quality determinants and gap analysis in …
TRANSCRIPT
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
Volume:1, Number:2, June-2011 Page 119
www.theinternationaljournal.org
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.
Volume:1, Number:2, June-2011 Page 120
www.theinternationaljournal.org
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
Volume:1, Number:2, June-2011 Page 121
www.theinternationaljournal.org
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.
Volume:1, Number:2, June-2011 Page 122
www.theinternationaljournal.org
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.
Volume:1, Number:2, June-2011 Page 123
www.theinternationaljournal.org
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
Volume:1, Number:2, June-2011 Page 124
www.theinternationaljournal.org
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
Volume:1, Number:2, June-2011 Page 125
www.theinternationaljournal.org
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
Volume:1, Number:2, June-2011 Page 126
www.theinternationaljournal.org
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
Volume:1, Number:2, June-2011 Page 127
www.theinternationaljournal.org
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.
Volume:1, Number:2, June-2011 Page 128
www.theinternationaljournal.org
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.
Volume:1, Number:2, June-2011 Page 129
www.theinternationaljournal.org
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.
Volume:1, Number:2, June-2011 Page 130
www.theinternationaljournal.org
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
respondents, are identical
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
female respondents, are identical
Rejected
H07 The rankings for Accessibility, by male respondents and female
respondents, are identical
Rejected
H08 The rankings for Special facilities, by male respondents and female
respondents, are identical
Rejected
H09 The rankings for Residential facilities, by male respondents and female
respondents, are identical
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
female respondents, are identical
Rejected
H12 The rankings for Placement record, by male respondents and female
respondents, are identical
Rejected
H13 The rankings for Fee charged, by male respondents and female
respondents, are identical
Rejected
H14 The rankings for Admission compulsion, by male respondents and
female respondents, are identical
Rejected
H15 The rankings for Canteen/Dinning facility, by male respondents and
female respondents, are identical
Rejected
H16 The rankings for Other reasons, by male respondents and female
respondents, are identical
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.
Volume:1, Number:2, June-2011 Page 131
www.theinternationaljournal.org
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)
Volume:1, Number:2, June-2011 Page 132
www.theinternationaljournal.org
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.
Volume:1, Number:2, June-2011 Page 133
www.theinternationaljournal.org
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.
Volume:1, Number:2, June-2011 Page 134
www.theinternationaljournal.org
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.
Volume:1, Number:2, June-2011 Page 135
www.theinternationaljournal.org
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
Volume:1, Number:2, June-2011 Page 136
www.theinternationaljournal.org
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)
***