Quality Systems in University Management
Quality has become a key concept in modern societies. Any organized activity can be optimized, and this optimization occurs thanks to the implementation of control systems. These systems audit the effectiveness, functionality, and reliability of the activity being evaluated and this, by definition, is the basis for preserving and improving quality in any context.
Today, quality systems are implemented in all relevant areas of society: production processes, agriculture, food industry, government programs, health systems, urban development, logistics, etc. (De - La - Orden, 2009). No space of action remains outside these processes of control and, of course, the field of university management is not an exception.
Management of university organizations has experienced significant changes in the last few years, and this has also had implications for the administration of their quality systems (Restrepo - Abondano, 2008). Ruiz - Carrascosa (2000) points out that the importance of the university as a key service in society beside the substantial investment of funds that it requires - whether this funding is public or private - intensifies concerns about the monitoring of its quality. In the same line, Sierra - Sánchez (2012) suggests that quality control has become one of the greatest challenges for a responsible management in the university of the 21st century.
However, measuring quality of the intangible, as in the case of higher education institutions, is not an easy task. The concept of quality in the university context is a complex issue that is undoubtedly determined by the confluence of different factors. These elements, which configure the concept of quality, extend from the attention of the service staff to the soundness of the curricula; including the facilities, or the offer of social activities in the institution (Resino - Blázquez et al., 2013; Veciana - Vergés & Capelleras - I - Segura, 2004). The following studies show the variety of variables that can be considered when measuring this manifold concept.
Gil - Edo et al. (1999), in their study on quality models in public universities, highlight seven components: Technical Dimension of Teaching Staff, Functional Dimension of Teaching Staff, Accessibility and Academic Structure, Attention of Service Staff, Tangible Aspect of the Facilities, Visible Aspect or Appearance of the Staff, and Complementary Services (catering, reprography, etc.).
Along the same lines, Veciana - Vergés et al. (2004) highlight the importance of four relevant aspects when defining quality in the university environment: Attitude and Competence of the Teaching Staff, Curricular Contents, Technical Equipment and Facilities, and Organizational Efficiency in the Institution.
Resino - Blázquez et al. (2013), in their research on quality indicators that condition student satisfaction, highlight three dimensions: Facilities and Resources (library services, transport, etc.), Academic Aspects (teaching staff, reputation, etc.), and Social Aspects (sports activities, exchange programs, etc.).
Similarly, the study by Alvarado - Lagunas et al. (2016) on quality in universities from the student’s point of view, addresses the existence of four critical aspects: Physical Infrastructure, Teaching Staff, Teaching Resources, and Student’s Development.
Finally, Álvarez - Rojo et al. (1999), based on discussion groups with professors, indicate that university quality is defined by the interaction of four variables: Teaching Skills, Teaching Attitude, Structural and Social Conditions (administrative processes, job opportunities, group size, etc.), and the Management of the Typical Dilemmas in the University Context (research vs. teaching, innovation vs. inertia).