Kaizen Approach for Enhancing Quality Management

Practices in HEIs

Sravan Kumar Reddy and Sarfaraz Karim

Department of Management, Collage of Business and Economics, Wollega University,
Post Box No: 395, Nekemte Ethiopia

Introduction
Service sector has experienced significant growth over the past several decades and it
accounts for a substantial share in Global economy (Su et al., 2006). Even in under
developed countries, the service sector still accounts for a substantial part of their
economies. The service industries have not only grown in size, but along the way, these have
absorbed all the jobs rejected by traditional industries such as agriculture, mining and
manufacturing. If we give a closer look, we will find that the education sector in one way or
other resembles the service industry because it is intangible, perishable, gives
heterogeneous output and carries production and consumption (of knowledge) in parallel. In
today’s world of globalization Quality has taken a centre stage due to continues competition
among institutions, emergence of new technologies and the knowledge driven economy.
Education sector which is considered one of the most dynamic today needs a tool to create,
monitor and improve quality of its each deliverable and delivery processes. On this front,
many developing countries formally recognized the importance of higher education and
committed itself to the development of manpower by providing full policy support and
substantial public funds to create one of the world’s largest network systems of higher
education system (Naik, 2004). In this necessity of the education sector can be very well
fulfilled by the introduction of Kaizen, Lean and Six-Sigma concept in education sector.
Competitive marketplaces require people at all levels in an organization to think of ways to
continuously improve the products or services that they deliver to customers. Organizations
that succeed in improving the value proposition for customers usually become the supplier of
choice, in preference to other suppliers that, for whatever reasons, are not able to improve.
While most managers and employees support the general notion of continuous improvement,
the specific approaches to continuous improvement tend to be ad hoc or complex. While
these approaches to continuous improvement may be successful on occasion, they are not
usually responsive to ongoing changes in customer’s wants & needs.

Quality in Higher Education

What does quality mean in the context of education? Many definitions of quality in education
exist, testifying to the complexity and multifaceted nature of the concept. The terms
efficiency, effectiveness, equity and quality have often been used synonymously (Adams,
1993). Considerable consensus exists around the basic dimensions of quality education
today, however quality education includes, learners who are healthy, well-nourished and
ready to participate and learn, and supported in learning by their families and communities;
environments that are healthy, safe, protective and gender-sensitive, and provide adequate
resources and facilities; content that is reflected in relevant curricula and materials for the
acquisition of basic skills, especially in the areas of literacy, numeracy and skills for life, and
knowledge in such areas as gender, health, nutrition, HIV/AIDS prevention and peace;.
Processes through which trained teachers use student centered teaching approaches in well-
managed classrooms and schools and skilful assessment to facilitate learning and reduce

Proceedings of the National Symposium on “Establishing, Enhancing & Sustaining Quality Practices in Education” 46
disparities; outcomes that encompass knowledge, skills and attitudes, and are linked to
national goals for education and positive participation in society. This definition also takes
into account the global and international influences that propel the discussion of educational
quality (Motala, 2000 and Pipho, 2000), while ensuring that national and local educational
contexts contribute to definitions of quality in varying countries (Adams, 1993).

Establishing a contextualized understanding of quality means including relevant stakeholders

of an institution. Key stakeholders often hold different views and meanings of educational
quality (Motala, 2000; Benoliel, O’Gara and Miske, 1999). Indeed, each of us judges the
education system in terms of the final goals we set for our students our community, our
country and ourselves (Beeby, 1966).We defined education as a provider of services. Its
services include advice, tutorial, assessment and guidance to pupils and students, their
parents and sponsors. The customers —the stakeholders of the service —are a very diverse
group and need identifying. If quality is about meeting and exceeding customer needs and
wants, it is important to be clear whose needs and wants we should be satisfying. It is
important to say something about the idea of ‘customer’ in the context of education. To some
educationalists ‘customer’ has a distinctly commercial tone that is not applicable to education.
They prefer to use ‘client’ instead. Client, with its connotations of professional service, is seen
as more appropriate. ‘Stakeholder’ is another term often used in this context. Others reject all
such language and would rather stay with ‘pupil’ or ‘student’. Language is important if an idea
is to be acceptable. Some people would make a distinction between clients, who are the
primary beneficiaries of the education service, and customers, who pay for it but who may be
once removed, such as parents, governors, employers or government. The diversity of
customers makes it all the more important for educational institutions to focus on customer
wants and to develop mechanisms for responding to them.

It can be helpful to make distinctions between:

primary customers—who directly receive the service;

secondary customers—such as parents, governors, sponsoring employers of vocational
students, all of whom have a direct stake in the education of a particular individual or in a
particular institution;

tertiary customers—who have a less direct but nonetheless crucial stake holding in
education, such as future employers, government and society as a whole;

Internal customers—who are the employees of the institution and who have a critical
stake holding in the organization’s success.

The needs and views of the various customer groups, whether they are internal or
external, do not always coincide, especially in large and complex institutions, although the
conflict can equally be present in small ones. Potential and actual conflicts of customer
interest will always exist. One of the best methods of resolving different interests is to
recognize their existence and to look for the core of issues that unite the various parties.
All stakeholders need to have their views listened to and to be treated fairly. Quality and
justice go hand in hand. This is particularly the case when dealing with complaints, which
are instances of those critical incidents where it is possible to judge how committed an
institution is to a customer-first approach. It is often difficult to ensure that the primary
customers’ views are paramount. There are strong forces pulling against it, not least those
that can be exerted by funding processes and mechanisms. Where the needs of the
learner and funding mechanisms collide, it is very difficult for an institution to put its
learners first. This is particularly the case where funding mechanisms emphasize
efficiency that can only be achieved at the cost of quality. (Adams,1993).

Proceedings of the National Symposium on “Establishing, Enhancing & Sustaining Quality Practices in Education” 47
Kaizen Models in Enhancing Quality in HEIs
Kaizen is a Japanese word that has become common in many western companies. The word
indicates a process of continuous improvement of the standard way of work (Chen et al.,
2000). KAIZEN is a system of continual undertaking by an organization to improve its
business activities and processes with the goal to always improve quality of education so that
the universities can meet their full potential. In simple terms Kaizen is a Japanese term for ‘a
change for better’, which results in ‘continuous improvement’. Kaizen ideology can be traced
back to the 1980s; Kaizen was first adopted in the West with the influx of Japanese car
manufacturers who brought a wave of new thinking. Although Kaizen events have been
growing in popularity since the mid 1990s, to date, there has been much systematic empirical
research on the determinants of Kaizen event effectiveness. Kaizen logic was first enshrined
in written text with Masaaki Imai’s book ‘KAIZEN - The Key to Japan’s Competitive Success’
(1996) this book showed what the fundamental Kaizen logic is. Kaizen uses the Japanese
logic of bringing improvements internally from within the workplace. In his Kaizen: the Key to
Japan's Competitive Success published in 1986 that introduced Kaizen to the Western
corporate world, Masaaki Imai defined it as: "a means of continuing improvement in personal
life, home life, social life, and working life. At the workplace, Kaizen means continuing
improvement involving everyone—managers and workers alike. The Kaizen business
strategy involves everyone in an organization working together to make improvements
without large capital investments."

KAIZEN is a system of continual undertaking by an organization to improve its business

activities and processes with the goal to always improve quality of products and services so
that the organization can meet full customer satisfaction. In the use, Kaizen represents the
element of continuous improvement that is a fundamental part of the Quality Model for
leading a company to commercial success. In a business context, it is expressed in all
activities, personal and teamed, that develops and uses learning to make processes better at
satisfying customer requirements. In this use, Kaizen has its origins in the fifth of W. Edwards
Deming’s 14 management points: “Improve constantly and forever the system of production
and service” (Deming, 1982). It is commonly expressed as “continuous improvement.”
Deming represented continuous improvement as the repeated application of the cycle of
Plan, Do, Study, Act (PDSA) to all activities of higher education institutions in the pursuit of
making them ever better in delivering value to customers. Its use as a business strategy
inside the United States is usually incorporated under the adoption of Deming’s Quality
model (e.g., as part of Total Quality Management) or as an element within the Lean
Enterprise model described by Womack and his associates (Womack, Jones, and Roos,
1991; Womack and Jones, 2003). Outside the United States, the term kaizen, on its own,
more frequently refers to a comprehensive companywide management program best
represented by the work of Masaaki Imai (1986). This program establishes a culture focused
on the continuous improvement of all processes and work places through the elimination of
waste. As stated by Imai, this use of kaizen means “everyday improvement by every person,
everywhere” (Imai, 2010). The creation of this culture begins at the top with management.
Every manager model teaches the commitment to continuous improvement by applying it to
his or her role and to the systems and processes he or she controls. It spreads across the
various functions that constitute a business —executive, administrative, and operational. It is
owned by every individual who, as with each manager, seeks ways every day to improve the
performance of his or her role and who participates actively in the improvement of the work
processes the worker implements and the work places he or she operates within. When used
Proceedings of the National Symposium on “Establishing, Enhancing & Sustaining Quality Practices in Education” 48
in this manner, the term kaizen umbrellas many other concepts and tools such as customer
orientation, total quality control, Quality circles, suggestion systems, standardization of work,
cooperative employee management relationships, total productive maintenance (Imai, 1986).
While Imai identifies Japanese management culture as the origin of this approach, in fact it
mirrors precisely, but incompletely, the teaching of W. Edwards Deming who these very
concepts brought to the leaders of Japanese industry in the early 1950s. He also elaborated
the rationale for this approach to business success in what he termed his “system of
profound knowledge.”

Kaizen understands waste to be any activity that is not value adding from the perspective of
the customer. Work is value adding when it is done right the first time and materially changes
a product or service in ways for which a well-informed and reasonable customer is willing to
pay. Kaizen attracts and develops people who are capable of creating and sustaining high
performance. By its nature, it draws to it people who are achievers by heart —people who are
internally driven to make a difference, to perfect something. These people are focused on
their work, frustrated by waste, and delighted by the opportunity to improve what they are
about so that it excels. Their pursuit of excellence is only excited more with each step toward
its achievement. Equally important, Kaizen attracts people who also are inclusive in their
thinking and doing. Kaizen, as we implement it, demands a broad view of the connection of
an activity to all activities that surround it and so, in its fact-finding steps, it describes the
context within which the target work process operates. It also constructs its teams to include
people who speak from the different perspectives that populate the workplace, and it pursues
its solutions with openness to every voice. People who find Kaizen a gratifying experience
are not only pioneering in their attitudes but also inclusive in their disposition (Vitalo, Butz,
and Vitalo, 2003).The kinds of people that Kaizen attracts and develops are the heart and
soul of high-performing organizations. The broad and sustained application of Kaizen can
lead to a rapid emergence of the central element needed for a company to become high
performing.

Lean Principles
The origins of Lean practices date from late 19th and early 20th century industrial engineering.
Lean practices have evolved over the decades since then to become much easier for non-
specialists to understand and use. It is now common for people with backgrounds and
interests far from industrial engineering to become highly competent Lean management
practitioners. Therefore, the Lean management system has the benefit that everyone in an
organization can apply the practices without the need for specialists. Seminal work in the
application of Lean to academic processes was done by Prof. M.L. "Bob" Emiliani when he
was at Rensselaer Polytechnic University in the early 2000s and is described what individual
faculty can do to improve their courses and delivery using Lean principles and practices.
Teams of faculty, staff, administrators, students, alumni, and employers can participate to
improve their courses using kaizen (Emiliani, 2005). The application of Lean management in
any organization is the recognition and daily practice of the Lean principles: "Continuous
Improvement" and "Respect for People." The "Respect for People" principle is almost always
ignored by senior management, resulting in zero-sum (win-lose) outcomes for people and
inferior results. In other words, one party gains at another party's expense, and the losers are
much less willing to participate in continuous improvement. This outcome impedes teamwork
and information flows, and discourages daily efforts by administration, faculty, and staff to
improve processes. In order to function properly, Lean management must be understood and

Proceedings of the National Symposium on “Establishing, Enhancing & Sustaining Quality Practices in Education” 49
practiced in a non-zero-sum (win-win)
win) manner. It is not up to the discretion of senior
administrators to ignore the "Respect for People" principle. This principle is required
requ in order
to sustain continuous improvement.

Impact of Lean in Higher Education

The impact of Lean in higher education can be profound. Substantial improvement in a
variety of processes has been achieved compared to the condition prior to improvement.
improvement
Double and triple digit improvements are achievable in most processes with the first round of
improvement. Additional significant gains are achievable if improvement is continuous rather
than sporadic. The benefits include lead-time
lead reduction, increase in throughput, lower cost,
increased student satisfaction scores, etc (Parasmal, 2009). Lead-time reduction includes
less time for assessment and evaluation feedback. Reports analyzing Lean in higher
education indicate that Lean principles are being successfully
success applied. Various Higher
education stakeholders will likely perceive their organization to be substantially different or
possess unique characteristics compared to other service organizations or businesses using
Lean management. While its origins are from industry, not academia, Lean management can
be successfully applied to any organization. The challenge is for Higher education
administrators, faculty, and staff accept the need for and benefits of process improvement; to
better comprehend the Lean principles
inciples "Continuous Improvement" and "Respect for People;"
to comprehend and practice non-zero-sum sum management; to engage in daily improvement
(versus periodic improvement efforts); and to shift from a "results" focus to a "process +
results" focus.

Five’s Model in Higher Education Institutions

Source: http://crollproductivesynergy.com/StandardizationOfWorkflowProcesses5S

Figure 1: Kaizen 5S model.

The intent of 5S is to have only what you need available in the workplace of education
institutions, a designated place for everything, a standard way of doing things, and the
discipline to maintain it. Created in Japan,
Jap the 5S’s are: seiri, seiton, seiso, seiketsu, and
shitsuke. Translated in to English, we have:

Proceedings of the National Symposium on “Establishing, Enhancing & Sustaining Quality

Qua Practices in Education” 50
• Sort - remove all contents and materials from the workplace that are NOT needed for
current programs.
• Set in Order - arranging needed content so that they are easy to find and put away. Items
used often are placed closer to employee.
• Shine - making sure everything is clean, functioning, and ready to go.
• Standardize - the method you use to maintain the first 3S's.
• Sustain - making a habit of properly maintaining correct procedures.

For a higher education Institution, this creates fewer defects, less waste, fewer delays, less
attrition, and fewer dropdowns in student academic performance. These advantages
translate to lower cost and higher quality of education. For the employees, the 5S’s create a
superior working environment. They give the employee an opportunity to provide creative
input regarding how the workplace should be organized and laid out and how standard work
should be done. Operators will be able to find things easily, every time. The workplace will be
cleaner and safer. Jobs will be simpler and more satisfying with many obstacles and
frustrations removed.

PDCA Model
In compliance with current vision of higher education institutions the process of raising
education quality at the basic education level includes teaching /learning processes that
encourage systematic thinking with emphasis on real practice. These are relevant to the
‘academic performance’ which serves as a valuable primer for prospective team; such as
administrators and administrational committees. These educator bodies work toward
effecting change in an orderly, efficient, and effective manner (Fred and Allan, 2004). For the
frameworks of ‘Academic Administration’ tasks, there are five undertakings as follows:

1. Academic Planning
2. Curriculum Design
3. Instruction capacity
4. Supervision and Instruction Improvement
5. Evaluation of Academic involvement

The first step is action of a cultural nature of administration, P= plan which is usually
operational in every organization and task. Planning must be clear, accurate, and complete
through every academic principle and should be systemic. The second step is leading the
plan in to practice or doing the following plan according to the purposes and along the short
and long working period of each plan. Particularly, only carry out the plan if one knows that it
will be effective. Then evaluation and benefit checking for both are important processes for
the plan. C-Check is the step for comparing between P-plan and D-doing, by evaluation and
checks all learners, teachers and school administrators. This step checks the working result
level. If higher than assigned P-plan, it shows that it has reached the set goals. If it is lower
than assigned P-plan, it shows that it is not able to reach a set goal. After three steps of P-D-
C, one will get an evaluation result to A- action or adjustment step. If this result is higher than
the assigned goals then adjust the goals higher for the next operation for it to be challenging.
The effective process to control both the internal and external educational quality in

Proceedings of the National Symposium on “Establishing, Enhancing & Sustaining Quality Practices in Education” 51
educational administration is confirmed as PDCA theory-in-use,
theory to ensure improvement of
educational quality and standards at all levels of educators (Figure 2). For the current
situation and working with the real state of problems for the th educational administration
among the Thai students; in the midst of worldwide changes and violence. In a lot of
educational research educators found that often proved results; revealed these causes are
related to the effect and reflection; by the system of educational administration within the field
of ‘academic administration’ (Ho and Wearn,
Wearn 1996).

Figure 2: PDCA Cycle.

On the otherer side one would refer to the educational

e standards and quality assurance for
emphasis on the current situation and working with the academic administration and
educational system: Passed by the curriculum. Yet, the innovation of educational
administration still created and produced much
muc more impact for the students’ learning;
environment and decreased the effectiveness of learning; and teaching processes which
linked; with the evaluation and measurement reflections of school administrators reputations;
and school effectiveness.

SIX Sigma and DMAIC Model

Sigma is a Greek letter representing standard deviation or the amount of variation within a
given process (McAdam and Lafferty, 2004). Six Sigma is a powerful breakthrough business
improvement strategy that enables companies to use simple
s and powerful statistical methods
for achieving and sustaining operational excellence. Six-Sigma is a philosophy which has
revolutionized many of the top companies in the world. They have achieved new height of
success by implementing Six-Sigma.
Sigma. Six-Sigma
Six is the tool that first identifies the correct
problems and root causes in a process and then improves the process in totality with
structured approach. Six-Sigma
Sigma can act as a fresh tool to remove inconsistencies and defects
in the sector by applying different
ifferent measures, process design and / or redesign, improvement
and various better management strategies and practices. Six Sigma measures are never
“static.” As the requirements of a customer change, the process must change with it. This
gives birth to the
he term “continuous improvement” which is another cornerstone to the Six
Sigma philosophy. Constant evaluation of processes is what puts the flexibility in the system
allowing it to change with the customers’ needs. All of these business strategies have one on
thing in common. They stress customer satisfaction and the importance of incorporating
customer input into the analysis of their processes. Many services processes tend to be slow
processes which often mean they are expensive ones. Often they are slow because
be there is
too much work in n progress. A great deal of work, often as much as 80% has to wait while
some other task is done (lead time), or some other step is accomplished, sometimes in

Proceedings of the National Symposium on “Establishing, Enhancing & Sustaining Quality

Qua Practices in Education” 52
another department. When employees in service functions actually analyze their processes
they tend to find that most of the steps in their processes add no value to the service, at least
not in the eyes of their customers. (Harry and Schroeder 1999).Six Sigma implies three
things: Statistical measurement, management strategy and quality culture. It is a measure of
how well a process is performing through statistical measurement of quality level. It is a new
management strategy under leadership of the top management that creates quality
innovation and total customer satisfaction. It is also a quality culture. It provides the way to do
things right at the first time and to work smarter by using data information. (Park, 2002)

Here Higher Education institutions act as business unit while qualified students are outputs
who are either consumed by society and / or industry as end customers. And in quality
centric world it is of prime importance that the product i.e. the students meet high quality
standards for society and industry or company jobs. Implementation of Six-Sigma can help
establish this confidence and expedite the value creation process. Six-Sigma in principle is a
customer oriented tool. This means it works in such a way that it helps to minimize defects in
the outcomes and can deliver maximum value from customers’ perspective. It also helps to
make sure that the problems found are no more existent and will not be repeated. To bring
positive changes study a qualified professional needs to conduct a comprehensive study to
understand and analyze institutions’ current trends, their vision, mission, core processes and
functionalities along with prominent and seasoned issues etc. Followed by SWOT analysis
this can highlight critical areas of an institution that need immediate and prime attention.
Once the criticality has been recognized the action plan can be prepared in order to mitigate
these issues and eliminate whenever possible. This essentially would need further detailed
analysis of each issue in isolation and then synthesis of the same with overall situation. A
third party neutral perspective is of critical importance due to the fact that we usually are so
close to the problems that we either do not see the bigger picture or miss many minute
details that are interconnected. Sometimes it just blurs our vision with rosy feeling of self
containment. Recommendations given from careful analysis would lead to the
implementation plan; which when gets fully executed can put up a successfully running
efficient institutional system which fulfils customer (student, society and industry) demands
and yet maintains educational decorum intact.

DMAIC Model
Six Sigma aims at reducing variations in a business and manufacturing process via dedicated
improvements in the various processes. This requires a sustained commitment from all
members of the organization. This principle has been perfectly brought about by the DMAIC
methodology, which aims at bringing about process improvement by eliminating defects. It is
generally defined as a set of practices which are aimed at bringing about improvement in
efficiency and eliminating defects among the many methodologies and strategies that Six
Sigma allows is the DMAIC Model. It stands for Define-Measure-Analyze-Improve and
Control. This model plays an important role in making the Six Sigma initiative a success for
businesses. Black Belts follow this model to base their process improvement projects. The
model was developed by Edwards Deming, aimed at reducing defects through improvement
in processes.

The first step that refers to defining the goals of the project. Defining the problem and
defining what the customer requires (Kapur and Feng, 2005). Process improvement goals
may be aimed at increasing market share, the output of a particular department, bringing
about improved employee satisfaction as well as customer satisfaction and so on. The goal
Proceedings of the National Symposium on “Establishing, Enhancing & Sustaining Quality Practices in Education” 53
has to align the customer demands and the strategic goals of the organization. Data mining
methods can be used to find prospective ideas for project implementation. In other words,
businesses are designing a road map for achieving the targets and goals of the
organization. The second step Measure refers to the analysis of the existing system with
various measurement techniques for the defects and levels of perfection that exist. In this
step, accurate metrics have to be used to define a baseline for further improvements. This
helps Six Sigma team leaders understand if progress has been achieved when process
improvements are implemented. Analyze phase is extremely important in order to determine
any disparity that may exist in the goals set and the current performance levels
achieved. Various statistical tools are available to undertake such an analysis. The
understanding of the relationship between cause and effect is necessary to bring about any
improvements, if needed. Improvements in existing systems are necessary to bring the
organization towards achievement of the organization goals. Creative development of
processes and tools brings about a new lease on life for the organization’s processes and
takes them nearer to organizational objectives. Various project management and planning
tools can be used to implement these new techniques and processes. Appropriate usage of
statistical tools is important to measure the data, which is necessary to understand
improvements done and any shortcomings that may exist. The last phase of DMAIC is the
Control phase. It helps ensure that variations in the processes are rectified before they have
a negative effect. Controls can be used to ensure sustained improvements in new processes
and operating procedures. The new project components should become a part and parcel of
existing processes. Once all the factors are performing to satisfaction, transfer of ownership
should be done to process owners and process teams.

Conclusion
This paper has served to provide a review of the current literature and quality practice within
higher education. It has identified those applications having Kaizen elements within higher
education and the complexity this creates in its measurement and management. Despite this
complexity, using kaizen as quality management tool is taken seriously in Higher education
institutions and extensive efforts are being undertaken to improve quality management
practices. These efforts appear to be divided, however, with earlier approaches adapted from
industrial models focusing on the quality of administrative and service functions. In contrast,
critics of industrial models have undertaken efforts to focus on the quality of the core
products of Higher education, teaching and learning. Given current trends, the priority now
must be to achieve greater harmonization between the two approaches in Higher education
quality management practices. This paper also identifies various Kaizen elements which are
relevant for implementation in higher education system and their performance. However, as
the review has relied upon current publications that are mainly outside these fields some,
there is clearly a need for further research. Further research should identify whether, within
educational fields like higher education, there is a relevance to adopt industrial models like
kaizen and six sigma in as a tool to improve quality and whether its application more closely
reflect the centrality of the student in line with a student-centered approach to learning. There
is a need for these practices to be made more widely known across the academic
community.

Proceedings of the National Symposium on “Establishing, Enhancing & Sustaining Quality Practices in Education” 54
References
Adams, D. (1993). Defining educational quality. Improving Educational Quality Project Publication
#1: Biennial Report. Arlington, VA: Institute for International Research.
Chen J.C, Dugger J and Hammer B (2000), “A Kaizen Based Approach for Cellular Manufacturing
Design: A Case Study”, the Journal of Technology Studies, Vol. 27, No. 2, pp. 19-27
Deming, W.E. (1983). Out of crisis. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Center
for Advanced Engineering Study
Emiliani, B. (2005) .Using Kaizen to Improve Graduate Business School Degree Programs
Fred, C., Allan, C., Ornstein. (2004) Education Administration: Concepts and Practices. Fourth
Edition.Wadsworth, a division of Thomson Learning, Inc.
Ho S.K., Wearn, K. (1996). A higher education TQM excellence model: HETQMEX. Quality
Assurance in Education, Volume 4, Number 2, pp. 35-42 (8). : Emerald Group Publishing
Limited.
Kapur, KC., Feng, Q. (2005). Integrated optimisation models and strategies for the improvement of
the Six Sigma process. Int.J. Six Sigma and competitive advantage. 1: 210-228.
Motala, S. (2000). Education transformation and quality: The South African experience. Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the Comparative and International Education Society, San
Antonio, Texas, March, 2000.
Naik, B.M. (2004). Technological Innovation in Education Institutes. J. Technical Education. 27:
59-61.
Parasmal, Y. (2009). Application of Lean Thinking in Higher Education, Strategum Consulting,
India.
Park, S. (2002). Six Sigma for productivity improvement: Korean Business Corporations.
Productivity. 43: 173-183.
Su C., Chiang T., Chang, C. (2006). Improving service quality by capitalizing on an integrated lean
Six sigma methodology. Int. J. Six sigma and competitive advantage. 2: 01-22.
Teian, K. (1992), Guiding Continuous Improvement Through Employee Suggestions, Productivity
Press, Portland, US.
Terziovski, M. (2001), The Effect of Continuous Improvement and Innovation Management
th
Practices on Small to Medium Performance, Proceedings of 5 International Conference on
Quality and Innovation Management, pp. 1-22, Euro-Australian Co-Operation Centre for Global
Management.
Womack., Jones, D., Roos., D. (1991). The Machine That Changed the World. New York, NY:
HarperCollins Publishers.
Womack., Jones, D. (2003). Lean thinking. New York, NY: Free Press.
Juhani Anttila (2006). General managerial tools For business-integrated information security
management, available at http:/www.qualityintegration.biz/informsecPDCA.html, accessed 20
December 2012.
Standardization of Workflow Processes–5S available at http://crollproductivesynergy.com
/StandardizationOfWorkflowProcesses5S, accessed 23 December 2012.

Proceedings of the National Symposium on “Establishing, Enhancing & Sustaining Quality Practices in Education” 55