Bir Lisansüstü Dersin Kalitesinin Artırılması: Kalite Fonksiyon Göçerimi Yönteminin Kano Modeli ile Bütünleştirilmesi

Yıl 2020, Cilt: 10 Sayı: 3, 312 - 327, 27.11.2020

Mine Ömürgönülşen , Canan Eryiğit , Öznur Özkan Tektaş Mehmet Soysal

https://doi.org/10.2399/yod.19.560956

Cited By: 2

Öz

Küresel ekonomide özellikle gelişmekte olan ekonomiler için lisans eğitiminin kalitesi ile rekabet edebilirlik arasında önemli bir ilişki vardır. Kalite Fonksiyon Göçerimi (KFG), müşteri gerekliliklerini teknik gerekliliklere dönüştürmek için Toplam Kalite Yönetiminde (TKY) kullanılan önemli yöntemlerden biridir. Bu çalışmanın amacı, yükseköğretimde bir lisans dersinin kalitesini artırmak için müşterilerin ihtiyaçlarını belirlemek ve öncelik sırasına koymak için Batı tarzı, üçüncü nesil KFG yöntemini Kano modeli ile birlikte uygulamaktır. Bilinebildiği kadarıyla, literatürde belirtilen yöntemlerin yükseköğretim alanında birlikte kullanıldığı ampirik bir çalışmaya rastlanmamıştır. Yöntemlerin birlikte kullanılması sonucunda sadece en önemli öğrenci ihtiyaçlarını ve teknik ihtiyaçları içerecek şekilde bir odaklanmış kalite evi oluşturulmuştur. Sonuçlar, tek boyutlu ihtiyaçlar olarak da adlandırılan önde gelen öğrenci gereksinimlerinin, öğretim elemanının teorik ve sektörel bilgisi gibi çoğunlukla öğretim üyelerine yönelik özellikler olduğunu göstermektedir. Cazip ihtiyaçlar olarak adlandırılan teknik geziler ve davetli konuşmacılar gibi endüstri ile etkileşimin, öğrenci memnuniyetini artırdığı tespit edilmiştir. Odaklanmış kalite evine göre, öne çıkan teknik gereksinimler bütçe/fon, derse kayıtlı öğrenci sayısı, öğretim elemanının iş yükü, fabrika gezisi, iyi iletişim/empati, öğretim elemanının niteliği ve öğretim yeterliliği olarak bulunmuştur. Çalışmada önerilen bütünleşik çerçeve, eğitim kalitesini artırmak yönünde ana öğrenci gereksinimlerini tanımlamak ve karşılamak için eğitim alanındaki karar alıcılara katkı sunabilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Ders kalitesi, kalite evi, kalite fonksiyon göçerimi, Kano modeli, yükseköğretim

Enhancing the Quality of a Higher Education Course: Quality Function Deployment and Kano Model Integration

Öz

There is an important relationship between the quality of undergraduate education and competitiveness in the global economy, especially for emerging economies. Quality Function Deployment (QFD) is one of the important methodologies in Total Quality Management (TQM) to translate customer requirements into technical specifications. The purpose of this study is to apply Third Generation Western QFD methodology together with Kano model to categorize and prioritize the needs of customers to increase a graduate-level course quality in higher education. To this end, the Voice of the Customer was identified through the Kano technique that enables categorization and prioritization of student requirements. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first empirical study in the literature that integrates the aforementioned methodologies in the field of higher education. With this integration, a focused quality house was generated which includes only prominent student and technical requirements. Accordingly, the prominent student requirements, which are classified as one-dimensional needs, are found to be the ones that are mostly lecturer-oriented attributes, such as the lecturer's theoretical and industrial knowledge. The interaction of the course with the industry, such as technical trips and invited speakers, which are called as attractive needs, are found to increase student satisfaction by creating delight. The prominent technical requirements are found to be budget/funds, number of students enrolled, lecturer workload, industry trip, good communication/empathy, lecturer qualifications, and competency in teaching. The combined framework may help educational decision-makers to identify and satisfy the main student requirements to enhance the quality of educational service processes.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Course quality, higher education, house of quality, Kano model, quality function deployment

Kaynakça

• Akao, Y., & Mazur, G. H. (2003). The leading edge in QFD: Past, present and future. International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, 20(1), 20–35.
• Al-Bashir, A. (2016). Applying total quality management tools using QFD at higher education institutions in Gulf Area (Case Study ALHOSN University). International Journal of Production Management and Engineering, 4(2), 87–98.
• Aytac, A., & Deniz, V. (2005). Quality function deployment in education: A curriculum review. Quality and Quantity, 39(4), 507–514.
• Berger, C., Blauth, R., Boger, D., Bolster, C., Burchill, G., DuMouchel, W., & Timko, M. (1993). Kano’s methods for understanding customer-defined quality. Center for Quality Management Journal, 2(4), 3–36.
• Boonyanuwat, N., Suthummanon, S., Memongkol, N., & Chaiprapat, S. (2008). Application of quality function deployment for designing and developing a curriculum for Industrial Engineering at Prince of Songkla University. Songklanakarin Journal of Science & Technology, 30(3), 349–353.
• Brandt, D. R., & Scharioth, J. (1998). Attribute life cycle analysis. Alternatives to the Kano method. In Proceedings of the 51th ESOMAR Marketing Research Congress, Berlin, Germany, September 13–16, 1998 (pp. 413–430).
• Burgess, A., Senior, C., & Moores, E. (2018). A 10-year case study on the changing determinants of university student satisfaction in the UK. PloS One, 13(2), 1–15.
• Cadotte, E. R., & Turgeon, N. (1988). Key factors in guest satisfaction. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 28(4), 44–51.
• Chang, K. C., & Chen, M. C. (2011). Applying the Kano model and QFD to explore customers’ brand contacts in the hotel business: A study of a hot spring hotel. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 22(1), 1–27.
• Chaudha, A., Jain, R., Singh, A. R., & Mishra, P. K. (2011). Integration of Kano’s model into quality function deployment (QFD). The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 53(5–8), 689–698.
• Chen, C. L., & Bullington, S. F. (1993). Development of a strategic plan for an academic department through the use of quality function deployment. Computers and Industrial Engineering, 25(1–4), 49–52.
• Chen, H. (2016). Quality function deployment in failure recovery and prevention. The Service Industries Journal, 36(13–14), 615–637.
• Chen, S. (2007). Using quality function deployment to plan curricula in higher education. The Journal of Human Resource and Adult Learning, 3(2), 39–49.
• Cheng Lim, P., Tang, N. K. H., & Jackson, P. M. (1999). An innovative framework for health care performance measurement. Managing Service Quality, 9(6), 423–433.
• Chou, Y. C., Tsai, P. C., Pai, J. Y., Yen, H. Y., & Lu, C. H. (2014). Application of Kano’s two-dimensional quality model and QFD on a gender-friendly environment of hospital. In Proceedings of the 2014 Portland International Conference on Management of Engineering & Technology (PICMET 2014), July 27–31, 2014, Kanazawa, Japan (pp. 3322–3331).
• Çalıpınar, H., & Soysal, M. (2010). Application of quality function deployment method in GSM operator. [Article in Turkish] Hacettepe Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 28(2), 95–115.
• Deng, W., & Kuo, Y. (2008). Revised planning matrix of quality function deployment. The Service Industries Journal, 28(10), 1445–1462.
• Desai, K., & Inman, R. A. (1994). Student bias against POM coursework and manufacturing. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 14(8), 70–87.
• DeShields Jr, O. W., Kara, A., & Kaynak, E. (2005). Determinants of business student satisfaction and retention in higher education: Applying Herzberg’s two-factor theory. International Journal of Educational Management, 19(2), 128–139.
• Douglas, J., Douglas, A., & Barnes, B. (2006). Measuring student satisfaction at a UK university. Quality Assurance in Education, 14(3), 251–267.
• Duffuaa, S. A., Al-Turki, U. M., & Hawsawi, F. M. (2003). Quality function deployment for designing a basic statistics course. International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, 20(6), 740–750.
• Elliott, K. M., & Shin, D. (2002). Student satisfaction: An alternative approach to assessing this important concept. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 24(2), 197–209.
• Foster, S. T. (2007). Managing quality- Integrating the supply Chain, (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
• Garvin, D. A. (1984). What does ‘product quality’ really mean? Sloan Management Review, 26(1), 25–43.
• Gibson, A. (2010) Measuring business student satisfaction: A review and summary of the major predictors. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 32(3), 251–259.
• Gonzalez, M. E., Quesada, G., Gourdin, K., & Hartley, M. (2008). Designing a supply chain management academic curriculum using QFD and benchmarking. Quality Assurance in Education, 16(1), 36–60.
• Gonzalez, M. E., Quesada, G., Martinez, J. L., & Gonzalez-Cordoba, S. (2019). Global education: Using lean tools to explore new opportunities. Journal of International Education in Business, 12 Aug 2019. doi: 10.1108/JIEB-11-2018-0052
• Griffin, A., & Hauser, J. R. (1993). The voice of the customer. Marketing Science, 12(1), 1–27.
• Güllü, E., & Ulçay, Y. (2002). Quality function deployment and an application. [Article in Turkish] Uludağ Üniversitesi Mühendislik-Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi, 7(1), 71–91.
• Hafeez, K., & Mazour, A. (2011). Using quality function deployment as a higher education management and governance tool. Business and Law, 6(1), 31–52.
• Han, S. B., Chen, S. K., Ebrahimpour, M., & Sodhi M. S. (2001). A conceptual QFD planning model. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 18(8), 796–812.
• Hartono, M., & Chuan, T. K. (2011). How the Kano model contributes to Kansei engineering in services. Ergonomics, 54(11), 987–1004.
• Haug, G. (2003). Quality assurance/accreditation in the emerging European higher education area: A possible scenario for the future. European Journal of Education, 38(3), 229–241.
• Herbert, D., Curry, A., & Angel, L. (2003). Use of quality tools and techniques in services. The Service Industries Journal, 23(4), 61–80.
• Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. (1959). The motivation to work. New York, NY: John Wiley.
• Hsu, C. H., Chang, T. M., Wang, S. Y., & Lin, P. Y. (2007). Integrating Kano’s model into quality function deployment to facilitate decision analysis for service quality. In A. Aggarwal (Ed.), Proceedings of the 8th World Scientific and Engineering Academy and Society (WSEAS) International Conference on Mathematics and Computers in Business and Economics (Vol. 8, pp. 226–232).
• Hwarng, B. H., & Teo, C. (2001). Translating customers’ voices into operations requirements-A QFD application in higher education. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 18(2), 195–226.
• Jaiswal, E. S. (2012). A case study on quality function deployment. Journal of Mechanical and Civil Engineering, 3(6), 27–35.
• Jiang, J., Shui, M., & Tu, M. (2008). QFD’s evolution in Japan and the West. Quality Control and Applied Statistics, 53(3), 283–284.
• Jnanesh, N. A., & Hebbar, C. K. (2008). Use of quality function deployment analysis in curriculum development of engineering education and models for curriculum design and delivery. In Proceedings of the World Congress on Engineering and Computer Science, October 22–24, 2008, San Francisco, CA, USA (pp. 22–24).
• Juran, J. M. (1988). Quality control handbook. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
• Kamat, V. B., & Kittur, J. K. (2019). Devising smart strategic framework for assessment of quality in engineering education. International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and Management, 10(6), 1403–1428.
• Kamvysi, K., Gotzamani, K., Andronikidis, A., & Georgiou, A. C. (2014). Capturing and prioritizing students’ requirements for course design by embedding Fuzzy-AHP and linear programming in QFD. European Journal of Operational Research, 237(3), 1083–1094.
• Kano, N., Seraku, N., Takahashi, F., & Tsuhi, S. (1984). Attractive quality and must-be quality. Journal of the Japanese Society for Quality Control, 14(2), 39–48.
• Kashi, M., Astanbous, M., Javidnia, M., & Rajabi, H. (2012). A hybrid model of QFD, SERVQUAL and Kano to increase bank’s capabilities. Management Science Letters, 2(6), 1931–1938.
• Koksal, G., & Egitman, A. (1998). Planning and design of industrial engineering education quality. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 35(3), 639–642.
• Kuo, Y. F. (2004). Integrating Kano’s model into web-community service quality. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 15(7), 925–939.
• Lam, K., & Zhao, X. (1998). An application of quality function deployment to improve the quality of teaching. International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, 15(4), 389–413.
• Liang, Y. W., Lee, A. S., & Liu, S. F. (2016). A study on design-oriented demands of VR via ZMET-QFD model for industrial design education and students’ learning. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 12(5), 1205–1219.
• Liu, S. F., Lee, Y. L., Lin, Y. Z., & Tseng, C. F. (2013). Applying quality function deployment in industrial design curriculum planning. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 23(4), 1147–1160.
• Lo, S., Shen, H., & Chen, J. (2017). An integrated approach to project management using the Kano model and QFD: An empirical case study. Total Quality Management & Business, 28(13–14), 1584–1608.
• Luque, R. A., & Machuca J. A. D. (2003). An empirical study of POM teaching in Spanish universities (II): Faculty profile, teaching and assessment methods. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 23(4), 375–400.
• Mahapatra, S. S., & Khan, M. S. (2007). A framework for analyzing quality in education settings. European Journal of Engineering Education, 32(2), 205–217.
• Mark, E. (2013). Student satisfaction and the customer focus in higher education. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 35(1), 2–10.
• Matzler, K., & Hinterhuber, H. H. (1998). How to make product development projects more successful by integrating Kano’s model of customer satisfaction into quality function deployment. Technovation, 18(1), 25–38.
• Muda, N., & Roji, N. S. M. (2015). A quality function deployment (QFD) approach in determining the employer’s selection criteria. Journal of Industrial Engineering, 2015, Article ID 789362.
• Okur, A., Nasibov, E. N., Kilic, M., & Yavuz, M. (2009). Using OWA aggregation technique in QFD: A case study in education in a textile engineering department. Quality & Quantity, 43(6), 999–1009.
• Onyeaghala, O. (2016). Servqual model as performance evaluation instrument for small and medium sized enterprises (SME): Evidence from customers in Nigeria. European Scientific Journal, 12(28), 520– 540.
• Owlia, M. S., & Aspinwall, E. M. (1998). Application of quality function deployment for the improvement of quality in an engineering department. European Journal of Engineering Education, 23(1), 105–115.
• Ozoglu, M., Gur, B. S., & Gumus, S. (2016). Rapid expansion of higher education in Turkey: the challenges of recently published public universities (2006-2013). Higher Education Policy, 29, 21–39.
• Pitman, G., Motwani, J., Kumar, A., & Cheng, C. H. (1995). QFD application in an educational setting: A pilot field study. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 12(6), 63–72.
• Raharjo, H., Xie, M., Goh, T. N., & Brombacher, A. C. (2007). A methodology to improve higher education quality using the quality function deployment and analytic hierarchy process. Total Quality Management, 18(10), 1097–1115.
• Sagnak, M., Ada, N., Kazançoğlu Y., & Tayaksi, C. (2018). Quality function deployment application for improving quality of education in business schools. Journal of Education for Business, 92(5), 230–237.
• Sagnak, M., Kazancoğlu Y., & Ada E. (2015). Quality function deployment in higher education: An application in business administration department. 15. Üretim Araştırmaları Sempozyumu, 14–16 Ekim 2015, Ege Üniversitesi, İzmir (s. 1057–1063).
• Shahin, A., Pourhamidi, M., Antony, J., & Hyun Park, S. (2013). Typology of Kano models: A critical review of literature and proposition of a revised model. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 30(3), 341–358.
• Shiu, M. L., Jiang, J. C., & Tu, M. H. (2013). Quality strategy for research and development. In A. P. Sage (Ed.), Systems engineering and management (pp. 38–39). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons,.
• Singh, A. K., & Rawani, A. M (2019). Application of quality function deployment for the prioritization of National Board of Accreditation quality parameters. Quality Assurance in Education, 27(1), 127–139.
• Singh, V., Grover S., & Kumar, A. (2008). Evaluation of quality in an educational institute: A quality function deployment approach. Educational Research and Review, 3(4), 162–168.
• Sireli, Y., Kauffmann, P., & Ozan, E. (2007). Integration of Kano’s model into QFD for multiple product design. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 54(2), 380–390.
• Tan, K. C., & Shen, X. X. (2000). Integrating Kano’s model in the planning matrix of quality function deployment. Total Quality Management, 11(8), 1141–1151.
• Tontini, G. (2007). Integrating the Kano model and QFD for designing new products. Total Quality Management, 18(6), 599–612.
• Verna, I. (2014). The quality function deployment and the customer satisfaction. The case of universities. European Scientific Journal, August Special Edition, 189–202.
• Wagner, A., Merino E. A. D., Martinelli, M., Polacinski, E., Wegner, R. S., & Godoy, L. P. (2017). The quality of service in a higher education institution: An evaluation for the integration of AHP, SERVQUAL and QFD methods. Disciplinarum Sceinta, 12(1), 109– 129.
• Walters, L. M., & Seyedian, M. (2016). Improving academic advising using quality function deployment: A case study. College Student Journal, 50(2), 253–267.
• Warwick Manufacturing Group (2007). Product excellence using six sigma. Section 6: Quality function deployment. Coventry, UK: School of Engineering, University of Warwick.
• Yalçın, S. (2008). The use of quality function diffusion in the design of cost accounting and management accounting courses: An example of Gediz Vocational School. [Article in Turkish] Muhasebe ve Bilm Dünyaı Dergisi, 10(4), 150–165.
• Yang, C. C. (2005). The refined Kano’s model and its application. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 16(10), 1127–1137.