MGT 424 SEU management Quality Management Case Study

User Generated

nyqnjnn100

Business Finance

mgt 424

Saudi electronic university

MGT

Description

Unformatted Attachment Preview

College of Administrative and Financial Sciences Assignment 1 Deadline: 06/03/2021 @ 23:59 Course Name: Quality management Student’s Name Course Code: 424 Student’s ID Number: Semester: II CRN: Academic Year: 1441/1442 H For Instructor’s Use only Instructor’s Name: Students’ Grade: Marks Obtained/Out of Level of Marks: High/Middle/Low 5 Instructions – PLEASE READ THEM CAREFULLY 1. The Assignment must be submitted on Blackboard (WORD format only) via allocated folder. 2. Assignments submitted through email will not be accepted. 3. Students are advised to make their work clear and well presented, marks may be reduced for poor presentation. This includes filling your information on the cover page. 4. Students must mention question number clearly in their answer. 5. Late submission will NOT be accepted. 6. Avoid plagiarism, the work should be in your own words, copying from students or other resources without proper referencing will result in ZERO marks. No exceptions. 7. All answered must be typed using Times New Roman (size 12, double-spaced) font. No pictures containing text will be accepted and will be considered plagiarism). 8. Submissions without this cover page will NOT be accepted. 9. Assignment -1 should be submitted on or before the end of Week- 7 . Learning Outcome: 1. Implement a system for the importance of standardization and quality standards (LO: 2.5 & 2.9) 2. Develop strategies for organizational change and transformation. (LO: 4.5 & 4.6) • Instructions to search the journal Article: Via your student services page, log in to the Saudi Digital Library. After your login with your student ID, search for the following article: “Developing a generic model for total quality management in higher education in Saudi Arabia” AHMAD I. AL-SHAFEI1,2, KHALID BIN ABDULRAHMAN1, KHALID I. AL-QUMAIZI1 & ABDELMONIEM S. EL-MARDI1 1Al-Imam Mohammad Ibn Saud Islamic University, Saudi Arabia, 2King Saud University, Saudi Arabia This aforementioned article presents a developed generic model for quality management in higher education sector in Saudi Arabia that is needed to improve the overall performance of this field. Download the journal article, read it carefully and answer the following questions in your own words: 1- In brief, summarize the article using your own words. ( Minimum of 200 words ) ,( 2 Marks ) 2- In the article, the authors discussed four models emphasizing quality management in teaching and learning. Choose one of these models to make your own research about “its foundations and drawbacks if there is any” (You can search using the online resources, printed books and articles). (Minimum of 200 words), (2 Marks) 3- To which extent do you agree with the proposed generic holistic model for quality management in teaching and learning? Support your side with evidence (Minimum of 100), { 1 Mark}. Medical Teacher ISSN: 0142-159X (Print) 1466-187X (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/imte20 Developing a generic model for total quality management in higher education in Saudi Arabia Ahmad I. Al-shafei, Khalid Bin Abdulrahman, Khalid I. Al-Qumaizi & Abdelmoniem S. El-Mardi To cite this article: Ahmad I. Al-shafei, Khalid Bin Abdulrahman, Khalid I. Al-Qumaizi & Abdelmoniem S. El-Mardi (2015) Developing a generic model for total quality management in higher education in Saudi Arabia, Medical Teacher, 37:sup1, S1-S4, DOI: 10.3109/0142159X.2015.1006607 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2015.1006607 Published online: 24 Mar 2015. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 1937 View related articles View Crossmark data Citing articles: 3 View citing articles Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=imte20 2015, 37: S1–S4 COMMENTARY Developing a generic model for total quality management in higher education in Saudi Arabia AHMAD I. AL-SHAFEI1,2, KHALID BIN ABDULRAHMAN1, KHALID I. AL-QUMAIZI1 & ABDELMONIEM S. EL-MARDI1 1 Al-Imam Mohammad Ibn Saud Islamic University, Saudi Arabia, 2King Saud University, Saudi Arabia Abstract The field of higher education has been progressing at a rapid pace in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia over the past decade, with doubling the number of government and private universities and colleges. Quality and accreditation are of great importance to higher education institutes world-wide. Thus, developing a generic model for quality management in higher education is badly needed in the country. Introduction There are several definitions for quality in the literature. It can simply be defined as the ability of a particular system to provide and ensure the quality of the services, which it provides and improve the outputs, which it produces so as to satisfy the expectations of the customers of the provided services and produced outputs. Quality control is a productoriented process aiming at checking the products/outputs/ services of a particular system and comparing them with predefined and referenced quality criteria and standard specifications. Appropriate measures and actions will then be undertaken if the products/outputs/services of the system do not comply with the specified quality standards (Talaat & Khamis 2012). On the other hand, quality assurance is a preventive strategy that ensures compliance of the products/ outputs/services of a particular system with its predefined quality standards and specifications. Such a precautionary scheme comprises the policies and protocols that control the different steps of the production process. It also encompasses the enforced measures and actions, which will be undertaken to avoid any potential problems or faults in achieving quality of the products/outputs/services of the system. Such a preventive approach is thus a process-oriented rather than a product-oriented system. Quality assurance is accomplished through the implementation of specific steps, including audits and issuing reports and other measures (Talaat & Khamis 2012). The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has witnessed rapid change and important development in higher education in all fields and at all levels over the past 10 years (The National Report on Higher Education in the KSA 2009; Bin Abdulrahman 2011; Telmesani et al. 2011). The number of higher education institutes has doubled to 52 universities and colleges funded by the government and private sectors, and there are currently 31 medical schools in the country (Bin Abdulrahman 2011; Bin Abdulrahman et al. 2012). During this same decade, revolutionary changes have occurred in the fields of quality and accreditation. The fact that quality is one of the main challenges to higher education in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia necessitated the developing of a generic model for total quality management in higher education institutes in the kingdom. Quality management in higher education Quality is greatly needed in higher education in order to ensure the efficient performance and continuous improvement and development of higher education universities and institutions, which in turn results in gaining the confidence of the community and funding agencies, and building up trust in their graduates (Srikanthan 1999). Moreover, the current view of most of the governments, world-wide, to higher education is that higher education has to be more responsive in terms of: (a) Tuning higher education to the social and economic needs as much as possible, (b) Increasing the accessibility and availability to higher education, (c) Increasing the number of universities and higher education institutes and hence decreasing unit cost, and (d) Ensuring consistency between the services and outputs provided by of universities and higher education institutes. Adopting quality in higher education deals and addresses these issues and increases the compliance of universities and higher education institutes with these concerns (Srikanthan 1999). Correspondence: Prof. Khalid Bin Abdulrahman, Professor of Family Medicine & Medical education, Vice Rector for Planning, Development & Quality, Professor Chair, Dr AlKholi Chair for Developing Medical Education in Saudi Arabia, Al Imam Mohammad Ibn Saud Islamic University (IMSIU), P.O. Box: 7544, Al-Nada, Riyadh 13317-4233, Saudi Arabia. Tel: 00966112586667; Fax: 00966966112591818; E-mail: kab@imamu.edu.sa ISSN 0142-159X print/ISSN 1466-187X online/15/S10001–S4 ß 2015 Informa UK Ltd. DOI: 10.3109/0142159X.2015.1006607 S1 A. I. Al-Shafei et al. Structure/Inputs Students Faculty Members Curriculum Praccal and Research Laboratories IT support Process Outcome /Outputs University/instuon Infrasturcture Graduates Financial, Technical and Adminstrave supports of university/instute Other inputs Research Community Service Figure 1. Dimensions of quality in higher education. Like in other systems, quality in relation to universities and higher education institutes has three principal dimensions; namely the structure (inputs), the process and the outcome (outputs) as shown in Figure 1. Thus, in higher education, quality is achieved by performing the core functions and producing the major outcomes or outputs of teaching/ learning (graduates), research, and community service (Srikanthan 1999). In order to achieve these core functions in higher education, quality management (planning, assurance, and control), should be adopted in the inputs, processes, and outputs with greater emphasis on the outputs/outcomes. The university/ higher education institute must be committed to maintaining and improving quality, through effective leadership and active participation of all faculty members, administrative staff as well as students. This necessitates the establishment of a Quality Deanship/Unit within the structure of the central administration of the university/higher education institution. Such a Quality Deanship/Unit should be supported with the appropriate staff, and financial, administrative, and technical resources; to be able to work effectively (NCAAA 2011). Spreading the culture of quality at the academic level is equally important for the proper running of the Quality Deanship/Unit (Srikanthan 1999). ISO 9000:2000 and TQM standards as quality management models in higher education The Quality Deanship/Unit must apply a quality management model in order to ensure, maintain, and improve S2 quality. There have been several attempts to apply quality management models/strategies imported from industry into higher education (Srikanthan 1999; Srikanthan & Dalrymple 2003). These include the following: Quality assurance system to ISO 9000:2000 standards: This system is based on eight quality management principles: (1) Customer driven definitions of quality, (2) Involvement of Leadership, (3) Engagement of people, (4) Process-oriented approach, (5) Systematic operandi for management, (6) Ongoing improvement, (7) Evidence-based approach to decision-making, and (8) Reciprocal beneficial supplier relationships Total quality management (TQM) model: This model is based on the following management principles (Srikanthan 1999): (1) Constant improvement, (2) Management commitment, (3) Customer or product driven definitions of quality, (4) Team work, (5) Effective communication, and (6) Deployability of statistical techniques in monitoring the processes and solving the problems. The attempts of using Quality Assurance System to ISO 9000:2000 Standards or the TQM model in higher education were, however, unsuccessful for the following reasons: (1) The service and education functions of higher education should have different sets of quality criteria and specifications. (2) The ISO 9000:2000 and TQM Standards are suitable for systems having well-defined processes and providing specific services, e.g. banking, tourism, etc. Such systems could therefore be managed and controlled by the ISO 9000 and TQM Standards. On the other hand, given that Quality management in higher education in the KSA higher education has two major functions; namely the service and education functions, higher education cannot be well and thoroughly managed and controlled by the ISO 9000 and TQM standards. (3) The ISO 9000:2000 and particularly the TQM could be an appropriate model for the service functions but not the education functions of higher education. This function cannot be measured or controlled by variables since it is far too extensive in the processes and delivery (Srikanthan 1999; Srikanthan & Dalrymple 2003). (4) The ISO 9000:2000 and TQM standards are based on customer or product driven definitions of quality. In higher education, there are several customers including students, employer, government, etc., and there are several products including education, knowledge, research, community service, etc. (5) One of the major quality management in the TQM standards is effective communications within the university/higher education institute. This is rarely reached in higher education (Srikanthan 1999). Models emphasizing quality management in teaching and learning Transformative model: This model is based on the following management principles in higher education: (1) The teaching and learning processes should be transparent and integrated and thus leading to ‘‘Total Student Experience’’, (2) Teaching and learning is based on a dialogue between learners and teachers. With the rise of social accountability, such dialogue should be expanded to include other stakeholders including the community, patients, and users/employers as well, (3) Existence of dynamic exchange among the teachers about the teaching and learning, and (4) Providing effective feed-back to students (Srikanthan & Dalrymple 2003). An engagement model of program quality: Such model is based on the following management principles in higher education: (1) Engagement of students, academics, and administrative staff (leaders) in teaching and learning, (2) Participatory cultures, (3) Interactive Teaching and learning, (4) Connected Program Requirements, (5) Adequate resources (Srikanthan & Dalrymple 2003). University of learning model: This model postulates that the core functions of higher education namely: education, research, and community are essentially related to learning at different levels. Thus, improves learning in higher education improves quality of higher education (Srikanthan & Dalrymple 2003). Model of a responsive university: This model postulates that in order to maintain and improve quality in higher education, the universities and higher education institutes must be responsive and service-oriented. This necessitates building new relationships and partnerships both internally and externally (Srikanthan & Dalrymple 2003). Generic model for quality management in teaching and learning (QMTL) in higher education in the kingdom of Saudi Arabia The above mentioned models emphasizing quality management in teaching and learning complement each other and revolve around two major management principles in higher education; namely: (1) Student learning and (2) Dynamic collaboration at the education delivery level (Srikanthan & Dalrymple 2003). It is worth noting here the experience of the Faculty of Medicine at Damascus University in applying a quality assurance system model to curriculum transformation. There have been several obstacles in applying such system, such as the bureaucratic university governance structures and the rigid rules and regulations (Kayyal & Gibbs 2012a,b). The applied model revolved around a number of themes and measures including: (1) Establishing an organizational management system. (2) Involving senior faculty members who are more likely to be laggards in the initiation and planning phase of the transformation process. (3) Adopting an appreciative inquiry approach to let all faculty members be involved and participate in the change. (4) Developing a transparent communication plan with the faculty members during the different phase of curriculum transformation. (5) Securing resources for transformation. (6) Risk assessment and risk management plan. Such model is just limited to curriculum transformation in a medical school and does not ensure quality of teaching and learning. Thus, there is need to develop a Generic Holistic Model for Quality Management in Teaching and Learning (QMTL) that encompasses all the management principles of the above-mentioned models. Such a model should be based on the following two aspects: (1) Clear focus on ‘‘transformation’’ of the learners, and (2) A synergistic collaboration at the learning interface (Srikanthan & Dalrymple 2003). This model addresses the rationale for having different sets of quality criteria and specifications for the service and education functions of higher education aspects (Srikanthan & Dalrymple 2003). Implementing the generic holistic model for quality management in teaching and learning (QMTL) Implementing the generic holistic model for quality management in teaching and learning (QMTL) ensures the adoption of the management principles of all the models mentioned-above and emphasizing quality management in teaching and learning. This includes the following actions and measures: (1) Transformation of the learners. (2) Engagement of students, academics, and administrative staff (leaders) in the teaching and learning and thus enriching the learning experience for the students. S3 A. I. Al-Shafei et al. (3) Interactive teaching and learning. (4) Academic professionalism that emphasizes openness, dialogue and transparency and thus improving the staffstudent interface. (5) Enhancing the learning experience of students by increasing their ability to discern the relevant aspects of variation. This is accomplished by the synergistic involvement of academics in both the teaching and research teams. (6) Ensuring the responsive and service-oriented nature of the universities and higher education institutes. (7) Building new relationships and partnerships both internally and externally with the community, industry, government, and other institutions locally and internationally. From the discussion above, it is evident that we would select the generic holistic model for quality management in teaching and learning (QMTL) to provide the quality of education that we plan and aim for our institution. We would further encourage other institutions to adopt such model in their educational systems. We plan to disseminate the model to other medical colleges world-wide through the Saudi International Medical Education Conference (SIMEC), which is the official international medical education conference of the Saudi Society for Medical Education (SSME) and the Saudi Deans Committee (SDC). SIMEC is one of the largest international meetings in medical education dedicated to reporting and discussing recent developments and research in medical education. SIMEC 2014 is the fourth conference to be held in Saudi Arabia and was hosted by the College of Medicine at Al-Qassim University in Qassim from 24 to 27 November 2014. Leading international medical education experts shared their experiences in medical education and it should have been a good opportunity for disseminating QMTL. Notes on contributors AHMAD I. AL-SHAFEI, MD, PhD, MHPE, was an Associate Professor in Physiology and Medical Education and the Head of the Assessment Unit at the College of Medicine at Al-Imam Mohammad Ibn Saud Islamic University (IMSIU), Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. He is currently an Associate Professor in Physiology King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. KHALID BIN ABDULRAHMAN, MD, is a Professor of Family Medicine and Medical Education, Vice Rector for Planning, Development & Quality. Professor Chair, Dr AlKholi Chair for Developing Medical Education in Saudi Arabia, Al-Imam Mohammad Ibn Saud Islamic University (IMSIU), Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. S4 KHALID I. AL-QUMAIZI, MD, is an Assistant Professor of Family Medicine and the Dean of the College of Medicine at Al-Imam Mohammad Ibn Saud Islamic University (IMSIU), Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. ABDELMONIEM S. EL-MARDI, MD, PhD, is a Professor of Anatomy and Medical education, and the Director of the Pre-Clinical Phase and ELearning Unit at Al-Imam Mohammad Ibn Saud Islamic University (IMSIU), Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. The publication of this supplement has been made possible with the generous financial support of the Dr Hamza Alkholi Chair for Developing Medical Education in KSA. Declaration of interest: The authors report no conflicts of interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of the article. References Bin Abdulrahman KA, Harden R, Patricio M. 2012. Medical education in Saudi Arabia: An exciting journey. Med Teach 34:S4–S5. Bin Abdulrahman KA. 2011. Saudi Arabia does not need an Abraham Flexner. Med Teach 33:74–75. Kayyal M, Gibbs T. 2012a. Applying a quality assurance system model to curriculum transformation: Transferable lessons learned. Med Teach 34(10):e690–e697. Kayyal M, Gibbs T. 2012b. Managing curriculum transformation within strict university governance structures: An example from Damascus University Medical School. Med Teach 12;34(8):607–613. National Commission for Academic Accreditation & Assessment; NCAAA. 2011. [Accessed 16 January 2015]. Available from: http:// www.ncaaa.org.sa/siteimages/ProductFiles/24_Product.pdf. Srikanthan G, Dalrymple, J. 2003. Developing a holistic model for quality in higher education. Quality in Higher Education. [Accessed 16 January 2015]. Available from: http://www.themedfomscu.org/media/holistic_ quality_management_in_education.pdf. Srikanthan G. 1999. Developing a model for quality in higher education. [Accessed 16 January 2015]. Available from: http://www.ntu.edu.vn/ Portals/96/Tu%20lieu%20tham%20khao/Quan%20ly%20dai%20hoc/ a%20model%20for%20quality%20management%20in%20he.pdf. Talaat W, Kamis N. 2012. Accreditation in the Eastern Mediterranean Region, revisiting the practice and basic concepts. SIMEC 2012. [Accessed 16 January 2015]. Available from: http://simec2012.net/en/ page/Conference%20Material. Telmesani A, Zaini RG, Ghazi HO. 2011. Medical education in Saudi Arabia: A review of recent developments and future challenges. East Mediterr Health J 17(8):703–707. The National Report on Higher Education in the KSA. 2009. [Accessed 16 January 2015]. Available from: http://www.ond.vlaanderen.be/hogeronderwijs/bologna/forum2010/documents/SAUDI_ARABIA_National_ Report.pdf.
Purchase answer to see full attachment
Explanation & Answer:
3 Questions
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

Attached. Please let me know if you have any questions or need revisions.

Quality Management in Higher Education

Student’s Name
Institution Affiliation
Course code & Name
Instructor
Date

2
Quality Management in Higher Education
In brief, summarize the article using your own words.
Quality is a necessity in higher education to establish high performance, gradual
improvement, and development in higher institutions, which leads to acquiring the confidence of
the society and gaining trust from their graduates. However, the government thinks that higher
education should be more responsive to increasing the number of higher institutions and
decreasing unit cost, making higher education more accessible, and ensuring consistency of
services the institutions provide. Additionally, higher institutions' quality consists of three crucial
elements, which include; the layout, the activity, and the output (Al-Shafei et al., 2015).
Therefore, in higher institutions, standard education is attained by achieving and producing the
primary teaching outcomes or outputs. Furthermore, for institutions to attain the fundamental
principles in higher institutions, they should adapt standard authority, including commitment,
planning, and discipline. Additionally, a quality institution should contain appropriate staff,
technological resources, and proper administration.
There are several models that emphasize standard management in education. For
instance, a transformational model that encourages transparency and integrity in higher education
leads to the total student experience and ensures that learning depends on a discussion between
teachers and students (Al-Shafei et al., 2015). Secondly, an engagement model which deals with
the engagement of learners and managerial staff in the learning process. Lastly, the university
learning model and model of a receptive university states that higher institutions must be
responsive and ready to provide services.

3
In the article, the authors discussed four models emphasizing quality management in
teaching and learning. Choose one of these models to make your own research about “its
foundations and drawbacks if there is any”
An engagement model of program quality helps learners and instructors to achieve
quality education. This model encourages the participation of learners, academics, and
organizational leaders in teaching and learning, interdependent learning, adequate training
resources, and connected program requirements. An institution's success depends on the skills,
creativity, and motivation of the staff members. Faculty participation may contribute to the
Instituti...


Anonymous
Great study resource, helped me a lot.

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Similar Content

Related Tags