Much has been said about Quality Management System (QMS) in the .... university in Malaysia, faced up to this challenge and achieved MS ISO 9001: .... management, h) management of residential colleges, and i) management of sports and.
IMPLEMENTING A QUALITY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM FOR BUILT ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMS – UNIVERSITY OF MALAYA’S EXPERIENCE H. Abd Rahman, F.A. Mohd Rahim, N. Mahyuddin Centre for Project & Facilities Management (PFM) Faculty of Built Environment, University of Malaya, 50603 Kuala Lumpur Abstracts Much has been said about Quality Management System (QMS) in the education industry. This paper looks into the successful implementation of a QMS at a university level, especially focusing on built environment program. The implementation of the QMS in the programs has helped the faculty and departments to be more creative, innovative and determined in developing, managing, and maintaining the processes and the standard of quality education. In an increasingly competitive education industry, a QMS can be regarded as a necessary system in monitoring and evaluating the performance of the programs and as a means to become competitive. This paper presents the observations of the authors on how the QMS has helped the departments for the Faculty of Built Environment at the University of Malaya focused on the quality of teaching, course content and feedback analysis using the QMS. The authors feel that QMS has contributed towards the courses being recognized by an international professional body. Through the QMS, the faculty has managed to produce quality students and this has helped maintain employability of its graduates. The authors feel that through the main focus areas of QMS namely: measurement of performance, customer satisfaction feedback and continuous improvement processes, the implementation QMS in the education sector is worthy as its name suggests. Keywords : education, iso, quality management system.
1. Introduction Globalization of markets and the fast improvements in information flow capabilities have increased competition worldwide. In order to compete in today’s turbulent competitive environment, organizations are focusing on the satisfaction of customers’ needs as a means of securing competitive advantage and even survival (Hesham, 2003). One of the major strategic changes that have occurred is that many organizations are striving to achieve customer satisfaction through an emphasis on quality products and services. The emphasis on quality is not surprising because achieving, enhancing and sustaining competitiveness is dependent on achieving superior quality products and services to consumers within an acceptable value. In other words, customer satisfaction is the key element to be focused on. It is clear that quality has emerged as a strategic competitive tool for organizational success (Yong, 2002). In today’s environment, organizations cannot afford to ignore the strategic implications of quality for its competitive position. In the light of this, organizations have pursued some type of quality philosophy and initiative, for example, total quality management (TQM) and ISO 9000. The traditional academic approach to control and maintain quality in higher educational institution appears to be less effective in the present era. The public demand for greater accountability in the utilization of pubic funds would require a more explicit assurance on quality in the delivery and management of higher education. The focus remains on quality assurance and quality enhancement. These issues have become a major cause of concern for most nations. They have been given priority as important strategies for higher education and has been re-examined during the past decades (Elaine, 1998). Innovative approaches and strategies are designed to transform the way in which universities are managed and in their delivery of educational services. There is a tendency to adopt a private sector model of performance measurement to address important quality initiatives at the university. Institutions of higher learning may adopt a generic quality management/assurance model, of course with modifications, to promote and further enhance quality initiatives in the quest for knowledge. This was noted by Srikanthan & Dalrymple (2004) who reported that “the idea of quality improvement is the cornerstone of what a university is about when it talks of advancing knowledge.” The importance of quality in the knowledge-seeking process
becomes critical in the knowledge-based economy characterized by an information-centered society. Quality assurance should be part and parcel of the structure, system and approaches related to teaching, research and administration as to enable the stated aims and objectives of the institution to be achieved. The increase in focus on quality assurance is also closely related to the increase in funds invested in higher education in Malaysia. Funding of higher education is seen as a means towards further economic growth and development. Thus, a formal evaluation of public universities would ensure that there is a minimum acceptable standard of quality education. Higher education institutions need to rethink and modify its function. Any projected reduction in public funding is normally resolved by increasing the students’ intake to generate more revenue. This may lead to a lowering of standards and quality. Such an action would increase academic workloads due to the higher ratio of teaching staff to number of students, lack of laboratory facilities and equipment, as most likely would result a decline in the quality. This was the problem during the 1980s when higher education in many countries experienced a general growth in enrolment and accessibility. Quality assurance is on the core agenda of many institutions of higher learning as a result of a globalised environment. The focus on quality assurance has been indicated by Elaine & Holm-Nielsen (1998), who expressed that “the shift to formal systems of quality assurance, evident across many countries and regions, is among the most significant trends affecting higher education over the last two decades. In Malaysia, the quality assurance issue in institution of higher education is one the main agendas of many its institutions of higher learning. This is probably the result of the demand for greater stakeholder engagement, and calls for greater transparency and accountability in the way institutions of higher education are managed. A university-wide quality management system has been established in the University of Malaya, the first and premier university in Malaysia. This paper outlines the experience of Faculty of the Built Environment, University of Malaya in its endeavor in the implementation of the Quality Management System (QMS) and MS ISO 9001:2000.
2. Quality Management System As an organization increases in size, quality control and quality assurance measures get increasingly tougher. Nevertheless, University Malaya (UM), the oldest and prestigious university in Malaysia, faced up to this challenge and achieved MS ISO 9001:2000 Certification for the whole university in all its processes in December 2002 (Kamila, 2003). Traditionally, all programs or courses offered need to go through a stringent process. But, these processes provides little ‘check and balance’ of the processes undertaken. The management of the university does not have the mechanism to ensure that there is quality in the teaching and learning process. Professional bodies and external examiners have been used widely to help in ensuring that quality educational services are provided. Although QMS is not necessary the answer in ensuring quality services are provided, but QMS does provide a benchmark, which is, measurable objective achievements and internationally accepted standards for quality (Kamila, 2003). World class universities may not need ISO certification to attest their academic excellence, but it could be a good mechanism towards excellence and gaining that competitive advantage over their counterparts. 3. Why ISO ? ISO is a series of international guidelines and standards designed to be used for the evaluation and certification of organizations that have implemented a quality system (Kamila, 2003). The ISO standards are based on the concept that certain minimum characteristics of a quality management system could be usefully standardised. This will give mutual benefit to suppliers and customers, and the focus is not only on the product quality but also the processes in achieving the quality products. It can be viewed as a management control procedure which involves documenting the processes, production and distribution to ensure that the quality of products and services meets the needs of customers. Other features which the ISO provides are the requirement for the organization to be client focused, to achieve selfdetermined quality objectives, to provide service with proper planning and subsequently to measure and monitor this provision of services (Kamila, 2003).
However, the reasons for seeking ISO certification are numerous and may vary between companies and organizations. Generally, organizations are implementing ISO standards to achieve improved quality and efficiency, improved communication and gaining a competitive advantage. Withers and Ebrahimpour (2001) concluded that the increase in perceived quality through ISO should result in new customers, an increase in market shares, reduced operating costs and also recognition by other relevant parties. Empirical research suggests that many organizations are driven to seek certification by external motivational factors such as customer pressures and market related forces, and also to improve internal organization and productivity. However, an ISO quality system in education may be costly, time consuming and there’s no guarantee that the university will immediately improve its reputation (Najmi, 2001). Some of the benefits of developing an ISO 9001 quality system for a university include (Hesham, 2003):
Provides confidence to the students, industry, government and society, as well as the
university and faculty management that the requirements for quality are continuously met.
Adequate determination of the customer requirements for quality.
Adequate documentation of program design activities and output.
Teaching, learning and research process control.
Effective marketing tools.
Advantages in national and international accreditation. 4. The Iso 9001 (2000) Model Adopted By UM
The university has established its quality management unit known as the University of Malaya Quality Assurance Management Unit (QAMU). QAMU’s scope of responsibility involves about 1,400 academic staff, 2,700 support staff, 19,900 undergraduate students 7,900 postgraduate students, 17 academic centers, and 13 residential colleges. The main objectives in adopting the ISO 9001 (2000) are to: i.
achieve a Universal quality approach,
ii.
ensure acceptable quality standards,
iii.
ensure customer satisfaction, and
iv.
assure consistency in the quality of service delivery.
The quality model adopted for the UM’s search for a quality system is the ISO 9001 (2000) as it is considered as “a series of international guidelines and standards designed to be used for the evaluation and certification of organisations that have implemented a quality system.” The model adopted by UM has the relevant characteristics identified by Johnson and Golomski (1999) such as leadership, understanding stakeholders, factual approach to decision making, involvement of people, process approach and continual improvement. True enough, after its successful implementation, the ISO 9001 (2000) has been proved to be a standard for a quality system in education and NOT just a quality standard for products. The two main categories of products produced by the university are the educational experience towards the award of a degree, and ii) products of teaching and research and development (R&D) that includes publications and patents of products.
Top Management
1 2
Middle Management
3 Supervisors and Staff
4
Quality Manual Operational Management Prosedures Work Instructions Records & other documents
FIGURE 1: Management Levels and Quality Management Documentation Eleven core processes have been identified and used in the quality management system. They are as follow: PT00 : Quality Management Unit
PT01 : Teaching and learning PT02 : Research and development PT03 : Human resource PT04 : Infrastructure and assets PT05 : Financial aspect PT06 : Commercialization PT07 : Students affairs PT08 : Library services PT09 : Residential colleges PT10 : Sports and cultural services The UM’s quality management system has thirty quality procedures that covers the following areas (Management, 2005): a) teaching and learning; management of research, b) human resource management, c) infrastructure and asset management, d) financial management, e) management of commercialization, f) management of students’ affairs, g) library management, h) management of residential colleges, and i) management of sports and cultural services. Work instructions, guidelines and quality specifications accompany the procedures. The quality audit checks whether there has been compliance with regards to the core processes and quality documents, and whether the quality objectives have been met. The audit also looks into measures taken to ensure continual improvement. Every responsibility centre within the university was instructed to prepare for the ISO 9001 (2000) certification. Numerous teamwork training programs were held, special internal auditors training courses were conducted for staff at all levels and road shows were held at all faculties and functional departments of the university. Most important was to make sure that the basic requirements of the ISO 9001 (2000) standard was met. Staff’s attendance to these functions was made compulsory to ensure that the university’s initiatives were communicated to every single staff at the university. The immediate effect was an increased level of awareness of the importance of having a quality system and the future direction of the university to be client-focused. Staffs were trained to realize the quality objectives of the university and the quality indicators in the processes that each is responsible to. The next immediate step was to update the responsibility centers’ organizational charts, which was
found to be out of date for certain responsibility centres. Each staff’s scope of work and responsibilities were being able to be reflected again and upgraded. One of the toughest activities was in standardising contents of the students’ prospectus, the program curriculum, course outlines, lecture schedules and method to be undertaken for any changes to the original lecture schedules. On the hindsight, the efforts taken proved to be worthwhile as it has made almost every academic staff on their toes to incorporate the above requirements for the intended students. After the implementation of the quality management system students at the university have enjoyed the output and services of well coordinated responsibility centres then their predecessors have. When the scene for a quality management system has been set, the next step was to make sure that the written standards were adhered to and that deviations are dealt with in an agreed format. Amongst the activities required were to ensure that any changes to the original class schedules needs to be approved by the authority and that academic advisors record their meetings with students assigned to them. All the documents are then kept by the respective departments for internal and external auditing purposes. In the past the method of evaluating academics performances was done in a haphazard manner. There were no standard format used for students to evaluate the academic staff and the course and there were cases where no evaluation was done at all. Such scenarios are now considered something of the past and the authors hope that the university’s top management would continue to maintain the university’s quality system certification at all cost to ensure basic standards are adhered to by all academicians of the university. The evaluation process includes vetting of examination questions at the departmental, faculty and by external examiners appointed by the university. The availability of documentations and records in the ISO 9001 (2000) QMS has assisted UM in providing information required by government agencies or other authorities for ranking and rating purposes. One of the latest uses of the records was during the assessment panel visit for the designation of research universities in Malaysia in May of 2006. Continuous updates of records have made the retrieval of data relatively easy. Departments and faculties have to ensure that assessment records are well maintained and include the examination and continuous assessment grades. It is also mandatory that departments keep records of answer scripts should students query on their finals grades.
Academic staffs are also required to provide the university with record of publications. Now, that the university focuses on more research activities, the characteristics of publications have also changed, more importance is now placed on the quality of publication as opposed to quantity. In terms of human resources management, the university is required under the quality system to have appropriate records of staff qualification and their competency. Records on trainings attended and future ones are also recorded for academic and support staffs at all categories. Records on the effectiveness of trainings are also maintained by the human resource department. Procurement is an essential part of any organization. The ISO 9001 (2000) system tries to ensure that procurements of equipment, products and material are made in a transparent manner. The system captures procurement and approval records and records on the evaluation of suppliers. Inventories of materials and equipment are regularly checked and updated. Education and training environment is important to any tertiary education. Poorly maintained buildings and facilities can be a cause for creating an uncomfortable environment. The university endures that all regulations under the local building bye-laws are met and constantly inspected as written in the quality system. The facilities include residential colleges, educational facilities, management complexes and other recreational facilities. Firedrills are made compulsory for every faculty. At least one drill is conducted annually to test the fire alarm system and to ensure that staff are properly trained to use fire fighting equipments. Records on periodic inspections of such equipment are maintained by the estates office of the university. Any complaint lodged against a particular responsibility centre goes directly to the Quality Management Unit of the university. The quality system requires that all complaints are dealt with in a timely manner and that records of actions taken are documented for auditing purposes. To improve a particular process, the process owner is required to list steps taken to ensure that the same non-conformance be avoided in the future. The quality system employed at the university standardizes records of meetings held at all levels of the university. A systematic filing method is used to ensure main files and forms used at the responsibility centres are well maintained for auditing purposes. 5. Faculty of Built Environment Management System
The curriculum design for the all programmes is based on 3 principles as explain as follow: Principles and guidelines in curriculum design A program must produce broad based of graduates to achieve the standard requirement of the relevant professional bodies, to fulfill the requirement of the MS ISO 9001:2000 and the Ministry of Higher Learning, Malaysia. Curriculum revision Programme planning and curriculum quality reviews are carried out every five (5) years. The Faculty of Built Environment requires the students to obtain 113 credit hours within a minimum period of three (3) years which cover six (6) semesters. Curriculum is being reviewed by the External Examiners both from local and international experts. The external examiners have been assisted the Faculty in formulating the Faculty’s teaching, learning and research strategies to correspond to the private and public demands. Course(s) assessment methods Assessment method for most courses consists of 30%-40% of coursework and 60%-70% of final examination. However there is also a continuous assessment method for certain subjects on the basis of assignments or project works. Students have to present their final product at the end of the semester in groups or in an individual basis. The overall total mark is still 100%. Course development As part of the requirements of the University Malaya’s QMS, the faculty needs to conduct course evaluation towards the end of each semester. The outcomes of the evaluation will be used to improve the course as well as quality of teaching. Students are also encouraged to express their views using MS ISO9001:2000 format on any issues or problems pertaining to the running of the Faculty/Department. This particular evaluation is based on three (3) main criterion which are;i.
Students evaluation on course conducted
ii.
Students evaluation on teaching method applied
iii.
Facilities evaluation on courses offered Figure 2 illustrates the evaluation process which involves a few levels of administrative procedures. Based on our recent findings of 2005, 94% of the students consent that the teaching courses, the teaching method as well as the facilities available on thought courses offered is at satisfactory level (as shown in Figure 3). This improvement is mainly due to the progressive inputs and revisions through the recent assessment by the External Examiners and the Course Advisory Committee in particular.
Faculty/Department Assessment forms are dispense to each lecturers by week 8 of lecture in each semester Faculty Assessment forms are printed accordingly to course requirements by week 7 of lecture in each semester Department/Lecturer Each courses and teaching methods are assessed by students and the form will be submitted to the Faculty level within week 8 to week 13 of lecture in each semester Faculty Forms are scanned and detail statistics is analysed for the Department and the Academic Section for records, within 2 weeks after the semester end
Academic Section Data is analysed and forward to the Information Technology Centre, UM (ITC) before 3 weeks after the semester end
Faculty/Department Evaluate results of the assessed course
< 3.0
Faculty/Department Meeting with the lecturer assessed and necessary action is taken for continuous improvement (before the same course is offered in the new semester)
Average means
Information Technology Centre Analysed report is generated and forward to the Academic Section before 4 weeks after the semester end Academic Section Assessment report is prepared for the Vice Chancellor Meeting and the Dean before new semester begin
>3.0
Faculty/Department Assessed form is managed and filed into each course files and lecturer personal files before new semester begin
Process end
FIGURE 2: Evaluation Process for Course Delivery and Staff Teaching Method Flow Chart
Subjects Total & Average Value 80 60 40 20 0
0 - 1.9
2.0 - 2.9
0
5
3.0 - 3.9 64
4.0 - 5.0
Course Assessment Teaching Assessment
0
4
55
10
Facilities Assessment
0
5
64
0
0
FIGURE 3: Assessment on 69 courses offered on Semester 1, 2005/2006 session Semester examination Overall, the University is precautious in assuring the development of examination papers for every semester. Each Faculty will be informed by the University Examination Section (ES) to produce examination questions through a systematic process administered by the University Quality Assurance Unit as illustrated in Figure 4. Question papers, project briefs with schemas are prepared by the lecturers and this will go through a screening process. Characteristic of the question papers and project briefs is vetted through at the Departmental level and also at the Faculty’s level. This procedure is to ensure the confidentiality of the questions and the quality question papers are produced.
Start Examination Section Request submission of question papers from the Faculty/Department
Faculty/Department Inform submission date to all lecturers
Lecturer(s) Prepare question paper(s)
A
No
Lecturer(s) Submit question paper(s) to Department
Final Year Level
Screening Committee Screening question papers
Faculty/Department Submit question papers to External Examiners and received report
Fit criterion
Yes
Any Rectification
Faculty/Department Identify course level
Yes No
A
Lecturer(s) Rectify question paper (s) and re-submit to Faculty/Department
Faculty/Department Final submission of question papers to Examination Section for printing
End
FIGURE 4: Question Papers Development Process for Examination Undergraduate studies committee for final examination This committee is the member of participating lecturers which responsible to endorse all course results offered for each semester. The Faculty will send the endorsed result to the University’s Examination Section for the Senate approval before final result is informed via individual student’s web portal.
No
Undergraduate report The Faculty offers an array of specialisations in the field of built environment through the four departments: the Department of Architecture, Department of Building Surveying, Department of Quantity Surveying and Department of Estate Management. The total number of students enrolled in the five undergraduate degree programmes has increased gradually from 1995 to 2003. In 2004, there was a slight drop in the number of student enrolments where 625 students enrolled that year for various programmes offered by the Faculty. Figure 5 indicates the total number of students enrolled with the Faculty between 1995 and 2005. 800 700 600 469
500 400
590
549
507
650
625
2003
2004
618
675
319
300 167
200 100
27
0 1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2005
FIGURE 5: Total Enrolments 1995-2005 Figure 6 below shows the percentage of graduates who obtained a CGPA of 3.0 and above and below 3.0 from 1998 until 2005. 70% 60% 50%
62.57%
61.69% 53.57% 46.43%
54.35% 45.65%
54.93%
53.37% 46.63%
45.07%
51.93% 48.07%
38.31%
Percentage
37.43%
40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
CGPA > 3.0
46.43%
45.65%
45.07%
61.69%
53.37%
51.93%
62.57%
CGPA
