Education Excellence: An Integrated Performance Measurement and ...

Education Excellence: An Integrated Performance Measurement and Management Model

Teay Shawyun, Ph.D.
Center for Excellence
Assumption University of Thailand

Abstract

Since the enactment of the 1999 Education Act B.E. 2542, the momentum of the QA movement
in the education community in Thailand has been dynamic but there appears to be a lack of the “big
picture” of an integrated performance management model that emphasizes on continuous improvement
and integration in a higher education establishment. As such, this paper aims at proposing an
integrated performance management model for performance measurement and management for
education excellence. The original ONESQA and MUA1 requirement of the 8 and 9 KPI performance
areas respectively have been maintained but streamlined towards a more generic and robust
performance management model incorporating the Malcolm Baldridge Quality philosophy and
assessment system. The proposed model can be used at the department and faculty level for its internal
SSR and SAR development aimed at continuous improvement and as a comparative indicator across
different departments, different faculty and different universities. A worked out sample using
hypothetical performance data of four faculties is used to illustrate the performance management
ideology and its comparative power leading to education excellence.

Key words: performance management, quality assurance, and education excellence.
I. Introduction
UNESCO (1998) and Salmi (1999), highlighted that higher education has and is going through a
paradigm shift in the 21st century. In this shift, the dimensional changes are globalization, growing
importance of knowledge and information and communication revolution that calls for changes in
education and training needs of higher skills levels and continuing education, institutional change of
inter- and multi-disciplinary programs, new pedagogical approaches and flexibility. This appropriately
highlights the situation that Thailand is undergoing with the enactment of the 1999 Education Act B.E.
2545 (ONEC, 2001). The key theme is student centered focus and the approach towards managing
quality in education resulting in the MUA1’s 9 KPIs and the ONESQA’s 8 KPIs.

Rowley (1996) explored the elusive approaches to determine quality and the instruments that have
been tested and applied in the measurement of quality in higher education of which TQM and
SERVQUAL are the main themes. Rowley discussed the work of various authorities on methods and
performance indicators for assessing teaching and learning and the studies that looked at the
satisfaction of the students. Harvey and Green (1993) provided a simple yet useful framework of
defining quality for higher education as exceptional, perfection, fitness for purpose, value for money and
transformation.

This characterizes a challenge that all institutions of higher education is still defining and chasing
the elusive holy grail of quality management of education. The very elusive nature of quality calls for not

1 The MUA (Ministry of University Affairs) is now the CHE (Commission of Higher Education) when it was incorporated under the
Ministry of Education as announced in the Royal Gazette dated July 2003.
ASAIHL-THAILAND Journal, Vol. 6 No. 2, November 2003
1

---

a summation of pieces but a total and integrated approach to manage quality of which this paper
contends that professionally, an integrated performance measurement and management approach
needs to be the foundation of quality management in an institution of higher learning.

II.
Literature on Quality Management System
In the major literatures of quality management, quality assessment and quality frameworks and
systems, it appears that quality: 1) is directed at Customer Satisfaction, 2) “Meets Requirements”, 3)
applies to every product (physical product, information product and service product), 4) is a profitable
long-term investment, 5) requires changing an organization’s culture, 6) requires top management
leadership, 7) is everybody’s job, 8) equates to “good business practice and system”, 9) requires a
focus on people, 10) is achieved through process improvement, 11) is improvement is forever and 12) is
a fundamental long-term goal of the organization. [W.E. Deming, (1986), J.M. Juran, (1980), P.B.
Crosby, (1979), K. Ishikawa, (1985), A.V. Feigenbaum, (1991)]. Lau and Anderson (1998) calls for the
development of a seamless “total”, “quality” and “management” big picture integration that identifies the
cause-effect system to measure and manage the quality of the institution.
The development of the seamless and pervasive TQM within the institution should be both internally
and externally driven meeting the needs and requirements of all the stakeholders. Lawrence and
McCol ough (2001) and Garvin (1988) highlighted the unique perspectives and interpretation of different
stakeholders groups (students, alumni, faculty, administrators, parents, oversight boards, employers,
legislatures, governing bodies, and general public) leading to the:

• Stakeholders’ Driven Imperatives – the constituents of whom are students, parents, alumnus,
employment market leading to the strategic and customer focus,
• Regulatory Driven Imperatives – the constituents of whom are the government, and other
academic institutions of higher learning leading to the curriculum, teaching, learning and
research, and students’ development focus, and benchmarking,
• University Driven Imperatives – the constituents of whom are the administrators, the support and
service units, the faculty and personnel’s focus.
The stakeholders’ expectations highlight the diverse needs of the students, parents and
employment markets, (ABAC 2003). The 2002 education criteria of 7 KPI (MUA 2002) with the 2 key
regulatory agencies of ONESQA with its 8 KPIs (Pitiyanuwat, 2002) and the MUA with its 9 KPIs (MUA,
August 2002) highlights the recommended regulatory requirement of performance excellence for
academic institutions. In any institution, there are also internal imperatives governing the education
excellence of an institution (ABAC 2000) as the foundation of its professionalism and strive for education
excellence in its long-term strategic plan.
Based on the 3 stakeholders’ imperatives, and the vast literature on the tenets of quality and total
quality management, it appears that the process and end-results towards education excellence can be
synthesized into 4 main educational directions that can be used as the basis of the development of an
all-encompassing 4 canons of quality assurance policy to achieve education excellence as fol ows:
• Quality students as benchmarked by stakeholders in terms of skills, knowledge,
competence, capabilities and ethics that is to be developed through,
• Quality instruction by competent and knowledgeable academics well versed in TLR
(teaching, learning and research), whose expertise are enshrined in the,
ASAIHL-THAILAND Journal, Vol. 6 No. 2, November 2003
2

---

• Quality and innovative curriculum, conducted within the citadel of learning built with and
supported through,
• Quality infrastructures and support services to create a conducive and effective TLR
environment.

III.
Rationale for an integrated performance management system


Once we have defined the 4 basic canons of quality assurance of education excellence, we
need to define and develop an integrated system that delivers on the set of indicators of quality (Cleary,
2001) and end-result of the benchmarked graduates [Teay (1998), Teay and Salam (1999), Snyder
(2000)]. In the Performance Measurement and Management and Quality arena, many frameworks,
concepts and theories were created and died a natural death. In the field of management, terminologies
are a fad but the underlying principles and precepts are the same. Out of these very diverse
approaches, and over the past decades, 3 models have weathered the dearth of time and test.
Superficially, these models in themselves appear to be different, but on closer inspection, the basic
philosophies and precepts are the same resulting in the 5 main aspects that an integrated model should
address. Figure 1 shows the similarities of the 3 main models of the Baldridge Quality Assessment
System for Education, the Balanced Scorecard Management System, and the EFQM – BEM Model
highlighting the 5 management perspectives.


BALDRIDGE QUALITY ASSESMENT
BALANCED SCORECARD
EFQM – BEM MODEL

SYSTEM for Education


MANAGEMENT SYSTEM



Policy and Strategy
Lea
dership
Strategic Vision
Leadership
St
rategic Planning

Impact on Society


Results
Financial Perspective
Business results


Customer and Market Focus
Customer Perspective
Customer satisfaction



Resources
Pr
ocess Management
Internal Process
Processes


Perspective
Human Resource Focus
People satisfaction

Learning and Growth
Info
People Management
rmation and Analysis
Perspective





Source: Malcolm Bald ridge 2003 National
Source: The Strategy Focused Organization
Source: EFQM Self Assessment Guidelines
Qu
ality Criteria for Education
(2001) Robert S. Kaplan $ David P. Norton
(2000)





INTEGRATED PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT AND MANAGEMENT MODEL

MANAGEMENT PERSPECTIVES

MEASUREMENT PERSPECTIVES



Strategic Planning and Management

Strategic Management Perspective

System Infrastructure

Financial Perspectives
ROI, ROCE, EVA



Customer {Satisfaction, Retention,

Customer and Market Perspective
Acquisition, Profitability, Share}

Value creation in Primary and Support
Process Perspective

Activities of Value Chain

Employee Competence {Retention,

Learning and Information Perspective
Productivity, Satisfaction} and Information
Communication Technology Competence
ASAIHL-THAILAND Journal, Vol. 6 No. 2, November 2003
3
Figure 1. Synthesis of Assessment Systems of Quality Management

---

To manage quality, an academic institution should come up with its own quality assurance
model that is robust and generic enough to incorporate the very diverse needs and requirements of the
internally and externally driven imperatives.

As such, this paper aims at proposing an Integrated Performance Measurement and
Management Model (IPMMM) as depicted in Figure 2 to achieve education excellence. To achieve the 4
canons of the quality assurance policy based on the guidelines of the 5 perspectives of an integrated
performance measurement and management system as identified, the 7 KPIs of the Baldridge Model,
and the 8 KPIs of the ONESQA are incorporated into the 9 KPIs of the MUA. This will avoid the
unnecessary duplication of work to meet differing stakeholders’ requirement.


It is noted that this IPMMM (Figure 2) is result oriented being driven by how an institution
approaches and deploy its resources to achieve the results as desired and benchmarked. The overall
end-result is the graduates as benchmarked and any deviation or improvement needs will be feedback
within the feed-forward and feedback control system for continuous improvement. This is the underlying
principle of all quality systems, which is continuous improvement, based on the feed-forward and
feedback system for a total performance measurement and management system.


Approach-Deployment Orientation


KPI 1 Vision, Mission and Strategic Plans

1.1Vision and Mission

1.2Strategic plans
Results-Orientation
QA Policyy
KPI 2 Learning and Teaching


2.1 Curriculum

KPI 9 Quality Assurance and
2.2 Process of Educational design and education
Results
To achieve
9.1 Internal quality assurance results
EDUCATION
2.3 Learners, Other concerned persons, &

EXCELLENCE
E
employment markets
9.2 Student and learning results


2.4 Student services
9.3 Student centered results
2.5 Supporting Processes

9.4 Employment markets results

Quality students as
benchmarked by
KPI 3 Student Activities
9.5 Faculty and personnel results

stakeholders,
3.1 Student Development Activities
9.6 Effectiveness


Quality instruction by
3.2 Guidance and Counseling System

competent and

KPI 4 Research

knowledgeable
4.1 Policy, Plan and Research

ac ademics well versed
4.2 Research Process

in TLR (teaching,
4.3

learning and
Research Results
Graduates Benchmark
re search),
KPI 5 Academic Services


5.1 Academic Services

Quality and
•
Knowledge
innovative curriculum,
5.2 Social responsibility
•
Skills


Quality
KPI 6 Promotion of Thai Arts and Cultures
•
in
Competence
frastructures and
6.1 Promotion of Thai Arts and Cultures
support services to
•
Capabilities
KPI 7 Administration
cr
eate a conducive
7.1
•
Leadership in the Faculty
Ethics

and effective TLR
7.2

environment.
Information and Information analysis


7.3 Information Management

7.4 Instructors and Personnel
KPI 8 Finance and Budgeting

8.1 Source of Funding and Budgeting

8.2 Allocation and Audit



Performance Feedback for Continuous Improvement

Figure 2: An Integrated Performance Measurement and Management Model (IPMMM) for Education Excellence
ASAIHL-THAILAND Journal, Vol. 6 No. 2, November 2003
4

---

IV.
IPMMM Philosophy and Principles


The basic philosophy of the IPMMM is that:

It is robust and generic in that it can used as an audit and assessment model at the department or the
faculty level or the administrative unit to develop the SSR (Self-Study Report) and based on the SSR to
develop the SAR (Self-Audit Report) (MUA, July 2002). At the same time, the auditing team can use the
same set of criteria to audit and assess the unit.
It is non-prescriptive in that it does not prescribe to the department or the faculty or the administration of
the systems, techniques, tools or methodologies that a unit must use, as this highlight the diversity of the
unit and each unit has the discretion to select what is appropriate to that unit based on time, situation,
culture, people and resources.
It is transparent to ensure that the unit being audited and the team to audit the unit speak the same
language that will bring about the same mutual understanding rather than confrontational surprises.
It is aimed at continuous improvement rather than to find faults and fallacies of the unit being audited
and to learn as a unit and on a whole leading to a learning organization.

To achieve the above philosophy, the Baldridge Model is incorporated within the ONESQA
standards and external 8 KPI (Pitiyanuwat, 2002) and the MUA guidelines and 9 KPI (MUA, August
2002). The ONESQA and MUA indicators are framed as the IPMMM 9 KPI as they are more specific and
required by law. The broad and general Baldridge discussion guidelines and 7 KPI criteria form the
backdrop for non-prescriptive discussions and standard criteria assessment. Even though many
assessment systems exist with their accompanying merits and non-merits, the assessment and the
scoring principles of the Education Criteria for Performance Excellence, Malcolm Baldridge National
Quality Program (NIST, 2003) and the Thailand Quality Award (TPI, 2003) is adapted as the model of the
audit and assessment in the IPMMM.

Three key features of the Baldridge Model and the Thailand Quality Award adapted to the IPMMM
model are: 1) the Independent Review 2) the Consensus Review and 3) the Scoring Criteria guidelines
and Scoring Band Descriptors. Note also that each institution can adapt these 3 features to meet their
unique needs and requirements. The key merit of using a consensus approach is to reduce individual
bias and misconstrued perceptions. It also provides a set of criteria guidelines that are used as generic
comparative indicators for inter-department, inter-faculty and inter-university benchmarking.

V. IPMMM
Implementation
To illustrate the mechanism of the IPMMM, 4 faculties are audited and assessed based on the
philosophy and principles as discussed above. Two big faculties: Schools of Management with 9
departments SOM01 – SOM09 and School of Arts with 7 departments SOA01 – SOA07 and 2 small
faculties: School of Bio-Technology with 2 departments SBT01 – SBT02 and School of Communication
Arts with 2 departments SCA01 – SCA02 are used to illustrate the IPMMM.


At the faculty level, for a big faculty there will be 2 QA teams, a faculty QA team comprising of
the Dean and Chairpersons of the departments. At the department level, the chairperson with its own
departmental QA team will chair it. There will be a university Internal Audit and Assessment Team (IAAT)
to do the annual audit and assessment of the faculty. Regardless of the audit and assessment being
done at the departmental, faculty or by the IAAT, the process is the same. Each of the auditors will
assess the unit concerned using the scorebook and its scoring guidelines. The objective is that the
assessor will know what to assess and the assessed will know what is assessed. This is very critical as
everyone in the system will know and follow the same standards to achieve the same standards
accepted and applied to all units. The same IAAT will follow and assess the unit for at least 5 years. This
ASAIHL-THAILAND Journal, Vol. 6 No. 2, November 2003
5

---

will also serve as a very strong support base for comparative and sharing of knowledge across the
departments and the faculty so that each unit can learn from all units.

The above system is justified based on two main philosophies of quality assurance:

Continuous improvement, whereby the unit assessed by the same IAAT will be able to
learn from and improve on what they have done on a continuous basis.
Sharing of knowledge, whereby the better performing units can share their knowledge
and skills in the quality achievement to help the lower performing units.

VII. IPMMM Result Interpretation and Implications


A. University level analysis


Assuming a set of dummy data for each of the faculty, all the data are input into the SPSS for
data analysis. At the university level, comparative analysis using means analysis is used to compare the
performance of each faculty with the university mean. We can just use the mean total for each of the KPI
(Table 1) or compare the faculty based on the 27 sub KPIs.

Table 1
Overall means performance comparison of faculty
Point
University
KPI
Value
Mean
SOM
SCA
SBT
SOA
Total KPI 1
80
37.689
46.1190
32.0714
30.4286
30.5306
Total KPI 2
200
101.600
117.9810
97.4107
97.5857
82.8827
Total KPI 3
80
40.678
46.0000
40.5714
41.3571
33.6735
Total KPI 4
120
58.562
67.9492
49.1429
59.5714
48.8980
Total KPI 5
50
24.951
27.7937
23.3929
24.2857
21.9337
Total KPI 6
30
15.116
16.6389
15.9643
16.0714
12.6429
Total KPI 7
80
40.733
46.3730
40.2143
42.1786
33.2194
Total KPI 8
40
20.357
22.9206
20.3571
20.9286
16.8980
Total KPI 9
320
173.057
195.3333
173.2143
166.9286
146.1224
Total Score
1000
508.517
577.897
487.839
496.621
428.622


As shown in Table 1, it can be seen that SOM is performing above the university in all of the
KPIs and comparatively is the bet er performer than the other 3 faculties with SOA as the lowest
performer. Even though SCA and SBT appears to be performing similarly, it can be seen that SCA is
doing better in KPI1 and KPI 9 whereas SBT is doing better in the other KPIs. Recalling that the IPMMM
is non-prescriptive, it means that the units can determine the tools, techniques, policies, procedures,
processes and systems to be used in their units. The lower performing unit can learn from the better
performing units through the sharing of experiences and knowledge. Analyzing the individual, the
consensus scorebooks, and the KPI worksheets will be the key to the continuous improvement by the
units and other units and in the sharing of knowledge. Overall, this will prove a strong basis for
continuous improvement and sharing of knowledge through out the university as a learning organization.


An in-depth analysis to further determine the performance of the faculty can be carried by
looking at the sub-category of each of the main KPI, of which there are 27. Analysis of the sub-
categories of the individual KPI will provide a better and more detailed picture of the performance of the
units concerned as shown in Table 2. The same rationale and logic in the analysis for Table 1 applies
also for Table 2, with the exception that the Table 2 is more in-depth and comprehensive covering the
ASAIHL-THAILAND Journal, Vol. 6 No. 2, November 2003
6

---

sub-categories. Based on this approach, it is contended that each faculty and in the end the university
as a whole can manage the university with a total system picture and management through
measurement for success, by identifying the metrics of success and the opportunities for improvement.

Table 2 Means performance comparison of faculty for each of the 27 KPIs
Point
University
KPI
Value
Mean
SOM
SCA
SBT
SOA
Vision & Mission
30
13.971
17.190
11.679
11.143
11.296
Strategic Plans
50
23.861
29.325
20.036
19.286
19.235
Curriculum
50
24.350
29.2302
22.5000
20.3571
19.7449
Education Process
50
25.332
30.1190
22.5000
23.2143
20.5918
Stakeholders
50
25.500
29.2857
24.8214
24.1071
21.2245
Student Services
25
13.108
15.3413
11.6964
12.5857
10.7908
Support Services
40
12.773
15.0119
11.0714
12.3214
10.5102
Student Development
40
20.807
24.0635
20.0000
20.6429
16.8980
Guidance Counseling
40
19.871
21.9365
20.5714
20.7143
16.7755
Research Plan
40
19.628
22.7302
16.0000
20.0000
16.5714
Research Resources
40
19.510
22.7857
15.7143
20.0000
16.2449
Research Results
40
19.657
22.6667
17.4286
19.5714
16.4490
Academic Services
25
12.937
14.1865
11.7857
12.9464
11.6582
Social Responsibility
25
12.242
13.7976
11.6071
12.7679
10.2755
Thai Arts and Culture
30
15.116
16.6389
15.9643
16.0714
12.6429
Leadership
20
9.821
11.0952
10.0000
9.5000
8.2245
Information Analysis
15
7.810
9.0714
7.5536
7.6071
6.3214
Information Management
15
7.850
8.8849
7.5536
8.3571
6.4592
Faculty and Staff
30
15.621
17.8571
15.1071
16.7143
12.5816
Finance and Budgeting
20
10.164
11.4286
10.1429
10.3571
8.4898
Allocation and Audit
20
10.192
11.4921
10.2143
10.5714
8.4082
Internal Quality Assurance
20
10.735
12.2540
10.5714
10.9286
8.7755
Student Learning Results
60
32.185
36.6190
31.7143
31.2857
26.8776
Stakeholders Results
60
32.314
36.7143
32.3571
29.5714
27.4286
Employment Mkt. Results
60
32.742
36.7143
32.5714
30.6429
28.2857
Faculty and Staff Results
60
33.150
37.1905
33.0000
32.3571
28.2245
Effectiveness Results
60
32.871
36.6667
33.0000
32.1429
28.1633
B. Faculty level Analysis

At the faculty level, the same approach of analysis for the university is performed as shown in Table 3.
Table 3 looks at the comparative performance of each of the main KPI across all the departments in SOM. As
SOM is the leading performer in the university, a better understanding of their performance would be to use the
SOM benchmark as the benchmark rather than the university benchmark to compare each department’s KPI
means. In the end, it can be seen that five of the departments are under performing using the SOM benchmark
but they are doing well using the university benchmark. This could be the driving force for them to learn from
their own colleagues. It can be seen that SOM02 is the better performing department of the 9 departments in
SOM. This means that the other departments can learn from what SOM02 can share with them with regard to
their success contributing to cross departmental collaboration and cooperation through sharing and learning
towards a successful faculty working towards the same direction of education excellence. This emphasizes and
underlies the unity and strength of teamwork through collaborative learning.

ASAIHL-THAILAND Journal, Vol. 6 No. 2, November 2003
7

---

Table 3
Overall means performance comparison of departments in SOM
Point
Univ.
SOM
KPI
Value
Mean
Mean
SOM01 SOM02 SOM03 SOM04 SOM05 SOM06 SOM07 SOM08 SOM09
Total KPI 1
80
37.689 46.1190 46.5714 54.5714 49.1429 45.5714 45.7143 41.7857 42.0714 46.9286 42.7143
Total KPI 2
200
101.60 117.981 122.428 128.571 130.678 122.321 115.078 120.785 101.928 111.285 108.750
Total KPI 3
80
40.678 46.0000 52.0000 53.7143 49.7143 45.1429 45.4286 48.5714 42.0000 42.2857 35.1429
Total KPI 4
120
58.562 67.9492 75.1429 76.9714 74.0000 60.8571 68.2857 72.2857 66.2857 67.1429 50.5714
Total KPI 5
50
24.951 27.7937 26.4286 30.7143 31.7857 24.9643 28.5000 29.1786 26.4286 29.8214 22.3214
Total KPI 6
30
15.116 16.6389 16.0714 16.2857 18.6429 16.7143 16.5000 16.7143 16.0714 18.6071 14.1429
Total KPI 7
80
40.733 46.3730 48.0714 50.7500 49.8929 48.1429 47.4286 43.0357 47.5357 45.7500 36.7500
Total KPI 8
40
20.357 22.9206 24.1429 23.8571 22.8571 24.7143 22.1429 21.1429 24.1429 24.0000 19.2857
Total KPI 9
320
173.05 195.333 213.142 202.714 204.142 204.571 203.857 182.142 190.428 182.571 174.428
Total Score
1000
508.51
577.89
575.14
648.72
632.28
593.00
550.25
580.21
556.82
560.53
504.10

The same rationale and approach of Table 2 for university is applied to provide an in-depth and
comprehensive performance of the 27 KPIs to better reflect the performance of the departments on the
same peer level. This is important as the university means wil be used as the university benchmark for
comparative performance and the faculty means can be used as the department benchmark, whichever
is better. Another important aspect is that the use of these benchmarks based on the IPMMM model that
is non-prescriptive, would ral y all university units in the same direction as outlined in the university
mission, goals and objectives.
C. Degree of importance of the approach-deployment KPIs affecting the results KPI
Using the means analysis to determine the importance of each of the KPI is rather superficial, as it
does not actually relate the approach-deployment KPIs to the results KPI, or the capacity of the KPI as
the predictor of the results. As such, to determine the predictive power of the approach-deployment
KPIs of the results KPI, the regression model for the university and the faculty is developed.

The university regression model, using both methods of enter all and stepwise regression is shown
below. The power of predictability of the final end results KPI 9 using enter all regression method is
shown in the following equation 1:

KPI 9 = 54.236 + 0.168 KPI1 + 0.191 KPI2 + 0.051 KPI3 + 0.107 KPI4 + 0.054 KPI5
– 0.073 KPI6 + 0.195 KPI7 + 0.291 KPI8………….. (Equation 1)

with quite a high R2 of 0.545 predictive power of the KPI 1 to 8 to explain the KPI 9 and how each of the
KPI has more predictive power on KPI 9. In equation 1, it appears that KPI 8, KPI 7, KPI 2, KPI 1 and KPI
4 in descending order of predictive power are good predictors of the performance results.
KPI 9 = 54.577 + 0.287 KPI8 + 0.191 KPI2 + 0.178 KPI7 + 0.177 KPI1 + 0.140 KPI4.. (Equ. 2)

Using the stepwise regression model, equation 2 substantiated equation 1 with a quite high
adjusted R2 of 0.522 with a very similar set of predictive power for each of the KPI in a similar order with
the exception of KPI 2 and KPI 7 that are reversed in terms of their predictive power on KPI 9.


At the departmental level, the same type of analysis is developed using the stepwise regression
method as shown in the regression equations for the 4 faculties as shown below:

ASAIHL-THAILAND Journal, Vol. 6 No. 2, November 2003
8

---

SOM KPI 9 = 152.164 + 0.371 KPI8


adjusted R2 is 0.165
SOA KPI 9 = 102.318 + 0.562 KPI8 – 0.322 KPI6
adjusted R2 is 0.176
SBT KPI 9 = 119.771 + 0.757 KPI5


adjusted R2 is 0.273
SCA KPI 9 = 141.779 + 0.565 KPI2


adjusted R2 is 0.682

The same regression analysis can also de done for each of the department.
D. Implications
Kaplan and Norton (1996 and 2001), in their best sellers and leading edge management framework
of the Balanced Scorecard, reinforced the basic management philosophy of management through
measurement. The IPMMM as positioned here fundamentally follows this management belief. As such,
the implications of the use of the IPMMM are:

Implication I: On the measurement aspect, as demonstrated and discussed above, the
measurements can be consolidated at the departmental, faculty and university to provide
an inter-departmental and inter-faculty comparative or individualized performance measure.
This will provide an insight into how a department unit is performing as compared to the
faculty means or the university mean. The regression model for the department, faculty and
the university can be used to determine which of the approach-deployment KPIs 1 to 8 will
have high predictive powers of the end results KPI 9. The key is for an in-depth cause-effect
analysis of the regression models of the university, the faculty or even the department,
depending on the level of in-sight and understanding of what can truly affect the end-results
of the development of quality and strive for continuous improvement.
Implication II: On the audit and assessment aspect, each of the department and faculty will
do its own assessment using the recommended individual and consensus review approach
to reach an unbiased and democratic consensus based on the scoring guideline. This is
important as all members in a department or faculty is unified towards the same direction.
The audit and assessment by the Internal Audit and Assessment team provides an
assessment from a third party perspective. They will make use of the same process,
procedures and scoring guideline. Any difference between the department’s, faculty’s
assessment from the IAAT can be identified and hammered out. This would lead to a very
rich and diverse exchange of viewpoints and perspectives.
Implication III: On the management aspect, as the philosophy of the IPMMM is
“management through measurement”, all the means comparison analysis and the use of the
regression analysis will provide the metrics for an in-depth insight into the ways and means
that needs attention and improvement. This will lead to the reinforcement of the continuous
improvement, as the metrics will be the key indicators of performance showing what needs
improvement. This is highlighted by the fact that the IAAT will follow the unit for 5 years. This
serves to ensure that a unit is not just paying lip service to quality assurance that is
prevalent in most universities, whereby after the SSR and SAR has been developed and
audited, and the feedback received from the IAAT report, they are put on the shelf to gather
dust until the next audit and assessment cycle.
Implication IV: On the sharing and learning aspect, this underlies a very fundamental
philosophy of sharing and dissemination of knowledge through out the organization. All the
SSR and SAR and IAAT reports and findings and analysis are put onto the university QA-
MIS web-site whereby all units can have access to and can look at how each unit is
performing and how they can learn from them. Above all, this will ensure the transparency
for the whole quality assurance effort, university wide. The sharing and dissemination of the
ASAIHL-THAILAND Journal, Vol. 6 No. 2, November 2003
9

---

information will pave the foundation for the organization to learn as one making it into a
learning organization. The crux is that everyone learns from everyone for continuous
improvement towards the same end-result as defined in the quality assurance policy.

Based on all the implications above, it is positioned that the IPMMM as recommended has the
total and system aspects of TQM as championed by the TQM movement. It has tried to incorporate the
standard of Europe in the form of the EFQM, the standard of America in the form of the Malcolm
Baldridge Model, and the fundamentals of a balanced approach using the Balanced Scorecard as the
key integrator. In the end, each country also has its own governing regulations that need to be satisfied.
A recommended approach is to get the best from all aspects and create an integrated approach as
personified in the IPMMM (Kubiak, 2003). Even though the IPMMM is not the Holy Grail, it should be
robust and generic enough to be adapted to the individual needs of each university to approach their
quality assurance professionally.

VIII. Conclusion


In the world of quality, all proponents strongly champion and defend their own models as the
Holy Grail. Realistically and pragmatically, it must be realized that there is no one ideal or idealistic
approach and there is no one best model. In this paper, it is proposed and positioned that the success
is not in having a quality model but in its implementation. A university needs to create not a best model,
but an appropriate model suited to its own individualist culture, values, style, system, people and
environment. This paper has positioned the IPMMM as an appropriate model that considers the total
picture of the university as a system and management through the performance metrics so that it can
continuously learn and improve on its performance as a learning organization.


In conclusion, the imperatives towards professional quality assurance are:

To identify and create a model appropriate to the university in question, as the many models in
existence can be integrated and adapted to suit the unique nature of a university.
To create an appropriate model for the university in itself will not be successful unless it is
pragmatically implemented to define and achieve the metrics that can be measured.
To take actions on the metrics defined and achieved so that they can be managed properly with
the required systems and resources aimed at meeting the needs of the stakeholders.
Finally, yet importantly, it is in the implementation that must drive the success of the quality
assurance in a university. As learned from the history of many successful corporations, having a model
is inadequate; it is in the competence and capabilities in the implementation that counts.
ASAIHL-THAILAND Journal, Vol. 6 No. 2, November 2003
10

---