CARACTERIZACIÓN DE LA BIOMASA EXPERIMENTAL Y OBTENCIÓN DEL EXTRACTO A

A number of studies are reported in the literature which investigate customer or stakeholder needs and expectations of university courses and programmes. The studies conducted by Viljoen, Holt and Petzall, 1 990; Nunan and Calvert, 1 991 ; Dean, 1 995 ; and Lampikoski, 1 995, with distance education programmes, have already been discussed in Chapter 2. All of them identified dimensions or criteria for quality as specified by one or more customer or stakeholder groups.

Three other studies are reported in the literature which apply the SERVQUAL scale of Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry (1 985) to higher education. The SERVQUAL scale is based on Parasuraman et al. ' s gap theory which suggests that the difference between customer expectations and perceptions of a service determines judgements about quality. The scale is organised according to Parasuraman et al. ' s five dimensions of service quality, tangibles, reliability, assurance, responsiveness and empathy which have been distilled down from their original 1 0 dimensions. In a study of the MBA programme at Auckland University, Bell and Shieff (1 990) found that while Parasuraman et al. ' s original 1 0 generic dimensions were generally relevant, they were not specifically suited to analysis of quality in a business school. In another study conducted by Athiyaman and O'Donnell ( 1 994) at Charles Sturt University in Australia, the SERVQUAL instrument was adapted so that it was more appropriate for the higher education context. The third study (Ford, Joseph & Joseph, 1 993) reported a comparative study using SERVQUAL with undergraduate business students in the USA and New Zealand. Again, this study was limited as it focused on the service aspects of a university education and not on learning and teaching. Thus it did not take account of very important dimensions of quality in an educational setting.

The findings from these three studies reflect the more general findings of Cronin and Taylor ( 1 992) in relation to measuring quality in service industries, i.e. that scale items that define service quality in one industry may be different in another. Cronin and Taylor therefore recommend that managers and researchers investigate the individual dimensions of quality

relevant to their own industries from the perspective of the appropriate customer and stakeholder groups.

Another interesting approach to establishing customer expectations and then building them into the product design is reported by Murgatroyd ( 1 993). He used quality function deployment (QFD) or the House of Quality in the design of a post-graduate distance learning course at Athabasca University, Canada. QFD was originally developed for use in the manufacturing sector but is now increasingly being applied in the service sector including education. Primarily, its aim is to meet customer expectations while at the same time achieving the operational efficiencies required by the organisation in the design of products or services. It therefore involves collecting a considerable amount of data from customers as well as having correct information about the institution's capabilities.

A 'house of quality' is constructed which contains a number of rooms. The WHA Ts room is what customers expect. In this case, students identified up-to-date resources, interactive learning, challenging material, contact with academic, fast turnaround, clear feedback, clear assignments, explanation of progress and transferability. The HOWs room is a statement of how the design team can meet these requirements through the process of course design and delivery. The RATING room uses data collected from students to show how well the University is meeting these student requirements. The WHATs versus the HOWs room is expressed as a matrix and asks the designers to assess, using a three point scale, how strongly a HOW meets the need expressed by students. In the DIFFICULTY room the design team rates how difficult it will be for the organisation to meet student expectations. The DESIGN TARGET room identifies the measurable targets for each of the HOWs; the ASSESSMENT room looks at how much value is added to learners' experience by each of the HOWs based on data from students; the IMPORTANCE room is the designers' ratings of the importance of specific design components; the DESIGN DIFFICULTY room is a calculation of the relationship between design importance and organisational difficulty; the HOWs versus the HOWs "shows the interrelationship of design features" (p. 4 1) based on

students' perceptions of the connections, and finally, the IMPROVEMENT ON EXISTING DESIGNS room looks at the direction of improvement (p. 40-42).

Murgatroyd identifies four benefits of using QFD. First, it requires a design team to "systematically examine their own knowledge and that of their customers... and requires designers to use customer input in making design choices and decisions. . . Second, it clearly specifies the benchmarks for success... Third, it forces a design team to recognise the design assumptions it is making and the interrelationships between them .. . and finally, it focus[es] attention on areas of design that need improvement, both from the students' point of view and from the design team's point of view" (p. 42). This, contends Murgatroyd, is a service way of thinking.

While Murgatroyd used only one customer group i.e.students, QFD can incorporate the views of several stakeholder or customer groups. Bergman ( 1 995) reports the successful use of QFD to improve an advanced course in TQM at Linkoping University in Sweden. Here feedback was sought from progressive quality managers and alumni and the course contents of industrial education bodies were examined to provide data for the QFD model. QFD was also used at Oregon State University (Coate, 1 990) to identify and prioritise the needs of multiple customer groups and translate them into university priorities. These examples illustrate the importance of using feedback and information from a variety of stakeholders/customers.

3.6 CONCLUSION

Business quality management models and especially TQM can be usefully applied to higher education institutions, including those that offer distance or open learning. Their primary focus on the customer and the recognition of multiple customer or stakeholder groups, all with needs and expectations to be met, is totally compatible with open learning. Post-

Fordist approaches to the management and delivery of distance education are also consistent with the principles of TQM.

All of the studies reported in this chapter take the view that student customer defined quality attributes should be built into the design of courses and support services. This is a different approach from the one so often employed in higher education institutions where a course is designed and delivered and then students are asked what they think of the quality of it. This approach may prove very costly where institutions or course design teams have to revamp a course or a support service because it did not meet requirements. Post hoc evaluation is also notoriously unreliable, student evaluations being affected by their relationship with the tutor, how they have performed in the course and the opinions of their peers.

Further, the studies reported here recognise that the requirements of other stakeholders are important too and must not be ignored. Harvey and Green ( 1 993) suggest that it is important to define as clearly as possible the criteria that each stakeholder uses when judging quality, and for these competing views to be taken into account when assessments of quality are undertaken. Such an approach will potentially lead to the greatest levels of satisfaction.

There are potential benefits to all stakeholder groups in using customer or stakeholder defined quality attributes to assess performance. Students are more likely to be satisfied if a course meets their needs and expectations and are also more likely to re-enrol. Employers and professional groups are likely to feel satisfied and willing to support educational institutions if they perceive that appropriate education and training needs are being met. Academic teachers will have fewer student problems and complaints to deal with if courses are well designed to meet student needs and expectations. This means less rework and 'wastage' of their time and more time to devote to other activities such as research which can lead to improved teaching and increased job satisfaction. From the institution's

perspective resources are being better utilised and waste is being reduced. This should lead to cost efficiencies. Courses will no longer be produced that do not appeal to the market. It should also assist in building a loyal customer base which can be a very effective way of recruiting new students.

Having introduced the concept of quality in service industries, defined the scope of the research undertaken in the study, reviewed the relevant literature and looked at some of the tensions surrounding the issue of quality in higher and distance education today, the methodology used in this study will now be discussed. This is followed by results and discussion of the primary research undertaken.