In the current time, both stakeholder’s demand for accountability and the need for higher education institutions (HEIs) to address quality concerns are rising daily, which resulted in the establishment of many accrediting organizations or centers, as well as a variety of quality assessment toolkits with a variety of techniques appropriate for national and regional settings. This study gives a brief literature review of common frameworks in quality management, which are in practice in higher education globally. Based on these findings, the author provides recommendations for suitable implementation practices in higher education in Vietnam as the country transitions from a conventional university model to an increasingly independent institution. The research employs a documentbased approach with publications indexed in the Web of Science and Scopus database considered for the review. According to research findings, the world quality assurance system for higher education confronts four key issues requiring a paradigm shift in approach. The research is critical for the scientific foundation and practice of guaranteeing the quality of higher education in general and accreditation in particular.
COMMON FRAMEWORKS IN HIGHER EDUCATION SERVICE QUALITY MANAGEMENT: TYPICAL FEATURES AND SHORTCOMINGS Tran Thi Thu Huong VNU University of Education Abstract: In the current time, both stakeholder’s demand for accountability and the need for higher education institutions (HEIs) to address quality concerns are rising daily, which resulted in the establishment of many accrediting organizations or centers, as well as a variety of quality assessment toolkits with a variety of techniques appropriate for national and regional settings This study gives a brief literature review of common frameworks in quality management, which are in practice in higher education globally Based on these findings, the author provides recommendations for suitable implementation practices in higher education in Vietnam as the country transitions from a conventional university model to an increasingly independent institution The research employs a document-based approach with publications indexed in the Web of Science and Scopus database considered for the review According to research findings, the world quality assurance system for higher education confronts four key issues requiring a paradigm shift in approach The research is critical for the scientific foundation and practice of guaranteeing the quality of higher education in general and accreditation in particular Keywords: HEISQUAL, Higher Education, Kaizen, Lean, Quality management, Service quality, SERVQUAL, TQM INTRODUCTION With significant impacts on organizational performance, cost reduction, customer happiness, customer loyalty, and profitability, “quality” has become a primary concern for practitioners and researchers alike Nonetheless, it is not easy to describe (Dicker et al., 2019) Quality has defied traditional definitions since it is contextual, particularly in the service sector, and perhaps subjectively based on various elements such as industry, segment, consumer demand, organizational culture, and time (Van Kemenade et al., 2008) On the other hand, Deming, Crosby, and Juran established the framework for developing relevant criteria for establishing quality as a management science Crosby asserts that quality perfection involves “conformance to requirements” and that quality must be defined as a quantitative criterion based on measurable objectives rather than experience or personal preferences (Crosby, 1979) According to Juran (1986), quality excellence is a concept of managerial breakthrough that may be attained through the quality triad According to Deming, businesses cannot achieve quality perfection until their leadership is taught about the value of quality - its responsibilities, principles, and processes (Krishnaiah & Rao, 1988) Researchers have been working relentlessly to better understand quality perspectives across the service industry, and the higher education sector is no different Most higher education academics and policymakers refer to excellence as “fitness for purpose” (Vroeijenstijn, 1990) Additionally, the literature study reveals that the higher education system in Vietnam and many other countries face serious quality difficulties (Jiang, 2015) To begin, many higher education institutions fail to identify students as consumers, and their primary need is to be served According to Woodall et al (2014), students show more tendency to behave like customers In the industry, the emphasis on quality is mainly on the consumer; however, there is discussion over who the client is in higher education Second, the absence of a standardized method for evaluating the performance of higher education institutions is a significant quality concern Because educational processes and outcomes are intangible, considering them is considerably different from assessing the output of a manufacturing process with physical characteristics and well-established measuring tools (Does et al., 2002) According to Roffe (1998), although performance indicators are few and straightforward in the education business, they are various and complicated in higher education, making them more challenging to quantify Thirdly, teaching and learning are distinct from other services and cannot be divided into two components: teaching and learning COMMON FRAMEWORKS IN HIGHER EDUCATION SERVICE QUALITY MANAGEMENT: TYPICAL FEATURES AND SHORTCOMINGS 57 In contrast to items or services, education cannot be purchased simply by paying money Higher education institutions bear a more outstanding obligation than other sectors to educate students for life, not only for employment The commitment of colleges and universities to deliver advanced education has evolved into a more strategic concern Finally, the fast expansion of Vietnam’s community college system brought higher education facilities within the Geographic reach of the majority of the country’s people, but only after colossal expenditure There is a need to protect this investment through superior quality The study aims to review the concepts, principles and shortcomings of the most frequently utilized quality management frameworks for higher education, from the first conceptions of total quality management (TQM) to the most recent evolution of higher education institution service quality (HEISQUAL) The review considers publications that are indexed in the Scopus database The goal of the search in the chosen articles was to find out what worked and what did not in various quality management approaches in higher education Each part below begins with an overview of the quality definitions, followed by its elements Each section is followed by the shortcomings of TQM, Kaizen, Lean, SERVQUAL, ISO 21001:2018 and HEISQUAL in integrating service quality management into higher education METHODOLOGY This study was conducted as a literature review of ISI and Scopus-indexed articles in the Web of Science database, conference proceedings, university reports, and books related to different approaches or models in quality management The author used these keywords in the search engine: quality constructs, quality management model or approach plus literature review, quality assurance/management plus literature review TQM, Lean, Kaizen, Service Quality (SERVQUAL), ISO 21001:2018 – Management system for educational organizations (EOMS) and Higher Education Institution Service Quality (HEISQUAL) Firstly, 236 documents that matched the keywords were found Then 105 publications that directly studied these models in the context of higher education were selected The researched papers were published from the 1950s to 2021 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 3.1 Total Quality Management (TQM) TQM is a philosophy of management that dates back to the 1950s and got prominence in the 1980s Houston (1988) produced a list of the management philosophy’s fundamental ideas As a result, its essential characteristics include: quality is determined by consumers; senior management is accountable for quality improvement; quality improves as processes improve; and quality improvement is an ongoing activity (Houston, 1988) TQM is defined by the Chartered Quality Institute as a management strategy that is quality-driven, employee-driven, and oriented on longterm success (ISO 8402:1994) Customer satisfaction enables this achievement, which benefits both employees and society as a whole TQM is an organizational culture characterized by greater customer satisfaction achieved through continuous improvement (CIs), in which all employees actively engage from an organizational perspective (Dahlgaard et al., 1998) As described by the British Standard Institution, TQM is a “management philosophy and organizational practices that strive to harness the organizations’ staff and material resources in the most effective way to fulfill their objectives.” Customer focus, leadership, employee involvement, process approach, system approach to management, continuous improvement, fact-based decision-making, and mutually beneficial supplier relationship are the eight principles of comprehensive quality management The most critical assurance of a successful TQM deployment is the use of TQM principles (Salleh et al., 2018) Additionally, to execute TQM effectively, it is critical to ensure that everyone is completely engaged and dedicated to the process Shortcomings of TQM 58 PROCEEDINGS OF nd HANOI FORUM ON PEDAGOGICAL AND EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES While many corporations across the globe have embraced TQM, implementing it in nonprofit organizations, like higher education institutions, presents several obstacles and problems Numerous other higher education institutions have excelled in announcing TQM plans but have not fully implemented them or reaped significant benefits (Sunder, 2016) First, customer identification is a vital stage in the TQM implementation process While TQM successfully improved the HEI’s procedures, it was unclear who the customer was or how the customer‘s voice was collected According to Kanji et al (1999), HEI clients include present and prospective students, workers, employers, government, and industry Second, many educators are concerned that adopting TQM to academics may generate widespread resistance to change They notice that higher education is a humanistic undertaking in which academic autonomy and academic freedom are respected and specialized faculties vigorously defend their turf (Satterlee, 1996) According to Tannock J (1991), a TQM program in the education sector cannot be successful unless the organization undergoes a cultural revolution In this respect, it is critical to develop a few key performance indicators and metrics that enable the identification of quality concerns in institutions and cultural traits These indicators must be set to meet crucial customer satisfaction questions These might include curriculum design, student satisfaction levels, instructor aptitude and skills, student pass rates on tests, and appraisal of university infrastructure Finally, a shortcoming of TQM is the missed chance to measure TQM applications, the lack of a dedicated toolbox, and the difficulty of measuring certain TQM concepts such as employee participation (Bayraktar et al., 2008) Harari (1997) estimates that around one-fifth of TQM programs in the United States and Europe have resulted in significant or even verifiable improvements in quality, productivity, competitiveness, or financial performance According to Ewell (1993), the rise in TQM activities during the 1990s was prompted by the decade’s dire economic conditions in higher education rather than any genuine effort to improve educational offerings 3.2 Kaizen The Kaizen movement, or Continuous Improvement (CI), came after the TQM era “Continuous improvement” is derived from Kaizen – a Japanese term created and popularized by Masaaki Imai (Imai, 1986) Kaizen‘s goal is to establish a long-term organizational culture of excellence centered on generating value for customers by continually solving issues and eliminating waste by everyone, everywhere in the organization (inefficiencies) Quality, pricing, and delivery (speed) must be considered when determining customer value (Imai, 1986, 1997) According to Parsons et al (2019), Kaizen may be interpreted as “change for the better,” which meets the demands of organizations The CI cycle entails creating customer needs, satisfying those demands, assessing performance, and reviewing customer requirements for areas where improvements may be made (Chang, 2005) According to Manos (2007), continuous improvement is a sequence of modest and steady improvements produced over time Seven concepts underpin Kaizen: generate customer value; (ii) remove waste; (iii) engage people; (iv) go to Gemba; (v) manage visually; (vi) process and outcomes; and (vii) pull and flow (Coimbra, 2009) CI research emphasized leadership skills in the education sector, particularly in higher education institutions, acknowledging their critical role in the success of their high-quality programs Numerous studies on higher education providers’ quality management ideas were done during the CI movement, emphasizing micro CIs (Kregel, & Coners, 2021) According to the research, Kaizen reduced syllabus ambiguity regarding class participation and assignments, decreased syllabus variation in format and course description, and influenced duplicate instructional materials such as case studies or journal articles (Emiliani, 2005) Many case studies in the literature describe Kaizen’s implementation in higher education as a good option for continual quality improvement (Yen et al., 2020) According to Arsyad et al (2021), discipline, good order (organization), honesty, trust, communication, peaceful living and nonviolent value, neatness, serenity, and habit development are the significant universal and educational values Kaizen possesses in general Benevolence and compassion will arise from such ideals Continuous improvement attempts in education have mostly failed during the last century, according to Parsons et al., 2019 This situation, however, can be turned around with a kaizen approach In the context of Vietnamese higher education, Yen et al (2020) said that implementing Kaizen in Vietnamese universities is a good option for continual quality improvement at both the university and course management levels COMMON FRAMEWORKS IN HIGHER EDUCATION SERVICE QUALITY MANAGEMENT: TYPICAL FEATURES AND SHORTCOMINGS 59 Shortcomings of Kaizen movement Although Kaizen has demonstrated many successful practices in higher education, fundamental issues have proven to be highly resistant to CI campaigns For instance, faculty members are often apprehensive of any change that threatens to erode their grasp over course and degree requirements or their capacity to award marks (Sunder, 2016) According to prior research, even an adequately implemented Kaizen system does not ensure long-term profitability (Macleod & Baxter, 2001) Kaizen initiatives, notably in the higher education sector, have several faults The main issue was that students were not involved in developing the CI culture Students must understand that they are both clients and suppliers of the educational system As a result, students cannot entrust their education entirely to their professors According to Dahlgaard et al (1995), they share equal obligations to keep the CI pledge Another significant issue of the CI programs was the lack of a transparent project management methodology, which impacted the institution‘s overall quality excellence The Kaizen events also lacked on-the-job training, which was a big flaw Following completion of the required schooling, both employees and university students must begin on-the-job training The most significant way to learn is to apply the approaches to issues they can see and desire to solve To implement on-the-job training, a learning plan should be developed (Kanji & Wallace, 1994) According to the literature review on higher education, curriculum improvement, experiential learning, sponsorship, faculty time allocation, teaching practice vs research, faculty status, tenure, student access, distance learning, and technology use are among the significant challenges that universities face today as a long-term impediment to CI (Koch & Fisher, 1998) 3.3 Lean Lean is defined as a collection of waste reduction processes in a company that does not provide value The two pillars of the Lean philosophy are continuous improvement and respect for people The use of lean tool identification methods requiring direct knowledge exchange that is readily documented helps keep lean ideas alive (Mrugalska & Wyrwicka, 2017; Pakdil et al., 2018; Gupta & Sharma, 2018) Lean tools (also known as a lean toolbox) are recognized as a medium used by institutions to reduce, modify, and show the change (Mrugalska & Wyrwicka, 2017; Pakdil et al., 2018) According to Tapping et al (2002), the three phases of Lean adoption include understanding demand, enhancing flow, and level-loading the process The Womack and Jones model (Tischler, 2006), the most frequently used in Lean implementations, incorporates five Lean principles: (1) understand the consumers’ value and desire; (2) map value-added and non-value-added operations; (3) flow – execute the job in such a way that it flows smoothly through the process; (4) pull – create precisely what customers request when they require it; (5) perfection – continuous improvement The use of Lean concepts in higher education has resulted in considerable gains (Sunder, 2016) Reduced lead times, increased throughput, minimal infrastructure costs, and increased student satisfaction are just a few of the advantages Furthermore, a few writers have claimed that waste in higher education institutions may be divided into four types People waste is a type of waste that happens when colleges fail to appropriately capitalize on employers’ and workgroups’ knowledge, skills, and talents Process waste is a term referring to waste that occurs when the design or implementation of work at a university has any errors Information waste is a type of waste that happens when the amount of information provided is insufficient to support the university‘s activities Asset waste occurs when a university‘s resources (both human and material) are not used effectively Many colleges and universities have implemented a Lean effort to enhance process efficiency by systematically reducing waste and non-value-added operations Despite its superiority to other qualitative methodologies in higher education, Lean has its shortcomings According to the American Society for Quality, initiating a Lean project at a university might be challenging due to the inability to employ standard methodologies provided in the literature (Salewski & Klein, 2013) The majority of students feel that Lean is more about applying common sense than learning anything new Because of Lean’s non- 60 PROCEEDINGS OF nd HANOI FORUM ON PEDAGOGICAL AND EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES scientific character, students are hesitant to express an interest in enrolling in university-level Lean programs Nothing is more complicated or hazardous than building a new order of things, according to Kotter & Schlesinger (2008) This is true with Lean for higher education, as no study findings indicate that Lean was a success at universities after only eight weeks of implementation Another challenge that many colleges faced when implementing Lean for the first time was deciding which version to utilize This is because Lean has taken numerous forms and evolved into a variety of practices Another significant flaw with Lean is that it produces numerous minor improvements rather than a single enormous breakthrough for excellence This is incompatible with the need for substantial progress in many instances Lean is viewed as a toolbox rather than a concept or attitude for change Liker & Hoseus (2009) examined several similar initiatives by higher education institutions that failed Lean 3.4 Service Quality (SERVQUAL) In 1985, Parasuraman et al identified 10 components of service quality: reliability, responsiveness, competence, accessibility, courtesy, communication, credibility, security, customer understanding and tangibles Later in 1988, these 10 components were reorganized into five dimensions: Reliability, Assurance, Tangibles, Empathy, and Responsiveness Only three of the original 10 components remain unique – Reliability, Tangible, and Responsiveness – while the remaining seven components were consolidated into two aggregate dimensions of Assurance and Empathy SERVQUAL was intended to assess the quality of service across a range of service environments, including higher education SERVQUAL is a research model that measures consumers’ perceptions of service quality and expectations for service The anticipation and perception are then compared to determine if the perception is more or less than the expectation It examines students’ opinions of the quality of service given by higher education institutions in the context of higher education According to Leisyte & Westerheijden (2014), students are considered equal partners or stakeholders who take an active role in developing the institution’s strategy They are responsible for internal and external assessments, quality assurance, curriculum development, and a range of other factors In addition, ensuring that a higher education institution meets its strategic objectives is the purpose of quality assurance SERVQUAL is a quality management system comprising five dimensions (tangible, reliability, responsiveness, assurance, and empathy) and twenty components SERVQUAL was used to assess the five quality aspects of service The five dimensions and their associated definitions are as (1) Tangible: Physical facilities, equipment and staff appearance; (2) Reliability: Ability to conduct the service accurately and dependably; (3) Responsiveness: the willingness of the staff in helping customers and providing prompt service (4) Assurance: competence, courtesy, credibility and security; (5) Empathy: access, communication, understanding the customers Shortcomings of SERVQUAL Theoretically First, the SERVQUAL model’s validity as a general instrument for assessing service quality across various service sectors has been challenged That a mere updating of the SERVQUAL items is not sufficient to measure service quality across service contexts, including higher education; Second, the Perception (P) minus Expectation (E) gap rarely assesses service quality The perception score was shown to be the primary contributor to the gap score due to a generalized response propensity to rate expectations high; Third, SERVQUAL is process-driven, while the combination of process and outcome is a more significant predictor of customer choice than process or outcome alone Fourth, SERVQUAL’s five dimensions are not ubiquitous Items not always load on the expected parameters Users should work with the original ten dimensions rather than only the amended five Finally, SERVQUAL is built on an expectation model rather than an attitude model; therefore, it fails to draw on the extensive literature on the psychology of perception Operationally First, the term “expectation” is polysemic because customers often use criteria other than expectations to assess service quality COMMON FRAMEWORKS IN HIGHER EDUCATION SERVICE QUALITY MANAGEMENT: TYPICAL FEATURES AND SHORTCOMINGS 61 Second, SERVQUAL of questions cannot capture each service quality dimension’s diversity or contextspecific meaning Third, a customer’s perception of the service quality may vary depending on the Moment Of Truths (MOTs) Services are provided through many MOTs between service personnel and clients Additionally, data indicate that customers judge the quality of service based on these frequent interactions Fourth, the scale has reversed polarization results in responder inaccuracy The SERVQUAL questionnaire contains 22 items Thirteen statement pairs are favorably phrased, while nine are negatively worded The negative section includes the entirety of the responsiveness and empathy assertions The phrasing of items produces data quality issues and casts doubt on the instrument’s validity Lastly, repeated administration of the instrument results in monotony and disorientation Respondents appear to be perplexed by the dual administration of the SERVQUAL Expectation and Perception versions, jeopardizing data quality Apart from the administration times, respondents must complete both questions in a single session, creating tiredness and boredom Numerous research in the educational literature has criticized SERVQUAL for some reasons One of the shortcomings of SERVQUAL in the higher education context is that most of its components are too broad to apply in academia It must be modified and mainly related to higher education by identifying their determinants from students‘ perspectives (Abdullah, 2006) SERVQUAL’s modified version for higher education institutions demonstrates a lessened reliance on the primary and secondary factor structures (Trivellas & Dargenidou, 2009) According to Brochado (2009), the SERVQUAL model is inapplicable to HEIs since the services provided by HEIs are more diversified than those offered by restaurants or banks O’Neill & Palmer (2004) identified three psychometric drawbacks to SERVQUAL’s use in higher education institutions: reliability, variance limitation, and discriminant validity 3.5 ISO 21001:2018 – Management system for educational organizations (EOMS) The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) recently published a new management system standard ISO 21001:2018 called Management system for educational organizations (EOMS) This standard is intended to help educational institutions work on their continuous improvement path by applying a robust, standardized management system than the more commonly used ISO 9001:2015 quality management system It can fix a problem in ISO 9001 that the general terminologies in ISO 9001 are straightforward for manufacturing companies but might lead to ambiguity in educational practices PDCA cycle is employed in ISO 21001:2018 There are domains mentioned with detailed criteria, suggested processes, measures and tools accompanied by possible actions The eight domains are Context of the organization, Leadership, Planning, Support, Operation, Performance Evaluation and Improvement The eleven principles of EOMS are also very good guidelines for educational managers and leaders to follow in the implementation process of quality management This set of standards shows some advantages over ISO 9001 Firstly, being distinctively tailored for education, many terms used in ISO 21001 are very specific, most notably the adoption of the words “learner” (including “other beneficiaries”) for “customer” and “curriculum” and “courses” and their associated attributes such as learning outcomes, assessment, grades, etc for “products.” Secondly, the standard also acknowledges that the customers of education, unlike those in regular companies, are actively involved in the process, thus demanding more intensive communication be established between the institution as the service provider and its learners Thirdly, the scope of ISO 21001 is broader and deeper than that of ISO 9001 as can be seen from the additional clauses or indicators This somewhat indicates that the management of an educational institution is more complex than the management of most organizations Lastly, special needs education is emphasized as it is mentioned frequently throughout the standard 3.6 Higher Education Institution Service Quality (HEISQUAL) HEISQUAL was developed by Abbas (2020) to address both technical and operational aspects of service quality It proposes seven service quality themes: teacher profile, curriculum, facilities and infrastructure, support and management staff, employment quality, safety and security, and students’ skill development HEISQUAL is distinct from other commonly used instruments One of the distinctions between HEISQUAL and other service quality evaluation models 62 PROCEEDINGS OF nd HANOI FORUM ON PEDAGOGICAL AND EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES is that other instruments were developed with a broad viewpoint and are not industry-specific When they are applied to a particular sector, they must be changed, raising questions about discriminant validity, reliability, and variance restriction HEISQUAL was established primarily to measure the quality of services provided by higher education institutions Another difference between HEISQUAL and other instruments is the width of the instrument‘s elements and dimensions Considering the social and technical developments over the previous two decades, HEISQUAL encompasses both fundamental and advanced quality aspects in higher education institutions Traditional service quality indicators in higher education, such as instructor profile, infrastructure and facilities, and extracurricular activities, and modern indicators, such as employment quality, safety and security, and personality development, are all included in HEISQUAL Another distinction is that other tools focus exclusively on operational issues and overlook technological considerations Operational aspects are solely concerned with creating and providing products and services and are unconcerned with the result Additionally, these tools assess quality and performance on a broad scale HEISQUAL was established to focus on students’ views of service quality in higher education institutions and includes questions about processes and results, such as students’ skills and personality development CONCLUSIONS While it is evident that higher education institutions have acknowledged the need of quality excellence and adopted several quality management systems, they have not yet realized all of the benefits due to drawbacks Among the most common models in service quality management, HEISQUAL has offered a clear chance for researchers to contemplate the issue while it is still in its early stages of implementation in the HE service Compared to manufacturing or other services, the HEI literature reveals cases that are diverse and complicated (Gulden et al., 2020) As a result, future studies can demonstrate how to adapt the HEISQUAL for use in higher education The success criteria of HEISQUAL and its shortcoming in implementation in higher education institutions are other essential topics that may pique researchers’ attention Because all players in the HE business may not have the expertise of organized problem-solving or quality excellence, a specific model for higher education is crucial and educational managers, researchers, and quality managers should choose a suitable framework for their system In the specific context of Vietnam’s educational system, HEISQUAL and ISO21001:2018 (which has been converted into TCVN 21001:2019) are strongly recommended to use among institutions because they have detailed guidance and are market-oriented Specially, ISO 21001:2018 has a Vietnamese version and it can be applied in any educational organization at all levels REFERENCES Abbas, J (2020) HEISQUAL: A modern approach to measure service quality in higher education institutions. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 67, 100933 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2020.100933 Abdullah, F (2006) Measuring service quality in higher education: three instruments compared. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 29(1), 71-89 Arsyad, A., Nur, N A., Nurhikmah, N., & Azhar, S (2021) The educational value of Kaizen quality management. Lentera Pendidikan: Jurnal Ilmu Tarbiyah dan Keguruan, 24(1), 131-143.https://doi.org/10.24252/lp.2021v24n1i13 Bayraktar, E., Tatoglu, E and Zaim, S (2008), “An instrument for measuring the critical factors of TQM in Turkish higher education”, Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, Vol 19 No 6, pp 551-574 Brochado, A (2009) Comparing alternative instruments to measure service quality in higher education. Quality Assurance in education Chang, H H (2005) The influence of continuous improvement and performance factors in total quality organization. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 16(3), 413-437 Coimbra, E A (2009) Total flow management Achieving excellence with kaizen and lean supply chains Zug, Switzerland: Kaizen Institute Consulting Group Ltd Cooper, J (2009), “The integration of a Lean manufacturing competency-based training course into university curriculum”, Online Journal of Workforce Education and Development, Vol No 1, pp 1-12 Crosby, P B (1979) Quality is free-if you understand it. Phillip Crosby Associates II, Inc Journal COMMON FRAMEWORKS IN HIGHER EDUCATION SERVICE QUALITY MANAGEMENT: TYPICAL FEATURES AND SHORTCOMINGS 63 Dahlgaard, J.J and Ostergaard, P (2000), “TQM and Lean thinking in higher education”, Sinergie, Rapporti di ricerca N.9, ASQ Quality Press, Luglio Deming, W.E (1993), The New Economics: For Industry, Government & Education, MIT Dicker, R., Garcia, M., Kelly, A., & Mulrooney, H (2019) What does ‘quality’ in higher education mean? Perceptions of staff, students and employers. Studies in Higher Education, 44(8), 1425-1441 https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2018 1445987 Emiliani, M L (2005) Using kaizen to improve graduate business school degree programs. Quality Assurance in Education, Vol 13 No 1, pp 37-52 Evans, J R (2013) Insights on the future of quality management research. Quality Management Journal, 20(1), 48-55 Ewell, P.T (1993), “Total quality and academic practice: the idea we’ve been waiting for?”, Change, Vol 25 No 3, pp 49-55 Gulden, M., Saltanat, K., Raigul, D., Dauren, T., & Assel, A (2020) Quality management of higher education: Innovation approach from perspectives of institutionalism An exploratory literature review. Cogent Business & Management, 7(1), 1749217 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2020.1749217 Harari, O (1997), “Ten reasons why TQM doesn’t work”, Management Review, Vol 86 No 1, pp 38-44 Houston, A (1988), “Administration and management”, in Dockstader, S.L (Ed.), A Total Quality Management Process Improvement Model, Navy Personnel Research and Development Center, San Diego, CA, pp 7-8 Imai, M (1986) Kaizen The key to Japan’s competitive success United States of America: McGraw-Hill Imai, M (1997) Gemba kaizen A commonsense, low-cost approach to management Singapore: McGraw-Hill Book Co Immelt, J.R (2006), “Growth as a process”, Harvard Business Review, June, pp 60-70 Jiang, K (2015), “Undergraduate teaching evaluation in China: progress and debate”, International Higher Education, Vol 58 No http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10611932.2018.1493865 Johnson, J.A (2006), “Designing new housing at the University of Miami: a dmadv/dfss case study”, Quality Engineering, Vol 18 No 3, p 299 Juran, J.M (1986), “The quality triology: a universal approach to managing for quality”, Quality Progress, Vol 19 No 8, pp 19-24 Kanji, G.K and Wallace, W (1994), “Learning to learn”, Proceedings of the 4th ICOTS Conference, Marrakesh, 25-30 July Koch, J.V and Fisher, J.L (1998), “Higher education and total quality management”, Total Quality Management, Vol No 8, pp 659-668 Kotter, J.P and Schlesinger, L.A (2008), “Choosing strategies for change”, Harvard Business Review, Vol 86 No 8, pp 130-139 Kregel, I., & Coners, A (2021) Kaizen and Its Role in the Higher Education Sector In Lean for Higher Education: Research And Practice (pp 21-38) https://doi.org/10.1142/9781786348500_0003 Krishnaiah, P.R and Rao, C.R (1988), Handbook of Statistics, Vol 7, Springer, London, pp 1-6 Leisyte, L., & Westerheijden, D F (2014) Stakeholders and quality assurance in higher education In Drivers and barriers to achieving quality in higher education (pp 83-97) Brill Sense Liker, J.K and Hoseus, M (2009), “Human resource development in Toyota culture”, International Journal of Human Resources Development and Management, Vol 10 No 1, pp 34-50 Macleod, A and Baxter, L (2001), “The contribution of business excellence models in restoring failed improvement initiatives”, European Management Journal, Vol 19 No 4, pp 392-403 Maguad, B.A and Krone, R.M (2012), Managing for Quality in Higher Education – A Systems Perspective, Ventus Publishing, Los Angeles, CA Maleyeff, J., Arnheiter, E.A and Venkateswaran, V (2012), “The continuing evolution of Lean Six Sigma”, The TQM Journal, Vol 24 No 6, pp 542-555 Manos, A (2007), “The benefits of kaizen and kaizen events”, Quality Progress, Vol 40 No 2, pp 47-48 Mrugalska, B., & Wyrwicka, M K (2017) Towards Lean Production in Industry 4.0 Procedia Engineering, 182, 466–473 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2017.03.135 Mukondeleli, G.K., Jan, H.C and Bernard, J.W (2012), Proceedings of the 2012, International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management, Istanbul, 3-6 July O’Neill, M A., & Palmer, A (2004) Importance‐performance analysis: a useful tool for directing continuous quality improvement in higher education. Quality assurance in education Pakdil, F., Toktaş, P., & Leonard, K M (2018) Validation of qualitative aspects of the Lean Assessment Tool (LAT) Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 29(7), 1094–1114 https://doi.org/10.1108/JMTM-12-2017-0268 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(4), 41-50 Parsons, David; MacCallum, Kathryn (2019). Agile and Lean Concepts for Teaching and Learning (Bringing Methodologies from Industry to the Classroom) Kaizen and Education (Chapter 4), 63–92. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-27513_4 64 PROCEEDINGS OF nd HANOI FORUM ON PEDAGOGICAL AND EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES Roffe, I.M (1998), “Conceptual problems of continuous quality improvement and innovation in higher education”, Quality Assurance in Education, Vol No 2, pp 74-82 Salewski, A and Klein, V (2013), “How to launch Lean in a university”, ASQ, available at: www.abdn.ac.uk/staffnet/ documents/how-to-launch-lean-in-a-university.pdf (accessed 20 October 2021) Salleh, N M et al (2018) Critical success factors of total quality management implementation in higher education institution: UTM case study In AIP conference proceedings (Vol 2044, No 1, p 020007) AIP Publishing LLC https:// doi.org/10.1063/1.5080060 Satterlee, B (1996), “Continuous improvement and quality implications for higher education”, ERIC Number: ED399845, available at: http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED399845 Sunder M, V (2016) Constructs of quality in higher education services. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 65(8), 1091-1111 https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-05-2015-0079 Tannock, J.D (1991), “Industrial quality standards and total quality management in higher education”, European Journal of Engineering Education, Vol 16 No 4, pp 353-360 Tapping, D., Shuker, T and Luyster, T (2002), Value Stream Management, Productivity Press, New York, NY Tischler, L (2006), “Bringing Lean to the office”, Quality Progress, Vol 39 No 7, pp 32-41 Trivellas, P., & Dargenidou, D (2009) Leadership and service quality in higher education: the case of the Technological Educational Institute of Larissa. International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences Van Kemenade, E., Pupius, M., & Hardjono, T W (2008) More value to defining quality. Quality in Higher education, 14(2), 175-185 https://doi.org/10.1080/13538320802278461 Vroeijenstijn, T.I (1990), “Autonomy and assurance of quality: two sides of one coin”, Higher Education Research and Development, Vol No 1, pp 21-38 Welch, J and Welch, S (2007), Winning, HarperCollins Canada Limited, CA Woodall, T., Hiller, A and Resnick, S (2014), “Making sense of higher education: students as consumers and the value of the university experience”, Studies in Higher Education, Vol 39 No 1, pp 48-67 Yen, P T M., Trang, D N H., & Linh, D T T (2020) Literature Review on Applying Kaizen in University and Lessons for Vietnamese Universities. American Journal of Creative Education, 3(2), 62-69 http://dx.doi.org/10.20448/815.32.62.69