Quality has always been an issue of utmost concern for every technical education institute. There have been a lot of theoretical studies conducted that presented various methods of measuring quality of higher and technical education institutes. This paper presents a quantitative method to measure service quality of technical education institutes focusing on its academic aspects and taking into account various stakeholders such as Students, Teaching staff and the Industry. The paper presents a step-by-step process of stakeholder requirement assessment, their translation to service features, key processes and finally to key activities which are the suggestions to the management to take proper decisions and actions. Three distinct House of Qualities of Service Planning, Process Planning and Activity Planning have been presented in the paper to present a comprehensive model, which can be applied practically across the technical institutes. Uniqueness of the paper is that these three stakeholders are considered together for planning the service quality of technical institutes.
SahneySBanwetDKKarunesS.Conceptualizing total quality management in higher education. TQM Mag2004;
16: 145–159.
2.
JnaneshNAHebbarCK. Use of quality function deployment analysis in curriculum development of engineering education and models for curriculum design and delivery. In: Proceedings of the world congress on engineering and computer science, 2008; ISBN: 978-988-98671-0-2.
3.
PitmanGMotwaniJKumarA, et al.
QFD application in an educational setting: a pilot field study. Int J Qual Reliab Manag1996;
13: 99–108.
4.
ChenYTChouTY.Applying GRA and QFD to improve library service quality. J Acad Lib2011;
37: 237–245.
5.
IctenbasaBDEryilmazbH.Linking employer’s expectations with teaching methods: quality function deployment approach. Social Behav Sci2011;
28: 568–572.
6.
HwarngHBTeoC.Translating customer’s voices into operations requirements: a QFD application in higher education. Int J Qual Reliab Manag2001;
18: 195–225.
7.
DuffuaaSAl-TurkiUHawsawiF.Quality function deployment for designing a basic statistics course. Int J Qual Reliab Manag2003;
20: 13–24.
8.
ChouSM.Evaluating the service quality of undergraduate nursing education in Taiwan – using quality function deployment. Nurse Educ Today2004;
24: 310–318.
9.
AytacADenizV.Quality function deployment in education: a curriculum review. Qual Quant2005;
39: 507–514.
10.
ThakkarJDeshmukhSGShastreeA.Total quality management (TQM) in self-financed technical institutions: a quality function deployment (QFD) and force field analysis approach. Qual Assur Educ2006;
14: 54–74.
11.
GonzalezMEQuesadaGGourdinK, et al.
Designing a supply chain management academic curriculum using QFD and benchmarking. Qual Assur Educ2008;
16: 36–60.
12.
SinghVGroverSKumarA.Evaluation of quality in an educational institute: a quality function deployment approach. Educ Res Rev2008;
3: 162–168.
13.
WurjaningrumF. Design of education service quality improvement of Airlangga University by applying quality function deployment (QFD) model. In: International conference on service systems and service management, 30 June – 2 July 2008, pp.1–6.
14.
Mukaddes, AMM, Bagum N, Islam MA and Khan MMA. (2012). The application of quality fucntion deployment toimprove the teaching techniques in higher education. International Journal of Industrial and System Engineering 2012; 11: 97–109
15.
ShivkumarV.Quality in Indian higher education. Problems and prospects. Univ News2013;
51: 5–9.
16.
FengLHuangDLiW, et al.
Study on practical innovation ability cultivation of management postgraduates based on QFD. EDU2016;
5: 113–120.
17.
KelesbayevDKalykulovKYertayevY, et al.
A case study for using the quality function deployment method as a quality improvement tool in the universities. Int Rev Manag Market2016;
6: 569–576.
18.
Al-BashirA. Applying total quality management tools using QFD at higher education institutions in Gulf area (case study), AlHOSN University, Abu Dhabi, UAE, 2016.
19.
YadavMKJoshiC.Role, requirement and satisfaction of teachers in enhancing the quality of technical education. Int J Emerg Trends Eng Dev2016;
6: 104–112.
20.
EzzellJMCudneyEAPhelpsJA, et al.
One size does not fit all: utilizing quality function deployment for course design. Qual Manag J2017;
23: 37–53.
21.
MuhittinSNesrinAYigitK, et al.
Quality function deployment application for improving quality of education in business schools. J Educ Business2017;
92: 230–237.
22.
Sundararajan.Benchmarking as tool for total quality management in higher education in India. Univ News2017;
55: 1–7.
23.
ReddyES.Status and challenges of higher education in India. Univ News2017;
55: 4–9.
24.
PottyVSV.Celebrating higher education in the post-independence era. Univ News2017;
55: 3–8.
25.
SinghCU.University, knowledge-change and policy for new epistemology. Univ News2017;
55: 3–4.
26.
AbuzidHFT.Applying QFD tools for quality improvements in curriculum design and teaching strategies to meet with the customer (learner) needs. J Eng Appl Sci2017;
12: 684–690.
27.
HamzahPAAKadirEA.Quality evaluation on private higher education institutions in Pekanbaru, Indonesia (integrating Kano Model and quality function deployment). Reviste ESPACIOS2018;
39: 24–34.
28.
DumitriuD.Enhancing the quality of services and reputation level in technical engineering higher education. TEM J2018;
7: 381–390.
29.
TettehGA.Quality in higher education system: use of the quality function deployment tool. Qual Approach Educ2018;
9: 17–36.
