Anda di halaman 1dari 18

(1) total based; d

(2) product based;


(3) user based; and
(4) va lue based.
Further, he identifies a shift from total and
product to a 'user-based, with an increasing
emphasis on reconciling the value-for-money
approach with a user-based approach, but the
problem lies in that of specifying users.
Mukhopadhyay (2001), remarks that,
depending on the goals, the term "quality in
education", has been defined as. excellence in
education (peters and Waterman, 1982); value
addition in education (Feigenbaum, 1951);
fitness of educational outcome and experience
for use (juran and Gryn a, 1988) ; conformance
of education output to planned' goals,
specifications and requirements (Gilmore,
1974; Crosby, 1979); defect avoidance in
education process (Cro sby, 1979) ; and meeting
or exceeding customer's expectations of
education (p arasuraman et al., 198 5).
, ...The qua lity of education.is becoming
importa nt, particularly so in higher
educat ion, where the products/output of
the system, can have. a direct impact on
the quality of their employer
organizations... '
The applicability of the TQM philosophy and
the theories in the educationa l sector has, thus,
attracted the interest of many theorists and
practitioners (Sherr and Lozier, 199 1; Rhodes,
1992; Murgatroyd and Morgan, 1993; Fields,
1994). A number of studies, both theoretical
and empirical, ha ve also been conducted (see
Table I an d F igure 1) .
The quality of education is becoming
important, particularly so in higher education,
where the produc ts/ outp ut of the system, can
have a dire ct impact on the qua lity of their
employer organizations. Herein, lies its
relevance and need for educational institutions .
Quality management, originally developed for
business enterp rises, needs to be adapted to suit
educational institutions.
Quality in education has been defined
variedly - even as, " fitn ess for purpose"
(Reynolds, 1986; Brennan ez al. , 1992; Tang
and Zairi, 1998) . Some studies co ncentrate on
the ins titutional inputs and outputs (Cave et al.,
1988; Johnes and Taylor, 1990). Others
examine the processes, even while assessing the

feasibility or non-feasibility of adopting ideas


from TQM to industry (Barnett, 1992; Ellis,
1993, quoted in Shaw and Roper, 1993; Green,
1994). Owlia and Aspinwal (1996a), remark
that while discussing quality in education, both
the market orientation and the measurement
pose arguments. While some believe that,
because of the intangible results of education,
an objective measurement of quality is difficult
or impossible (Sayed 1993; Tofte 1993), others
view it as an essential of quality improvement to
b e monitored (Seymour 1992; Burkhalter
1993). The terms "customer " and "market"
have also met with resistan ce from some
educationalists, who argue that they are
applicable only to commercial environments
(Sallis, 1993) . The customer-oriented
definition of quality has also been debated on,
in light of the complexity in identifying and
specifyin g the customers of higher ed ucation
(Madu and Kuei, 1993) . As Green (1994),
remarks, " different in terest groups have
different prioriti es and their focus of attention
may be different". The dynamic and interactive
nature of higher education , when viewed as a
system with an internal an d external
environment and inputs, processes and outputs,
further complicates the matter, with the
students being not only the prime customers
but also a part of the inputs to the system
(Harris, 1992). This is further made complex
when we recognize the presence of the faculty
and support staff in the system as the internal
customers; and the students, the society and the
indus try (being the fina l employer of the
students) as the external customers of
education. Each of these customers has diverse
requirements and expectations that need to be
prioritized and re conciled to provide service
quality - this complicat es the issue even further.
Thus, we can conclu de that quality in
education is a multiple conc ept with varying
conceptualizations and this pos es problems in
formulatin g a single, compre hensive de fini tion.
Sahney et al. (2002), conclude and define TQM
in educatio n as follows:
T ota l qu ality management in education is
multi-faceted - it believes in the foundation of an

Table I Major studies conducted on TQM in education


Author(s)/researcher(s) Year Empirical/theoretical Focus/emphasis
Cave et at. 1988 Theoretical Perlormance indicators in higher education
Barnett 1992 Theoretical Quality of higher education, performance measures
West-Burnham 1992 Theoretical Quality in schools
Murgatroyd and
Morgan 1993 Theoretical School and TQM - what and why?
Ashworth and Harvey 1994 Theoretical Assessing quality in further and higher education
Craft 1994 Empirical International developments in quaUty for education
Downey et al. 1994 Theoretical Quality - definitions, concepts in education
t;reen 1994 Both Quality in higher education - the what and w'rrt?
.wis and Smith 1994 Theoretical Total quality and higher education- what and \'Jhy?
Nightingale and O'Neil 1994 Theoretical Quality learning
Parsons 1994 Both Quality improvement in schools, colleges and universities
Ribbinsand Burridge 1994 Both Improving education - quality in schools
O tt le 1994 Theoretical Performance indicators in higher education
Spanbauer 1995 Theoretical Reactivating higher education with TQM
Harvey and Knight 1996 Both Transforming education; quality in higher education
lozier and Teeter 1996 Theoretical Quality and higher education
Owlia and Aspinwall 1996a Empirical Quality in higher education - a survey
Sallis 1996 Theoretical TQM in schools

Cheng and Tam 1997 Theoretical Models of quality in education


Frazier 1997 Theoretical Quality transformation in education
Owlia and Aspinwall 1997 Both Quality in higher education - a survey. identifying TQM
success factors
Galloway and Wearn 1998 Empirical Determinants of quality
Owlia and Aspinwall 1998 Empirical f-i amework of measuring quality in education
Kanji and Tambi 1999 Both Models of TQM in education
McAdam and Welsh 2000 Empirical Business excellence quality model applied in education
The applicati on of the systems thin king or
systems theo ry is a way of th in kin g about, or
In fact , it is all permeating, coverin g the
different aspects of academic life.
Education as a "transformation system"I
"production process"
educational in stitution on a systems approach ,
im plying a management"system, a te chnical system
an d a social system - all based on prin cip les of
quality, to be implemented throughout . I t aims at
satisfying the needs of the various.sta keh olders,
through the de sign of a system based on cert ain
princip les and .practices. It includes within its
ambi t the quality of inp uts in the form of students,
faculty, sup port staff and infrastructure; the quality
of processes in th e form of the learning and
teaching activity; and the quality of outputs in the
form of the enlightened students that m ove out of
the system.
understanding, any dynamic process,
comprised of three essential cons tituents - the
inputs,processes and outputs, all encompassed
within an arbitrary boundary, the environment.
Inputs from its environment cross the boundary
into the system; these are acted on within the
transformation/ production process; and, finally,
are released from the system back into the
environment as outputs. The direction of flow
from the inputs, through the transformation/
production process to the output, indic ates the
flow of energy, information, etc. Apart from
th ese constituents, there is the concept of
feedb ack, i.e. the outputs of info rmation ab out
the system which, when fed back into the
system as inputs, are able to modi fy the system
while the process is in progress, th us making the
system more respo nsive to th e needs of the
compo nent s in th e environment and, thus,
makin g th e system flexible. The outp ut so
released sho uld satisfy the components in th e

Table I Major studies conducted on TQM in education


Author(s)/researcher(s) Year Empirical/theoretical

Focus/emphasis

Cave et at. 1988 Theoretical


Barnett 1992 Theoretical

Perlormance indicators in higher education

Quality of higher education, performance measures

West-Burnham 1992 Theoretical Quality in schools


Murgatroyd and
Morgan 1993 Theoretical School and TQM -what and why?
Ashworth and Harvey 1994 Theoretical Assessing quality in further and higher education
Craft 1994 Empirical

International developments in quaUty for education

Downey et al. 1994 Theoretical


t;reen 1994 Both

Quality -definitions, concepts in education

Quality in higher education -the what and w'rrt?

.wis and Smith 1994 Theoretical Total quality and higher education-what and \'Jhy?
Nightingale and O'Neil 1994 Theoretical Quality learning
Parsons 1994 Both Quality improvement in schools, colleges and universities
Ribbinsand Burridge 1994 Both
O tt le 1994 Theoretical

Improving education -quality in schools

Performance indicators in higher education

Spanbauer 1995 Theoretical

Reactivating higher education with TQM

Harvey and Knight 1996 Both

Transforming education; quality in higher education

lozier and Teeter 1996 Theoretical

Quality and higher education

Owlia and Aspinwall 1996a Empirical

Quality in higher education -a survey

Sallis 1996 Theoretical

TQM in schools

Cheng and Tam 1997 Theoretical


Frazier 1997 Theoretical

Models of quality in education

Quality transformation in education

Owlia and Aspinwall 1997 Both

Quality in higher education -a survey.identifying TQM

success factors
Galloway and Wearn 1998 Empirical

Determinants of quality

Owlia and Aspinwall 1998 Empirical

f-i amework of measuring quality in education

Kanji and Tambi 1999 Both

Models of TQM in education

McAdam and Welsh 2000 Empirical

Business excellence quality model applied in education

educational in stitution on a systems approach ,


im plying a management"system, a te chnical system
an d a social system - all based on prin cip les of
quality, to be implemented throughout . I t aims at
satisfying the needs of the various.sta keh olders,
through the de sign of a system based on cert ain
princip les and .practices. It includes within its
ambi t the quality of inp uts in the form of students,
faculty, sup port staff and infrastructure; the quality

of processes in th e form of the learning and


teaching activity; and the quality of outputs in the
form of the enlightened students that m ove out of
the system.
In fact , it is all permeating, coverin g the
different aspects of academic life.
Education as a "transformation system"I
"production process"
The applicati on of the systems thin king or
systems theo ry is a way of th in kin g about, or
understanding, any dynamic process,
comprised of three essential cons tituents - the
inputs,processes and outputs, all encompassed
within an arbitrary boundary, the environment.
Inputs from its environment cross the boundary
into the system; these are acted on within the
transformation/ production process; and, finally,
are released from the system back into the
environment as outputs. The direction of flow
from the inputs, through the transformation/
production process to the output, indic ates the
flow of energy, information, etc. Apart from
th ese constituents, there is the concept of
feedb ack, i.e. the outputs of info rmation ab out
the system which, when fed back into the
system as inputs, are able to modi fy the system
while the process is in progress, th us making the
system more respo nsive to th e needs of the
compo nent s in th e environment and, thus,
makin g th e system flexible. The outp ut so
released sho uld satisfy the components in th e

Figure 1 TQM'in education: focus and research


QUALITY AND TOTAL
QUALITY MANAGEMENT
Deming, Juran, Crosby,
Ishikawa, Taguchi, Shingo,
Feigenbaum, Imai, Oakland

Trends in Education
Barnett (1992), Craft (1992),
Seymour (1992), Madu and Kuei
(1993), Murgatroyd and Morgan
(1993), Spanbauer (1993),
Ashworth and Harvey (1994 ),
Green (1994), Nightingale and
O'Neil (1994), Burkhalter (1996),
Owlia and Aspinwall (1996a), Cheng
and Tarn (1997) Tambe (1998),
Power (1998)

TQM in Services
Milakovich (19 72), GrODTOOS
(1982, 1984), Albrech t and
Zemke (1985), Parasuraman et aJ.
(1985, 1988), ZeitbamJ et 01.
(1985 ,1990), Berryet 01. (1990),
Carman (1990), Bitner (1992),
Cronin and Taylor (1992), Teas
(1993), Dotchin and Oakland
(1994a,b,c) Franceschini and Rossetto
(1997), Bennington and Cwnmane
(1998), Tan g and Zairi (1998)

TQM

IN
EDUCATION
Need of Quality in
Education
Sallis (199 1), Barnett
(1992), Van Vught and
Westerheijden (1992),
Seymo ur (1992, 1993a,b),
Coate (1993), Frazer
(1994), Green (1994),
Lewis and Smith (1994),
Tuttle (1994), Whitaker
(1995), Burkhalter (1996),
Lozier and Teeter (1996),
Sallis (1996), Owlia and
Aspinwall (1997), Cook
an d Cook (199 8), Tang and
Zairi (1998), Kanji and
Tambi (1999)
The Concept
Ball (1985 ) , Ingle (1985), quoted in
Harvey and Knight (1996), Church
(1988), Schroc k and Lefevre (1988),
Lagerweij and Voogt (1990), Mortimore
and Stone (1990), Crawford (1991),
Barnett (1992), Elton (1992), Harris
(1992), Ovretveit (1992), West-Burnham
(1992), Burkhalter (1993), Madu and
Kuei (1993), Sallis (1993), Green
(1994), Harvey (1994 and 1995),
Dahlgaard et aL (1995), Cheng
(1996), Ow1ia and Aspinwal (J996a),
Harvey and Knight (1996), Winch
(1996), Tang and Zairi (1998),
Mukhopadhyay (2001)
Customers of Education
Brower (1991 ), March ese
(1991), Harris (1992), Rhodes
(1992), West-Burnh am
(1992), Sallis (199 3), Ewell
(1993), Hitmann (1993),
Downey et 01. ( 1994) , Lembcke
(1994), Madu et al. (1994) ,
Tuttle ( 1994 ), Pitman et al.
(1995), Span bauer (1995),
Owlia and Aspinwall (1996a),
Sirvanci (1996), Wroch
(1996), Kanji and Tambi (1999)

environment in the form of customers/


sta keholders; else the inputs would cease, and

further transformation/production cease, too.


So the environment is the source of the system's
inputs, and also the desti nation of its outputs .
A process is defined as "a series of actions or
operations conducing to an end" (Web ster's New
Collegiate Dictionary, 1983).
A process transforms measurable inputs into
measu rable outp uts under a value-adding

operation. Similarly, the educational process


might be defined as a series of actions or
operations leading to an educational end learning,
training and/or scholarly activity
(Divoky and Taylor 1996). Process
management applied in a university setting is
not inherently unique. It is the uniqueness of
the inputs and outputs of the process that serves
to delineate these views or perspectives rather
than the -specific objective of the educational
transformation of individuals.
Sink and Tuttle (1989), explain the system as
one that receives inputs from upstream systems,
to which they add value through transformation
processes by creating outputs necessary for
downstream systems or for meeting customer
needs, all for the purpose of achieving scientific
outcomes. They define the " transformation
processes" , as work processes that convert inputs
into outputs through value-added actions.
, ... While the inputs ... are the resources in
the form of students, facu lty,
administrators, financial support and
physical facilities amung others , the
output is in the form of ed ucated people.
research findings and service-to the
community ..:

Barnett (1992) , argues that an institution of


higher education, is an educational institution,
"aiming at the education of its students ".
Between the moments of entering and leaving
the system, the student is on the receiving end
of, and participates in, the process. The
intention underlying the process is to modify
the student in terms of intellectual maturity. He
speaks ofthe "black box", of the institutional
space (between the stage of entry and exit) that
is not neutral, but " a collection of intentional,
and unintentional, happenings oriented towards
changing the student in various ways". This is
similar to what has been argued by Eriksen
(1995), who remarks that the primary input is
the student (b efore exposure to a valu e-add ed
service) who is subjected to a transformation
(the application of a value-added service)
which, in turn, produ ces an output (the student
after exp osure to a value-adde d servi ce) .
Inputs to -the system comprise elements, that
are concerned with the resources and factors
employed in order to prod uce the outputs.
Process indicators are those that re late to the

way in which resources and factors are


combined to produce the ou tp ut; an d outputs
are those that are produced through inputs as
good/service.
Gupta (1993), refers to the transformation
process for an educational institution as one
consisting of, " activities performed to
disseminate knowledge, to conduct research
and to provide community servic e" . While the
inputs, according to him, are the resources in
the form of students, faculty, administrators,
financial support and physical facilities among
others, the output is in the form of educated
people, research findings and service to the
community (see Figure 2) .
Jaraiedi and Ritz (1994) , refer to the three
components:
(l ) the inputs to the system;
(2) the system its elf; and
(3) the outputs to the system.
The inputs to the syst em are the stu dents,
faculty and staff, funding, faci lities and the
goals of the university; the system itse lf is
created and controlled entirely by the elements
that compose the system, reg ardless o'f the
inputs, with some measurable points within;
namely, training of personnel, teaching
methods, learning, advising, counseling,
tutoring, evaluations, infrastructure, et c., and,
system outputs refer to the product that is
generated within the system.
Lewis and Smith (1994), while dealing with
process management, expl ain the model in a
similar manner, with inputs referri ng to
resources from the external environment, the
physical environment, organizati onal culture
and people; the transforming processes
referring to the work activities th at transform
the inputs, adding value to them an d making
them the outputs of the sub system and, the
outputs re ferring to the products or services
generated by the subsystem, intended for
an other subsystem.
So , the educational system can be viewed as a
transformation systernfproduction process, the
actual process whereby resources are used to
convert inputs into outputs. While inputs
include human, physical and financial resources
through fac tors relatin g to the students,

teachers, administrative staff, physical facilities


and in fras tructure, the processe s include
activi tie s of te aching, learning, administration,
and the ou tp uts include tangible and intangible
outcomes an d val ue ad dition through
exaxnination results, employment, earnings an d
satis faction .
Customers of education
A customer is anyone being~ served. Customers
may be both internal and external, depending
on whether they are located within or ou tsid e
the organization. Quality starts with the
customers and is defined by the customers . So
on e must be able to identify one's customers, to
be able to meet their needs and satisfy them. In
education, the criteria for quality an d ,
therefore, the customer requirements, involves
a much greater number of intere sted parties students,
staff, faculty, industry, parents and
the society. Nevertheless, it is essential that
customers be identified and processes be
established in order to determine specific needs
and maintain customer-oriented service
(Lembcke, 1994; Spanbauer, 1995).

Winch (199 6), refers to the ambigui ty in


defining wh o the customers of the system ar e,
the reasons being: F irst, it is not obvious that
the clients of education are the consumers of
education, with th e client bei ng often in a poor
position to make a judgment of th e qu ality of
what he is receiving. Secon d, there are various
interest groups. Third, some of these interest
gro ups are financial contribu to rs to the
maintenance of the educational system. Fourth,
whil e in a classical economic marketplace, the
customer has the exit option, this is limited,
giving the customer a much sma ller de gree of
au tonomy.
A customer is anyone to whom a product or
service is provi ded (West-Burnham, 199 2).
Downey et al. (1994), remark that the primary
customer in an education system is th e student;
who is both an internal and an external
customer . While in the system, the student is an
internal customer, parti cip ating in the learning
p rocess; he becomes an external cus tomer when
he leaves the system. He then be comes the
ultimate external customer, functioning
effectively in the society. The ext ernal
customers include higher educational
ins titutions, business, industry and society. All
employees are internal customers of one
another - each is a supplier an d a customer to
someone else, either within or ou tside the
organization. Madu et aL (1994), refer to the
different customers and classify them as input
customers, transformation cus tomers and
output customers. While the parents and
students are included as input customers, the
faculty is the transformation cus tomer and the
corporations and the society are the output
customers.
Spanbauer (1995), refers to the students as
the primary customers, with th e cu stomer
relationship being somewhat different - the
student may not know what they need to learn
and it does not necessarily mean that they must
be given whatever they request. It is the faculty
that can determine the n eed s of the stu de nts

and balance those with the needs of other


customers; namely, the employer and other
educators who may later provide advanced
instruction. The instructor is a customer or
supplier for internal processes, too. The
administrative staff/support staff are suppliers
of services to the faculty and staff, and so the

faculty becomes the customer of the


administrative/support staff. Spanbauer, thus,
remarks that customers are of two types:
(1) external (students, employers, the
community at large, taxpayers, other
educators from different institutions); and
(2) internal (other instructors, service
department staff) .
Sirvanci (1996), states that while it is generally
assumed that students are the customers of the
institutions they attend, it is actually more
complicated than that. In fact, the remarks that
th ere is no single role that can be attached to
students in higher education, in general,
" students may take on four different roles
within the institution" - they are :
(1) the product in process;
(2) the inte rn al customers for many campus
facilities;
(3) the laborers of the learning process; and
(4) the in ternal customers for delivery of the
course material.
seems to be little agreement as to who the true
customers are. The recently developed
Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award
Education pilot criteria, which were adapted
from the Baldrige Award criteria for business,
avoid using the term customer. In addition,
the "customer focus" and "satisfaction",
category has been changed to "student focus"
and "student and stakeholder satisfaction".
The use of "student" and " stakeh older" in
place of "customer" may communicate to
educational institutions that students are the
only customers and lead them to view
students' satisfaction as their only ultimate
objective. This is, however, misleading. In
fact, it has been pointed out that there are
some fundamental differences between
students and customers, including fre ed om
of choice, responsibility for paying the price
and requirements to prove merit and
eligibility .
, .__The use of 'student' and 'stakeholder' in
place of 'customer' may communicate to
educational institutions that students are
the only customers and lead them to view
students' satisfaction as their only
ultimate objective... '
o
Kanji and Tambi (1999), classify the customers
of higher education into primary and secondary
groups on the basis of their locations,
i.e . whether internal or external, and the

frequency of interactions the institution has


with them. While the educator (as employee), is
defined as the primary internal customer, the
student (as educational partner), is the
secondary internal customer. Similarly, the
student is also the primary external customer
and the government, industry and parents are
the secondary external customers,
Students are generally accepted as the
primary customers (Sallis, 1993), other
potential customers, like parents, employers,
government and society, should be considered
(Owlia and Aspinwall, 1996a, b). Further,
while students are the prime customers, they
are al so their raw material , suppliers,
co-processors and products (H a rr is, 1992 ) .
Among the grou ps within higher education
(faculty, students and administrati on), there
The question of whether the student is the
customer depends on which aspect of the
education process is being investigated. Hau
(1991), when studying quality improvement
in teaching, concluded that students are the
primary customers for the delivery of the
course material, but not for the content of the
course.
Sallis (1993), explains that education is a
service - value added to learners, where the
learner is the primary external customer or
client; parents and employers are second ary
external customers; the labor/job market,
government and society are the tertiary external
customers; and, teachers, administrators and
support staff are regarded as external
customers.
Tuttle (1994), remarks that there are
many customers of higher education, and
the definition of a customer dep ends on
the " b usinesses" that are being dis cussed;

namely, research, service, or teaching and


learning.
Some researchers have been skeptical about
the students being referred to as the prime
cust omers of higher education (M arch ese,
1991 ; Rhodes, 1992). Marchese ( 199 1) ,
points to the importance in meeting!
exceeding the expectations of internal
customers by each office. In fact, Rhodes
(1992), attributes the "student-centredness",
to be the cause of " som e of education's m ost
serious m anagement problems" . However,
Ewell (1993), views the stud ents as
customers, only when they are recipients of
services -an d not when they are recip ient s of
education, when "he is the raw material of a
specified proces s of production" . Pitman er al.
(19 9 5) , refer to students both as a customer
and a produ ct.
Michael er al. (1997), refers to the dilemma in
referring to the stude nts as customers .
According to them, the faculty rai se obj ections
wh en it is said that th e customer (here the
student) is always right, because they believe
that giving the students wh at they want will n ot
necessarily lead to higher quality education ,
with students concerned with short-term
satisfaction (makin g the grade) as opposed to
the long-term gain (actual learnin g and
growin g) .
The student is a p art of the input among
others. H e is also a customer, but there are
other elements in th e form of teachers,

administrators, paren ts , emp loy ers,


government and the society. The needs an d
views of the various customer groups, whether
they are internal or external, may not always
coin cide and the best method of resolving
d ifferent interests is to recognize their
existence and to look for issues that unite the
different parties.
Conclusion
The paper is an attempt at explainingTQM in
edu catio n. It starts with definin g quality and
T QM very briefly, and moves on to explaining
th e concep t as applied to education. It may b e
seen that d iffe ren t au thors with va ry ing
p ersp e ctives an d orientations have de fin ed the
term "quali ty " differ ently. Amid the wide
gamut of definitions on quality, there seems
to b e no consen.sus d efinition, althou gh all
these definitions deal either with the product!
services or the services producing these
products/services. Also, while TQM is widely
practiced, there is little agreement on what it
actually means and a single, homogenous
theory of TQM is lacking. Sets of precepts
and theories, broadly in accordance with each
other, have been propounded, but significant
di fferences do exist. Further faced with
tremendous amount of environmental
pressures from stakeholders, substantial
int erest in TQM in education has begun to
emerge, although this interest has been
focused primarily on higher educational
ins ti tu t io ns, The ap plic ab ility of the TQM
philosophy and the theories in the educational
sector h as attract ed the int erest of many
theorists an d p r actitioners. Quality in
education is a mul t iple concept with varying
co n cep tua liza ti ons an d this poses problems in
formulating a single, comprehensive
de fini ti on. It includes within its amb it the
quality of inpu ts in the form of stu d ents,
faculty, support st sff an d infrastructure; the
qu ality of processes in the form of the learning
and t each in g activi ty; and the qua lity of
ou tputs in the form of the enlightened
students that move out of the system. In fact ,
it is all permeating, co vering the different
aspects of academic life . The paper also deals
with the edu cati on system as a transformation
process. While inp u ts includes fa ctors rel ating
to the students, teachers, administrative staff,
physic al faciliti es and in frastructure, the

pro cesses inclu d e activities of te aching,


learning, administration, and the outputs
in clu d e examination results, employment,
earnin gs and satisfaction. F inally, an attempt
has b een made at identifying the customers of
the high er educational system. The va ri ous
cat egori es of customers of the educational
system h ave been identified and it is
conclu d ed that, whi le the needs an d interest s
of the various customer groups may not
always coincide, the best m ethod of resolvin g
different interests is to re cognize their
existence an d to look for issu es that u n it e the
di ffer en t parties .