QUALITY DETERMINANTS AND GAP ANALYSIS IN …

Volume:1, Number:2, June-2011 Page 118

www.theinternationaljournal.org

QUALITY DETERMINANTS AND GAP ANALYSIS IN MANAGEMENT

EDUCATION SCHOOLS

R.CHANDRASEKARAN

DEAN-ACADEMICS

KPR SCHOOL OF BUSINESS

COIMBATORE

ABSTRACT

The curriculum in Indian business school is declining in its relevance. Hardly a few

schools offer global perspective although most of them talk about globalization. There is

hardly any focus on business ethics, social responsibility, environment, or environment of

business. There is a glaring gap between supply and demand both in quantity and quality;

between career aspirations of M.B.A. graduates and professional management needs in the

country. Of the roughly 1800 B-schools approved by the All India Council for Technical

Education, Business India B-School survey, October 19, 2008 report says that the number of

institutes in the A++ is 28, A+ is 60, A is 83, B++ is 37, B+ is 22, B is 18 and C++ is 6.

Despite the ratings are not encouraging, B-schools are continued to get a growing number

year after year and fail to deliver quality service to students and teaching community. This

research paper focuses on analyzing the gap of service quality in management education at B-

Schools in the various categories.

INTRODUCTION

Management Education has emerged as a discipline in the past 100 years or so. In

1881, Wharton School of Finance and Commerce came into existence at the University of

Pennsylvania, United States of America (U.S.A). This was followed by Universities of

Chicago and California in 1898. In contrast to the rapid growth of management education in

U.S.A, the emphasis on the subject was insignificant in the rest of the world during the first

half of the 20th

century. Europe woke up a little late. It is interesting to note that Manchester

and London business schools commenced operation after the Indian Institute of Management

(IIM) in Calcutta and in Ahmedabad in the year 1961 and 1962, respectively. In Japan, the

emphasis in the beginning was on in-company training of executives and later it progressed to

business education. However, the concepts of Total Quality Management was first practiced

in post world war II Japan as a holistic process and then brought back to the West to revive

their ailing industries. Thus began the journey of Global education.

MANAGEMENT EDUCATION IN INDIA

Management education started in India in the early fifties and is based on the

foundation of the Western Model, primarily of U.S.A. IIM Calcutta commenced functioning

in 1961 in collaboration with the Sloan School of Management, MIT, U.S.A. About a year

later, IIM Ahmedabad started in association with the Harvard Business School, U.S.A. There

are over 700 industries in India with a total intake of 60,000 students per year in Master of

Business Administration (M.B.A) and equivalent courses. India is the second largest M.B.A

producer in the world. The following of western model is being increasingly questioned and

programmes in India are now being tailored to meet local tailored to meet local requirements

including rural studies, entrepreneurship, technology integration, women studies, etc. The



speed of acceptance of management education is a post-independence phenomenon which

started in the fifties and gained momentum in the nineties following economic liberalization.

QUALITY OF BUSINESS SCHOOLS

The quality of business schools are evaluated from time to time by research agencies

and publishing houses and the criteria comprises (in random order) Reputation, Market

performance, Internal capacity, Number of recruiters, Quality of placement, Average

domestic salary, Infrastructure, Faculty, Teaching, Specialization, Admission eligibility. The

eight attributes that really matter are: (1) Reputation – Ranking of school, Knowledge of

subject, Admission exam, Achievements of alumni, International recognition, (2)

Infrastructure – High speed internet connectivity, Library and computer facilities, Financial

assistance, Location, High standard of hostelry, (3) Placement – 100 percent placement, Multi

placement options, (4) Faculty – Quality of research, Visiting professors, Training, (5)

Specialization – known for marketing programme, known for mass media programme,

known for finance programme, (6) Quality of placement – Highest average salary, Global

placement opportunities, (7) Teaching – Students faculty ratio, Teaching methodology,

Counselling, Industry exposure and (8) Admission eligibility – High academic credential, and

Work experience.

CURRENT RESEARCH

A structured questionnaire was administered to 230 respondents (students pursuing

Masters course in Business Administration) at the city of Coimbatore, Tamilnadu, in South

India.

DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE

The purpose of ascertaining the demographic profile was to utilize such data for

statistical analysis in order to accept or reject the hypothesis framed for the study. The

respondents were requested to indicate demographic characteristics like gender and work

experience.

GENDER

It was found that three-fifths of the respondents were male (65%) while two-fifths of

the respondents were female (35%).

WORK EXPERIENCE PRIOR TO JOINING MASTERS PROGRAMME IN

BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

Nearly four-fifths of the respondents (80% did not posses any work experience prior

to joining the Master of Business Administration (M.B.A) programme. This is unlike the

colleges in foreign countries where work experienced is preferred or mandatory for joining

the M.B.A. programme.

Type of Educational Institution where Programme is Being Pursued:

The study was undertaken comprising the colleges affliated to Bharathiar University,

Coimbatore, Colleges affiliated to Anna University, Coimbatore, B-Schools come under

Deemed University and Autonomous Institution. Three categories of institutions existed at

the time of survey, namely Arts and Science Colleges, Engineering Colleges and Other

Colleges (Deemed University, University Department and Independent institutions). Table -1

depicts the type of institutions where the respondents were undergoing the M.B.A.

programme.



Table – 1

Type of Educational Institution where Programme is Being Pursued

S.

No.

Educational Institution Type Number of

Respondents

1 Arts and Science Colleges 61 (26.52)

2 Engineering Colleges 134 (58.26)

3 Other Colleges (Department in University, Deemed University,

Autonomous, Independent)

35 (15.22)

(Figures in parenthesis indicate percentage out of 230 respondents)

It can be seen from Table – 1 that nearly three-fifths of the respondents were students

pursuing M.B.A. programme in engineering colleges while a little more than a quarter of the

respondents belonged to Arts and Science colleges. This was a result of employment of

proportionate stratified sampling.

REASONS FOR PURSUING MBA PROGRAMME

There could be several reasons prompting prospective students to pursue a masters

programme in Business Administration. It could be personal interest, career-orientation,

salary expectations or other reasons. Table- 2 depicts the respondents’ reasons for pursuing

the programme.

Table – 2

Reasons for Pursuing MBA Programme

S. No. Reason Number of Respondents

Reason 1 Reason 2 Reason 3

1 Status in Society / Prestige 2 6 13

2 Exposure to Industry / Experience 2 5 -

3 Popular Course / Trend 4 1 2

4 Knowledge 15 13 7

5 Recommended by Parents / family / friends 2 5 14

6 Interest / Liking 42 22 14

7 Scope (Subjects learnt) 12 12 3

8 Profession / Job / Salary / Career 80 78 35

9 Businessman / Entrepreneur 16 11 2

10 Aim / Ambition 9 2 3

11 Post Graduate Course / 2-year Course 24 14 14

12 Develop Communication Skills 2 - 1

13 Value / Utility 1 2 2

14 Develop Skills 6 3 1

15 Personality Development 5 11 6

16 Refine attitude 1 - -

17 I.A.S 1 1 1

18 Abroad - 3 -

19 Residential Programme - - 1

20 Ph. D - - 1



It can be seen from Table – 2 that the top three primary reasons are career, interest / liking

and post-graduate course. The top three secondary reasons are career, interest / liking and

knowledge upgradation. The top three tertiary reasons are career, interest / liking,

recommendation and post-graduate course. Thus, the overall picture indicates that the M.B.A.

programme is pursued keeping a lucrative career in mind.

Factors that Influenced to Join the Educational Institution:

The various factors that influence the student community and their families in choice

of educational institution is presented in Table – 3 along with the respondents’ rankings.

Table – 3

Ranking of Factors Influencing Choice of Educational Institution

S.

No.

Determinants Mean Standard

Deviation

Sum Rank

1 Results 2.2304 3.0874 513 I

2 Discipline 3.0174 4.2209 494 II

3 Transportation facility 3.2304 3.9266 743 III

4 Infrastructure 3.3783 3.8725 777 IV

5 Special status for College (Deemed

University, Autonomous, 5 Star rating, etc.)

3.3957 4.2163 781 V

6 Specialization offered (Marketing, Systems,

HRD, Finance, etc.)

3.4957 3.8130 804 VI

7 Accessibility (near to your place of stay) 3.6000 4.3540 828 VII

8 Special facilities (Sports, extra-curricular) 3.6000 4.8574 828 VIII

9 Residential facilities (outstation students) 3.6783 5.1315 846 IX

10 Recommended by friend / relative 3.7000 4.4908 851 X

11 Ward of employed staff 3.7304 5.5757 858 XI

12 Placement record 3.7609 4.2692 865 XII

13 Fee charged 3.8565 4.4537 887 XIII

14 Admission was not available anywhere else 4.1087 5.3556 945 XIV

15 Canteen / Dining facility 4.3261 5.1095 995 XV

16 Other 0 0 0 XVI

It can be seen from Table – 3 that the top five reasons for choice of educational institution are

results, discipline, transportation facility, infrastructure and special status for college. The

corporate world is highly competitive and academic excellence alone would not suffice.

Students are expected to be well groomed, possessing current affairs knowledge with

additional qualifications in the form of exposure to technology.

Specialization Opted for:

Management comprises several specialized areas like Marketing, Personnel,

Production, Finance, Systems and other areas. Table – 4 depicts the respondents’ preference

for specialization.



Table – 4

Specialization Opted

S.

No.

Specialization Number of

Respondents

1 Marketing 148 (64.35)

2 Human Resource Management & Organizational

Behaviour

81 (35.22)

3 Operations / Production 0 (0.00)

4 Accounting and Finance 71 (13.48)

5 Information Systems 17 (7.39)

6 Corporate Management 2 (0.87)

(Figures in parentheses indicate percentage out of 230 respondents)

It can be seen from Table – 4 that nearly two-thirds of the number of respondents preferred

specializing in Marketing while a little more than one-third of the respondents preferred

specializing in Human Resources. The preference for finance specialization is low probably

due to the fact that there is competition from Chartered Accountants. Similarly, systems

specialization has low patronage as diplomas from Private Information Technology Institute

like NIIT and Aptech, among others, are more preferred due to their comprehensive coverage

and practical exposure. Today’s trend is having a dual specialization as it serves two

purposes: (a) there can be two career choices and (b) the subjects chosen under these

specializations are inter-related or complimentary.

REASON FOR CHOICE OF SPECIALIZATION

Table – 5 depicts the reasons for choice of specialization along with the respondents’ reasons

for choosing their specialization.

Table – 5

Reason for Choice of Specialization

S. No. Reason for Choice of Specialization Number of Respondents

1 Personal interest 152 (66.10)

2 Job opportunity 59 (25.70)

3 Recommended by family 8 (3.50)

4 Recommended by friend 5 (2.20)

5 Recommended by faculty 1 (0.40)

6 Family business 4 (1.70)

7 Other 1 (0.40)

(Figures in parentheses indicate percentage out of 230 respondents)

It can be seen from Table – 6 that two-thirds of the number of respondents (66.10%) have

chosen their specialization out of personal interest while a quarter of the number of

respondents (25.70%) eyed the job market. This sends out a signal that personal liking is

more important than to choose a career out of salary compulsions without having any liking

for the specialization.



SERVICE ATTRIBUTE RATING SCALE

A Likert-scale was employed to facilitate the respondents to rate the 35 attributes of

the educational institution’s services in order to determine the level of service quality. The

five points on the scale and the interpretation for each point is shown in Table – 6.

Table – 6

Service Attribute Rating Scale

S.

No.

Meaning Interpretation

R1 Very Poor Quality Service falls far short of my expectations (or) Service does not

exist

R2 Poor Quality Service slightly falls short of my expectations

R3 Satisfactory

Quality

Service slightly just matches my expectations

R4 Good Quality Service slightly exceeds my expectations

R5 Excellent Quality Service greatly exceeds my expectations

The scale involves ratings ranging from very poor quality to excellent quality. This rating-

scale question (EDUQUAL) is a modification of the SERVQUAL instrument devised by

Parasuraman and his associates. There is no repetition of the attributes for Perception and

Expectation scores. The number of items has been increased from the original 22 besides the

fact that the instrument has been modified to suit the education industry under study which

makes it more realistic and relevant. Table – 7 depicts the ratings for 35 attributes of the

educational institution’s services. The figures in parentheses indicate percentage for each

rating level. Table – 8 presents the mean, standard deviation and sum of the service attribute

ratings computed using SPSS package.

Table – 7

Ratings for Educational Institution’s Service Attributes

S.

No. Educational Institution’s Service Attributes

Ratings (R)

R1 R2 R3 R4 R5

1 Condition of the classroom (CCR) 19 26 109 62 14

2 Adequacy of facilities (faculty, rooms, labs, etc.) (ADF) 15 44 99 56 16

3 Appearance of faculty (APF) 11 21 101 71 26

4 Appearance of office staff (AOS) 22 44 99 59 6

5 Physical representation of the service (reading materials,

textbooks, lab manuals, handouts, notebooks, calendars,

prospectus) (PHY)

11 47 80 64 28

6 Tools or equipments used to provide the service (boards,

audio-visual aids, furniture, examination booklets) (TEU)

13 39 90 66 22

7 Ambience inside the classroom (ventilation, lighting,

space, temperature)(AIC)

10 25 74 91 30

8 Parking facilities (PKF) 22 39 64 63 42

9 Recreational facilities (RCF) 38 58 77 44 33

10 Canteen facilities (CAN) 36 49 74 49 22

11 Communication facilities (Telecom, Internet) (COM) 60 52 65 38 15

12 Library facilities (LIB) 3 34 64 88 41



13 Residential facilities (hostel) (RDF) 44 32 88 44 22

14 Faculty’s sincerity in teaching you in the classroom (FST) 9 17 89 80 35

15 Office staff’s sincerity in attending to your needs (OSS) 28 46 80 55 21

16 Faculty’s ability to clearing doubts (FCD) 6 22 90 83 29

17 Teaching of concepts/problems correctly (TCP) 8 27 91 67 37

18 Timely completion of syllabus/course content (TCS) 13 23 89 72 33

19 Accuracy in evaluation of answer scripts (AIE) 11 36 91 66 26

20 Proper database management (marks, fee, attendance,

profile) (PDB)

7 25 80 81 37

21 Conduct of classes (COC) 6 18 85 89 32

22 Proper conduct of test/examination (PCE) 7 25 60 80 58

23 Management’s understanding of needs (MUN) 23 54 103 45 5

24 Sensitiveness to your needs (SYN) 28 52 114 30 6

25 Convenience of institution’s timings (CIT) 16 25 73 69 47

26 Effective placement cell (EPC) 47 53 77 48 5

27 Fee charged (affordability) (FEE) 18 42 98 40 32

28 Provision for variety of elective subjects (VES) 16 39 96 56 23

29 Special facilities (dining, counseling, special classes,

physical education, social service) (SPL)

43 59 77 36 15

30 Extra-curricular activities (ECA) 46 51 73 44 16

31 Performance of faculty (POF) 10 23 98 67 32

32 Performance of office staff (POS) 30 40 99 49 12

33 Performance of non-teaching staff (PNT) 25 35 99 58 13

34 Performance of students (PST) 3 15 67 104 41

35 Industry-Institution interaction (I I I) 33 55 61 59 22

(Alphabets in parentheses indicate abbreviation)

Table – 8

Mean, Standard Deviation and Sum for Educational Institution’s Service Attributes

S. No. Educational Institution’s Service Attributes

Attributes Mean (Out of 5) Standard Deviation Sum (Out of Maximum 1150)

1 CCR 3.1130 0.9736 716

2 ADF 3.0609 0.9871 704

3 APF 3.3478 0.9626 770

4 AOS 2.9261 0.9661 673

5 PHY 3.2217 1.0567 741

6 TEU 3.1957 1.0156 735

7 AIC 3.4609 0.9959 796

8 PKF 3.2783 1.2188 754

9 RCF 2.7217 1.1218 626

10 CAN 2.8783 1.1942 662

11 COM 2.5478 1.2238 586

12 LIB 3.5652 0.9902 820

13 RDF 2.8609 1.2105 658

14 SST 3.5000 0.9701 805

15 OSS 2.9783 1.1386 685

16 FCD 3.4652 0.9233 797



17 TCP 3.4261 1.0071 788

18 TCS 3.3870 1.0334 779

19 AIE 3.2609 1.0116 750

20 PDB 3.5043 0.9879 806

21 COC 3.5348 0.9186 813

22 PCE 3.6826 1.0611 847

23 MUN 2.8043 0.9397 6445

24 SYN 2.7130 0.9323 624

25 CIT 3.4609 1.1391 796

26 EPC 2.6130 1.0950 601

27 FEE 3.1130 1.1039 716

28 VES 3.1348 1.0382 721

29 SPL 2.6565 1.1443 611

30 ECA 2.7087 1.1885 623

31 POF 3.3826 0.9898 778

32 POS 2.8826 1.0528 663

33 PNT 2.9957 1.0343 689

34 PST 3.7174 0.8782 855

35 I I I 2.9217 1.2051 672

It can be seen from Table – 8 that the attributes in terms of highest sums (sum above 770) are

Performance of students (PST), Proper conduct of test / examination (PCE), Library facilities

(LIB), Conduct of classes (COC), Proper database management (PDB), Staff’s sincerity in

teaching (SST), Faculty’s ability of clearing doubts (FCD), Ambience inside the classroom

(AIC), Convenience of institution’s timings (CIT), Teaching of concepts / problems correctly

(TCP), Timely completion of syllabus / course content (TCS), Performance of faculty (POF),

and Appearance of faculty (APF). The three attributes which obtained the highest sums

thereby indicating good service quality were Performance of students, Proper conduct of test

/examination, and Library facilities. The attributes which obtained the least sums (sum of 665

and below) are Communication facilities (COM), Effective placement cell (EPC), Special

facilities (SPL), Extra-curricular activities (ECA), Sensitiveness to your needs (SYN),

Recreational facilities (RCF), Management’s understanding of needs (MUN), Residential

facilities (RDF), Canteen facilities (CAN) and Performance of office staff (POS). The three

attributes which obtained the least sums thereby indicating poor service quality were

Communication facilities, Effective placement cell, and Special facilities.

RELIABILITY ANALYSIS

The cronbach alpha (reliability coefficient) values for the rating scale, obtained using

SPSS package, are presented in Table – 9 along with the values for number of respondents

and number of attribute items.

Table – 9

Comparison of Cronbach Alpha Values

S. No. Statistic Values obtained from Pilot Study Values obtained from Survey

1 Number of cases 30 230

2 Number of Items 35 35

3 Alpha Value 0.9353 0.9598



An alpha value above 0.7 indicates good reliability. It can be seen from Table – 9 that the

alpha values were found to be very good for both pilot study as well as survey.

FACTOR ANALYSIS

Factor Analysis denotes a class of procedures primarily used for data reduction and

summarization. There may be a large number of variables, most of which are correlated and

which must be reduced to a manageable level. In Principal Component Analysis, the total

variance in the data is considered. The diagonal of the correlation matrix consists of unities,

and full variance is brought into the factor matrix. The primary concern is to determine the

minimum number of factors that will account for maximum variance. The factors are called

principal components. Although the initial or unrotated factor matrix indicates the

relationship between the factors and individual variables, it seldom results in factors that can

be interpreted. Varimax procedure is an orthogonal (axes are maintained at right angles)

rotation method that minimizes the number of variables with high loadings on a factor,

thereby enhancing the interpretability of the factors. This results in factors that are

uncorrelated. The rotated factor matrix using SPSS package (Principal Components Methods

with Varimax rotation resulting in 3 iterations) is presented in Table – 10.

Table – 10

Rotated Factor Matrix for Educational Institution’s Service Attributes

Attribute Number Attributes (Abbreviation) Factors (F)

F1 F2

14 SST 0.816 0.192

16 FCD 0.809 0.163

17 TCP 0.809 0.228

31 POF 0.761 0.231

15 OSS 0.744 0.336

18 TCS 0.729 0.206

32 POS 0.699 0.394

19 AIE 0.682 0.264

3 APF 0.656 0.278

33 PNT 0.627 0.366

4 AOS 0.617 0.318

22 PCE 0.592 0.375

21 COC 0.563 0.426

20 PDB 0.532 0.443

27 FEE 0.480 0.225

25 CIT 0.473 0.301

28 VES 0.470 0.373

7 AIC 0.440 0.376

34 PST 0.426 0.408

29 SPL 0.192 0.745

30 ECA 0.188 0.681

2 ADF 0.315 0.653

6 TEU 0.301 0.650

9 RCF 0.212 0.611

23 MUN 0.380 0.601

5 PHY 0.389 0.592



35 I I I 0.338 0.591

10 CAN -0.025 0.587

26 EPC 0.383 0.583

24 SYN 0.431 0.554

1 CCR 0.355 0.518

13 RDF 0.304 0.507

11 COM 0.400 0.490

12 LIB 0.349 0.458

8 PKF 0.339 0.354

It can be seen from the Table – 10 that Principal Components Methods with Varimax rotation

resulting in 3 iterations produced two factors. Values above 0.50 were taken for each factor

grouping and the attributes under each factor along with their corresponding values are

presented factor-wise in Table – 11 and 12.

Table – 11

Significant Loading of Attributes on Varimax Factor 1

Attribute

number

Educational Institution’s Service Attributes Value Factor Name

14 Faculty’s sincerity in teaching you in the

classroom

0.816 Performance

of staff (Faculty,

Office and non-

teaching) 16 Faculty’s ability of clearing doubts 0.809

17 Teaching of concepts/problems correctly 0.809

31 Performance of faculty 0.761

15 Office staff’s sincerity in attending to your

needs

0.744

18 Timely completion of syllabus/course content 0.729

32 Performance of office staff 0.699

19 Accuracy in evaluation of answer scripts 0.682

3 Appearance of faculty 0.656

33 Performance of non-teaching staff 0.627

4 Appearance of office staff 0.617

22 Proper conduct of test/examination 0.592

21 Conduct of classes 0.563

20 Proper database management (marks, fee,

attendance, profile)

0.532

It can be seen from Table – 11 that the attributes under factor number 1 comprised faculty’s

sincerity in teaching you in the classroom, Faculty’s ability of clearing doubts, Teaching of

concepts/problems correctly, Performance of faculty, Office staff’s sincerity in attending to

your needs, Timely completion of syllabus/course content, Performance of office staff,

Accuracy in evaluation of answer scripts, Appearance of faculty, Performance of non-

teaching staff, Appearance of office staff, Proper conduct of test/examination, Conduct of

classes, and Proper database management (marks, fee, attendance, profile). The fourteen

attributes have been grouped together and named “Performance of staff (faculty, non-

teaching and office)”, as this name best describes the cluster.



Table – 12

Significant Loading of Attributes on Varimax Factor 2

Attribute

Number

Educational Institution’s Service Attributes Value Factor name

29 Special facilities (dining, counseling, special

classes, physical education, social service)

0.745 Facilities provided

by the Institution)

30 Extra-curricular activities 0.681

2 Adequacy of facilities (faculty, rooms, labs, etc.) 0.653

6 Tools or equipments used to provide the service

(boards, audio-visual aids, furniture, examination

booklets)

0.650

9 Recreational facilities 0.611

23 Management’s understanding of needs 0.601

5 Physical representation of the service (reading

materials, textbooks, lab manuals, handouts,

notebooks, calendars, prospectus)

0.592

35 Industry-Institution Interaction 0.591

10 Canteen facilities 0.587

26 Effective placement cell 0.583

24 Sensitiveness to your needs 0.554

1 Condition of the classroom 0.518

13 Residential facilities (hostel) 0.507

It can be seen from Table – 12 that the attributes under factor number 2 comprised Special

facilities (dining, counseling, special classes, physical education, social service), Extra-

curricular activities, Adequacy of facilities (faculty, rooms, labs, etc.), Tools or equipments

used to provide the service (boards, audio-visual aids, furniture, examination booklets),

Recreational facilities, Management’s understanding of needs, Physical representation of

service (reading materials, textbooks, lab manuals, handouts, notebooks, calendars,

prospectus), Industry-Institution Interaction, Canteen facilities, Effective placement cell,

Sensitiveness to your needs, Condition of the classroom, and Residential facilities (hostel).

The thirteen attributes have been grouped together and named “Facilities provided by the

institution”’ as this name best describes the cluster.

OVERALL POINTS TALLY FOR EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION’S SERVICE

ATTRIBUTES

The respondents were asked to award a maximum of 100 points for each of the five

categories depicting different facets of the educational institution’s services, depending on

their encounters with the institution thus far. The mean, standard deviation and sum for the

five categories is presented in Table – 13.



Table – 13

Overall Points Tally for Educational Institution’s Service Attributes

S.

No.

Educational Institution’s Service Overall

Service Attributes

Mean Standard

Deviation

Sum Rank

1 The willingness of the institution to provide

service as per schedule (admission, syllabus

coverage, examination, evaluation, etc.)

63.33 20.25 14566 I

2 The knowledge and courtesy of the institution’s

staff and their ability to convey trust and

confidence

61.35 21.24 14111 II

3 The appearance of the institution’s physical

facilities, personnel and communication

materials

59.10 18.36 13593 III

4 The caring, individual attention the institution

provides its students

58.51 22.46 13458 IV

5 The ability of the institution to perform the

promised service dependably and accurately

57.90 20.06 13317 V

It can be seen from Table – 13 that maximum points were awarded to the willingness of the

institution to provide service as per schedule (admission, syllabus coverage, examination,

evaluation, etc.). The knowledge and courtesy of the institution’s staff and their ability to

convey trust and confidence were voted second while the appearance of the institution’s

physical facilities, personnel and communication materials was rated third. However, the

areas where the educational institutions are lacking comprise the caring, individualized

attention the institutions need to provide their students as well as the ability of the institution

to perform the promised service dependability and accurately. Thus, though the infrastructure

facilities are in place and activities take place on a scheduled basis, the individualized

attention that needs to be given to the students is lacking along with the will to accurately

deliver a reliable service.

Regression on Educational Institution:

Regression analysis was performed with educational institution as the dependent

variable using SPSS package. The analysis gave rise to 5 models with their corresponding R

square values as shown in Table I – A in Annexure. The model with the highest R square

value was chosen as the best model and this was found to be model 5. The beta and

significance values were also noted for the variable under different models.

It can be seen from Table I – A that the variables influencing educational institution,

in decreasing order of importance, are faculty’s sincerity in teaching, accuracy in evaluation,

variety of elective subjects, residential facilities and canteen facilities.

Mann-Whitney U-Test on Gender: This test was administered to see if the data from two

groups, namely, male and female respondents, were identical in terms of rankings for factors

influencing choice of educational institution. The statistical analysis is presented in Table I –

B in Annexure I. The results of the test are presented in Table -14.



Table -14

Mann-Whitney U-Test on Gender

Null Hypothesis Result

Number Statement

H01 The rankings for results, by male respondents and female respondents,

are identical

Rejected

H02 The rankings for Discipline, by male respondents and female

respondents, are identical

Rejected

H03 The rankings for the Transportation facilities, by male respondents and

female respondents, are identical

Rejected

H04 The rankings for Infrastructure, by male respondents and female


Rejected

H05 The rankings for Special status for college, by male respondents, are

identical

Accepted

H06 The rankings for specialization offered, by male respondents and


Rejected

H07 The rankings for Accessibility, by male respondents and female


Rejected

H08 The rankings for Special facilities, by male respondents and female


Rejected

H09 The rankings for Residential facilities, by male respondents and female


Rejected

H10 The rankings for Recommendation by friend/relative, by male

respondents and female respondents, are identical

Rejected

H11 The rankings for Ward of employed staff, by male respondents and


Rejected

H12 The rankings for Placement record, by male respondents and female


Rejected

H13 The rankings for Fee charged, by male respondents and female


Rejected

H14 The rankings for Admission compulsion, by male respondents and


Rejected

H15 The rankings for Canteen/Dinning facility, by male respondents and


Rejected

H16 The rankings for Other reasons, by male respondents and female


Rejected

Source: Table I – B in Annexure X.

It can be seen from Table I – B that the null hypothesis H05 (Special status for college) is the

only hypothesis which is accepted.

It can be seen that male and female students have divergent views when it comes to choosing

an educational institution. Their perceptions differ and so do their expectation.

Marketing Mix Mean Ratings: A check-list of the marketing mix was complied based on

interactions with faculty and students of different educational institutions. The marketing mix

elements have been depicted in the form of fish-bone diagram (cause-and-effect diagram) as

presented in Figure -1. The diagram also highlights the mean ratings given by the

respondents.



The following attributes were found to obtain mean ratings of 3.5 and above thereby

qualifying for the status of “Good Service Quality”: Library facuilities (LIB), Proper Data

Base Management (PDB), Conduct of classes (COC), Proper conduct of test / examination

(PCE), Faculty’s sincerity in teaching you in the classroom (FST) and Performance of

students (PST). All other attributes need to be monitored and quality improvement measures

undertaken.

In the case of process, four out of sixteen attributes in this category have been rated as having

good service quality. In the case of People, two out of ten attributes have been billed as

having good service quality. In the case of Environment and Management, no attribute has

been rated as having good service quality. This clearly indicates that Environment and

Management categories need drastic improvements while People and Process categories need

betterment for some of their attributes.

Figure -1 Determinants of Education Service Quality and Service Quality Attributes

Mean Ratings

Shaded boxes indicate “Good Service Quality” rating (Refer Table -7 for Abbreviations)



Service Quality Dimensions Mean Scores: The mean scores for the five service quality

dimensions, namely, Tangibles, Reliability, Responsiveness, Assurance and Empathy are

presented in Table -15.

Table -15

Mean Scores for Education Service Quality Dimensions

Tangibles Reliability Responsiveness Assurance Empathy

AIC-3.4609 AIE-3.2609 TCS-3.387 ADF-3.0609 CAN-2.8783

APF-3.3478 COC-3.5348 FCD-3.4652 COM-2.5478

AOS-2.9261 PCE-3.6826 SST-3.5 CIT-3.4609

CCR-3.1130 PDB-3.5043 OSS-2.9783 EPC-2.613

PHY-3.2217 TCP-3.4261 POF-3.3826 ECA-2.7087

TEU-3.1957 PNT-2.9957 FEE-3.113

POS-2.8826 III-2.9217

PST-3.7174 LIB-3.5652

MUN-2.8043

PKF-3.2783

VES-3.1348

RCF-2.7217

RDF-2.8609

SYN-2.713

SPL-2.6565

Tangibles

Mean = 3.2109

Reliability

Mean = 3.4817

Responsiveness =

Mean = 3.387

Assurance

Mean = 3.2478

Empathy

Mean =

2.9319

All the five dimensions have obtained a mean score below 3.5 indicting satisfactory service

quality. The Empathy dimension has gone below the 3 mark. The percentage of service

attributes having been billed as processing good service quality (mean score above 3.5)

within the dimension are: Tangibles - 16.67%, Reliability – 60%, Responsiveness – zero

percent, Assurance – 62.5% and Empathy – 73.33%.

Summary of Service Quality Gaps in Education: The significant service quality gaps

identified from the current study which require immediate and focused attention are presented

in Table -16.

Table -16

Significant Service Quality Gaps identified in Management Education

Gap 1 Management’s understanding of needs.

Gap 2 Adequacy of facilities, Industry-Institution interaction, Canteen facilities, Residential

facilities, Recreational facilities, Extra-curricular activities, Special facilities,

Communication facilities.

Gap 3 Performance of non-teaching staff, Office staff’s sincerity in attending to your needs,

Performance of office staff.

Gap 4 Appearance of office staff, Sensitiveness to your needs, Effective placement cell.

The educational institutions need to concentrate on the attributes mentioned in Table -16 in

order to raise the service quality level to be on par with premier institutes.



SCOT ANALYSIS FOR EDUCATION

The SCOT analysis for the Management education is given below is on the basis of personal

interviews with students and faculty of educational institutions besides the findings of the

current research study.

SCOT Analysis for Management Education

Strengths

Large network of educational institutions

Skilled manpower

English fluency / comprehension

Culture of hard work and sincerity

Presence of counsellors and informediaries

Spirit of scientific enquiry

Strong foundation at primary and secondary education levels

Challenges

Cross- integration

Attitude of Corporate World

Placement of Students

Service Quality (Teaching, Facilities)

Funds

Technology convergence

Social responsibility

Framing syllabi to reflect dynamic changes

Rapid increase in educational institutions and hence mismatch between supply

and demand

Opportunities

Learning new cultures

Global outlook

Industry sponsorship

Guest faculty from industry

Electronic-learning

Exchange programmes

Twining programmes

Threats

Implications of General Agreement on Trade in Services

Entry of Foreign Educational institutions

On-line education

Policies of Government & Regulatory Bodies

Economic slowdown within and outside the country

Decrease in salary levels

CONCLUSION

The following require immediate and focused attention in the education service industry: (a)

The appearance of the institution’s physical facilities, personnel and communications

materials, (b) The caring, individualized attention the institutions provides its students, and

(c) The ability of the institution to perform the promised service dependably and accurately.



Majority of the service quality gaps are in the areas of design. The following strategies are

suggested to improve service quality: (1) Aggressive introduction of modular courses on

emerging fields, (2) Creating national case bank inviting cases from a variety of contexts and

cultural milieu from the length and breadth of the country, (3) Organizing joint and

networked seminars and conferences to focus on developments and industry needs, (4)

Improving industry-academic interaction, (5) Seeking more sponsorship and fostering

research, (6) Facilitating holistic development, (7) Creating a national body for ethics and

service quality, (8) Creating infrastructure that is on par with global standards.

The business schools must endeavour to lessen ills plaguing the system: (a) Limited

number of core faculty and heavy dependence on guest faculty, (b) Poor quality of faculty in

terms of incompetence, insufficient qualifications, and lack of experience, (c) Improperly

structured courses and course outline, (d) Admission norms and eligibility criteria greatly

relaxed to accommodate larger number of students regardless of quality, (e) Assessment

procedures and criteria not properly defined with faculty following their own style, (f) Many

institutions have a good number of retired academicians who occupy prime positions and

decision making posts exhibiting a lack of vision and enthusiasm.

The system must also encourage: (1) Cross-departmental (functional areas or

specializations) task forces-steering committees, (2) Sharing of corporate ideas with more

industry-Institution interaction, (3) Assessment criteria – consistency in marking (grading),

(4) Honesty – not hiding problems, (5) Tact in service differentiation, (6) Pursuing Total

Quality in few departments and then slowly spreading to all parts of the institution.

The educational system must also ensure that: (a) institutions do not abandon quality

management after initial success, (b) faculty time is optimally utilized, (c) technology is

integrated with the curriculum, (d) practical industry-based learning is fostered, (e) tuition fee

level is within an affordable range or are supplemented by scholarships, (f) emphasis is on

quality of learning and not just testing (examination-oriented) and (g) all facilities must be

created for holistic development that include co-curricular, extra-curricular and community-

oriented activities.

REFERENCES

Books

1. Kanji, Gopal, K., Asher, Mike, “100 Methods for Total Quality Management,”

Response Books; New Delhi, 1997.

2. Kothari, C. R., “Research Methodology – Methods and Techniques,” Wishwa

Prakashan: Delhi, 1998

3. Mohanty, R. P., Lakhe, R. R. “TQM in the Service Sector,” Jaico Publishing House:

Mumbai, 2002

4. Murphy, John, A. “Service Quality in Practice,” Gill and Macmillan Limited: Dublin,

1993

5. Murthy, D. B. N., “Managing Quality – A practical Guide to Customer Satisfaction,”

Response Books: New Delhi, 1999.

Journals

1. Athiyaman, Adee “Linking Students Satisfaction and Service Quality Perceptions: the

Case of University Education,” European Journal of Marketing 31-7 (1997): pp528-

540

2. Audjieva, Maria, Wilson, Marie “Exploring the Development of Quality in Higher

Education,” Quality Assurance in Education 12-6 92002): pp 372-383.



3. Barnes, Elizabeth, J., “European Business Education: Qu’est-Ce Que C’est?”

European Business Review 95-1 (1995): pp 32-33.

4. Barrett, Brenda “What is the Function of a University? Ivory Tower or Trade for

Plumbers?” Quality Assurance in Education 6-3 (1998): pp 145-151.

5. Berry, Geoff “Leadership and the Development of Quality Culture in Schools,”

International Journal of Education Management 11-2 (1997): pp 52-64.

6. Ellington, Henry, Ross, Gavin “Evaluating Teaching Quality Throughout a University

– A Practical Scheme based on self-assessment,” Quality assurance in Education 2-2

(1994): pp 4-9.

7. Jakson, Norman “International Academic Quality Audit in UK Higher Education: Part

II – Implications for a National Quality Assurance Framework,” Quality Assurance in

Education 5-1 (1997): pp 46-54.

8. Johnson, Craig F., Golomski, William, A. J. “Quality Concepts in Education,” The

TQM Magazine 11-6 (1999): pp 6-19.

9. Joseph, Mathew, Beatriz, “Service Quality in Education: a Student Perspective,”

Quality Assurance in Education 5-1 (1997): pp 15-21.

10. Lomas, Laurie “The Culture and Quality of Higher Education Institutions: Examining

the Links,” Quality Assurance in Education 7-1 (1999): pp30-34.

11. Oldfield, Brenda, M., Baron, Steve “Student Perceptions of Service Quality in UK

Business and Management Faculty,” Quality Assurance in Education 8-2 (2000): pp

85-95.

12. Pennington, Gus, O’Neil, Mike “Enhancing the Quality of Teaching and Learning in

Higher Education,” Quality Assurance in Education 2-3 (1994): pp 13-18.

13. Peters, John, Wills, Gordon “ISO 9000 as a Global Educational Accreditation

Structure,” Quality Assurance in Education 6-2 (1998) pp 83-89.

14. Sohail, Sadiq, M., et al. “Managing Quality in Higher Education: a Malaysian Case

Study,” The International Journal of Educational Management 17-4 (2003): pp 141-

146.

15. Welsh, John, F., Dey, Sukhen “Quality Measurement and Quality Assurance in

Higher Education,” Quality Assurance in Education 8-1 (2000): pp 7-15.

16. Yorke, Mantz “Enhancement-led Higher Education?” Quality Assurance in Education

2-3 (1994): pp 6-12.

ANNEXURE I

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION

Table I – A

Regression Analysis Coefficients Matrix with Educational Institution

as the Dependent Variable

Model

Number

Variable

Number

Variable

(Abbreviation)

Beta

Value

Significance

Value

R Square

Value

1 10 CAN -0.407 0.000 0.166

2 10 CAN -0.449 0.000 0.240

19 AIE 0.275 0.000

3 10 CAN -0.468 0.000 0.259

19 AIE 0.222 0.000

28 VES 0.151 0.015



4 10 CAN -0.418 0.000 0.274

19 AIE 0.255 0.000

28 VES 0.176 0.005

13 ROF -0.144 0.031

5 10 CAN -0.400 -0.400 0.292

19 AIE 0.172 0.172

28 VES 0.139 0.139

13 RDF -0.190 -0.190

14 SST 0.181

Table I – B

Mann-Whitney U Test on Gender

Attribute Mean Rank Sum of Ranks Significance

Value

Result

Male

(138)

Female (92) Male

(138)

Female

(92)

Results 105.05 131.17 14497.50 12067.50 0.002 S*

Discipline 107.55 127.42 14842 11723 0.021 S**

Transportation

facility

105.54 130.43 14565 12000 0.004 S**

Infrastructure 108.39 126.17 14957.50 11607.50 0.038 S**

Special status for

College

109.91 123.89 15167.50 11397.50 0.107 NS

Specialization

offered

109.26 124.86 15078 11487 0.075 S***

Accessibility 105.07 131.15 14499 12066 0.002 S*

Special facilities 105.94 129.84 14620 11945 0.003 S*

Residential

facilities

109.54 124.43 15117 11448 0.066 S***

Recommended

by friend /

relative

104.26 132.35 14388.50 12176.50 0.001 S*

Ward of

employed staff

104.76 131.61 14456.50 12108.50 0.000 S*

Placement record 108.62 125.82 14989.50 11575.50 0.047 S**

Fee charged 107.91 126.88 14892 11673 0.030 S**

Admission

compulsion

105.92 129.87 14617 11948 0.005 S**

Canteen / Dining

facility

103.77 133.09 14320.50 12244.50 0.000 S*

Other 6 6 18 48 1.000 S*

Figures in parenthesis indicate number of respondents.

(S-Significant; NS-Not Significant) (* p<0.01 ** p<0.05 *** p<0.1)

***

Documents

QUALITY DETERMINANTS AND GAP ANALYSIS IN …