. In the higher education act supplement
from  it is already defined that until the end of  the Agency will
be established. This process has already begun.
The National commission for quality in higher education was estab-
lished in  as a predecessor of the agency. The Commission already
prepared the first criteria for quality evaluation in higher education.
Three areas that will be evaluated in a higher education institution ac-
cording to these criteria are:
. institutions,
. programmes,
. a scientific research work.
Armand Faganel and Slavko Dolinšek

The proposed fields for evaluation in higher education institutions are

the following:
• strategy, organization and quality management,
• teaching process,
• research,
• human resources,
• students,
• infrastructure,
• financing,
 • cooperation and openness of higher education institutions to the
surrounding environment and the world at large.
Some of the agency’s other assignments are: to organize few experi-
mental external evaluations in , analyse results of executed evalua-
tions, prepare suggestions for changes in the area, criteria and procedures
for an external evaluation.
To maintain and improve quality, higher education institutions have
to evaluate themselves, which is the first step in the evaluation process.
Once self-evaluation has been conducted, the institution has to analyse
the condition and search for weak areas. As regards weaknesses, some
goals are determined; once pre-determined goals are realized identified
gaps can be eliminated. That is why every institution has to plan a cor-
rective system of measures. Improvement is an internal process, which
has to be implemented on universities and higher education institutions.
The basic intention is to increase satisfaction of all stakeholders in higher
education. The process of self-evaluation and improvement is basically a
never ending process that has to be present in every life cycle of a higher
education institution. So we assure that (together with external evalu-
ations) the institution fulfils the required norms for the accreditation
(Rozman, Stajnko, and Pauko ).
The next step is external evaluation, which includes a visit of the exter-
nal evaluation commission that issues a report with recommendations.
The purpose and goals of the external quality assurance system in higher
education is the following:
• to establish a quality assurance system,
• to support a higher education institution on improvements,
• to enable minimal standards of quality.
Quality Management Systems in Higher Education

Tasks of the external evaluation commission will be: to overview the

contents of the self- evaluation report, to visit the higher education insti-
tution, which is the object of external evaluation, and to form an evalu-
ation report with recommendations. A dialogue between the evaluators
and the evaluated institution has to be present. Competent and balanced
members of the external evaluation commission will be demanded. Be-
cause of the restricted Slovenian higher education area, foreign experts
will probably take part in the evaluation commissions. A close coopera-
tion between the commission and student representatives will be obliga-
tory. The external evaluation report will be public.
In order to maintain its credibility, the national agency will have to be
involved in a wider international environment. The European dimension 
of quality assurance is evolving in the direction of mutual acknowledge-
ment of agencies for quality assurance in higher education, and mutual
recognition of accreditations, study programmes and diplomas. These
are the reasons why the agency will have to become member of the 
(European Network for Quality Assurance in Higher Education). Even
on the European level, school ministers address  to develop a set
of standards, proceedings and directions for quality assurance, and to
investigate paths for implementation of an adequate fellow survey sys-
tem for agencies or institutions, responsible for quality assurance and/or
accreditation. All this in collaboration with the  (European Univer-
sity Association), the  (European Association of Institutions in
Higher Education) and the  (The National Unions of Students in
Europe).
And finally, the quality assurance system should not serve to:
• control an efficient and effective use of resources,
• give any type of financial reward because of the achieved quality.

    

Although they may differ slightly, quality models worldwide are based on
fundamental concepts that underpin them. These values and concepts
are embedded beliefs and behaviours found in high-performing organi-
zations. They are the foundation for integrating key organizational re-
quirements within a results-oriented framework that creates a basis for
action and feedback. In the higher education sector, these fundamental
concepts like: visionary leadership, customer driven excellence, people
development and involvement, continual learning, innovation and im-
Armand Faganel and Slavko Dolinšek

provement form the basis of the vision and mission of many education
institutions.
There exist many models that were already proposed for the use in
higher education. The European Foundation for Quality Management
() Excellence Model in Higher Education Version  is one of
them and it was developed on the Sheffield Hallam University in Great
Britain.
A comprehensive overview of the  is available on www.efqm.org.
The  was introduced at the beginning of  as the framework for
assessing applications for The European Quality Award. It is the most
widely used organizational framework in Europe.
 Some of the benefits of  Excellence Model in the higher educa-
tion institution are: to understand and anticipate students’ needs and ex-
pectations; demonstrate visionary and inspirational leadership; involve
staff; develop beneficial relationships, etc.
Numerous studies demonstrate that the Excellence Model is comple-
mentary with tools like , Balanced Scorecard, Charter Mark and In-
vestors in people. Further information can be found in the publication
LLinking the  Excellence Model® to other Management Models and
Tools (Higher Education Funding Council for England b). Accord-
ing to the comparative study Good Management Practice (Higher Educa-
tion Funding Council for England a):
• the  Excellence Model includes basic elements of the Balanced
Scorecard model. Especially the Results criteria are a form of bal-
anced scorecard,
• the use of the Balanced Scorecard as an approach within the 
Excellence Model can provide a strong overview for strategic man-
agement and the development of an integrated measurement and
management framework,
• key performance indicators in the higher education sector are in a
relatively early stage of development. The reasons are partly in the
lack of understanding students’ experience. Most universities now
carry out students’ satisfaction surveys and not only employees or
wider communities perception surveys.
Different quality tools and standards can be used on their own or to-
gether. The mix will depend on the needs of the organization and its
particular strategic focus.
The most restrictive factors against the blind bureaucratic transfer of
Quality Management Systems in Higher Education

industrial quality management system models to higher education insti-

tutions are:
• the autonomy of universities, which is a condition for the ability to
change,
• the right to academic independence with performance of teaching
and research.

The Faculty of Management Koper has been implementing self-evalua-
tion for several years now. The reports include a series of quantitative
and qualitative data regarding quality assessment: regular question-
naires of students’ assessment (candidates informing, inscription policy, 
mechanisms of selection, average duration of study, fluctuation, mentor-
ing, monitoring students and help them solving problems, mobility of
students, employment of graduates), employees surveys (employment,
advancing, mobility of professors, bibliographical publications), study
schemes and programmes, research and scientific work, work on inter-
national, national and internal projects, programmes description and
goals, methods for lecturing, teaching and knowledge testing, interna-
tional cooperation, cooperation with industry and public services etc.
But self-evaluation, certification and accreditation only, can not im-
prove the quality of the higher education institution. This is only the be-
ginning of a process that has to evolve and include international partici-
pation, cooperation and networking. And finally, a communiqué warns
about the necessity to develop a set of standards, procedures and ori-
entations for quality assurance and a suitable system of peer review for
agencies or bodies, competent for quality assurance and/or accreditation
(Realising the European Higher Education Area ).
We have already established a Centre for quality and evaluation, which
purpose is the establishment of a quality management system at the Fac-
ulty of Management. The most important tasks are: to analyse and com-
pare different , suggest a suitable  for the faculty, prepare el-
ements for the faculty’s quality management handbook, monitor work
on the research area (define elements, measurement modes and ways of
reporting) and on the education area (reports of the efficiency of study,
analyses of satisfaction surveys). Our representatives contribute to the
work of the university commission for quality assessment, the National
commission for quality in higher education, the Council for higher edu-
cation and other institutions, which concern is quality assessment. And
Armand Faganel and Slavko Dolinšek

most important, we have strong commitment of our management for

any organization, that is struggling for quality improvement, and that is
closely involved in  implementation.


Arcaro, J. S. . Quality in Education: An implementation handbook. De-
lary Beach, : St Lucie Press.
Dolinšek, S., and J. Rupnik. . Kakovost in principi  v izobraže-
vanju. Kakovost, no. : –.
Realizing the European higher education area: Communiqué of the Con-
ference of Ministers responsible for Higher Education in Berlin on 
September . Http://www.bologna-berlin.de/pdf/
 Communique.pdf
Higher Education Funding Council for England. a. Good manage-
ment practice. Sheffield: Sheffield Hallam University.
Higher Education Funding Council for England. b. Linking the 
Excellence Model® to other management models and tools. Sheffield:
Sheffield Hallam University.
Kump, S., ed. . Kakovost visokega šolstva. Novosti , no. –.
Kump, S. . Zagotavljanje kakovosti v slovenskem visokem šolstvu v
kontekstu mednarodne primerljivosti. In Kakovost v visokem šolstvu:
Poročilo Nacionalne komisije za kvaliteto visokega šolstva, ed. N. T. Širca
and M. Pauko. Maribor: Nacionalna komisija za kvaliteto visokega šol-
stva.
Rozman, I., R. Stajnko, and M. Pauko. . Evropska dimenzija kakovosti
visokega šolstva v Sloveniji. In Razvoj visokega šolstva v Sloveniji,
ed. B. Stanovnik, L. Golič, and A. Kralj, –. Ljubljana: Slovenska
akademija znanosti in umetnosti.