The search for quality

The search for quality

Paul Armstrong, Haringey Education Service

The emphasis on the measurement of performance in adult, further and higher education has been an insidious process that has accompanied tighter and more stringent financial controls and the requirements of accountability. The development of systems for the measurement of performance have been developed not through policy, but through the investment of resources in small-scale and often localised projects. For example, in the FE sector, the Employment Department has made relatively large sums of money available nationally to a wide range of further education and training institutions to develop information and quality assurance systems.The notion of quality control and quality assurance in education is not in itself new. What is different is that the models being adopted or adapted are not emanating from within the education system, but are being imported from the manufacturing sector. In May 1991, the Government white papers on further and higher education had picked up this developing interest in quality assurance and confirmed that the Government attaches ‘great importance to systems which will ensure the quality of education and training provided by the colleges’.1Similarly, in higher education,

the prime responsibility for maintaining and enhancing the quality of teaching and learning rests with each individual institution. At the same time, there is a need for proper accountability for the substantial public funds invested in higher education ‘.2

Whilst in FE examining and validating bodies are responsible for guaranteeing the ‘quality’ of qualifications, and external assessors are responsible for making independent judgement of the quality of teaching and learning in colleges (including HMI), it is stressed that colleges themselves have primary responsibility for quality control. In higher education, the role of CNAA and degree-awarding bodies are to be subject to review as part of a quality assurance process, but all institutions will be required to set up mechanisms for quality control (maintaining and enhancing the quality of their provision) and quality assessment (external review of and judgements about the quality of teaching and learning in institutions). This quality assessment will be linked to funding through the new HE Funding Councils. Whilst the FE white paper believes that it ‘would be premature to advocate any one framework’ it proceeds to mention that ‘...a number of systems are being explored by colleges including BS5750, Total Quality Management (TQM) and Strategic Quality Management’. Whether intentional or not, such illustrative remarks have a tendency to give status to such systems, and it is fair to say that these three are the major ones which have been the focus of Employment Department development funding. Whilst some people working in FE and HE will be extremely familiar with these systems since they will be involved in training for quality control and quality assurance (nearly 100 institutions of further or higher education offer delivery and accreditation for The Institute of Quality Assurance courses), for the majority the notion of TQM or the term BS5750 is rather meaningless. It may be worth outlining what appear to be the key features of these three systems and then moving to ask some critical questions about their applicability and their application to the world of education.

BS5750British Standards 5750 is a general purpose standard, derived from manufacturing industry, to which a quality management system must conform, and against which it will be assessed, if the system registration or kitemark is to be sought. A BS5750 registration mark indicates that an organisation adheres to the system it has

1 DES (1991) Education and training for the 21st century: the challenge to colleges. London: HMSO

2 DES (1991) Higher education: a new framework. London: HMSOReproduced from 1991 Conference Proceedings, pp. 10-21 ã SCUTREA 1997

The search for quality

described and documented. Thus, it is primarily the management procedures which are checked against the British Standards criteria. The standard itself comes in three parts. Part 1 (1987) encompasses the specification for design, development, production, installation and servicing when the requirements of goods and services are specified by the customer. This is the most comprehensive award and covers such things (‘clauses’) as management responsibility; quality system; contract review; design control; document control; purchasing; purchaser supplied product; product identification and traceability; process control, inspection and testing; inspection, measuring and test equipment; inspection and test status; control of non-conforming product; corrective action; handling, storage, packaging and delivery; quality records; internal quality audits; training; servicing; and statistical techniques. Part 2 refers only to those clauses concerned with production and installation, describing the requirements for manufacturing goods or offering a service to a published specification or to the customers’ specifications. It is different from Part 1 insofar as it excludes those clauses relevant to design control and servicing. Part 3 covers only final inspection and test, and is the least wide of the three, and is used only when conformance to standards is assured for the final inspection or testing. To be awarded the kitemark any organisation is required to describe in detail the basic belt of elements of its quality management system. Each step and procedure of the production process is tracked, described and documented, made traceable. The documents are systematically placed together as a quality assurance procedures manual, which can be used check the uniformity of both the process of production and the product. Both internal checks and audits and external assessment are carried out to ensure that the organisation is conforming to the standards it has specified number of individuals are recognised as Assessors as well as the BSI itself. Most of these come from an engineering or manufacturing background, and qualify after following a short course (4 to 5 days) and a qualifying examination.

What has this to do with education? The British Standards Institute has stated that education or training providers may register for either Part 1 or Part 2. However, its application to education and training is problematic. What are we to make of, for example, ‘control of non-conforming product’? The applicability of the clause to the compulsory sector may be obvious, but it does raise questions about what constitutes the product of an education service. Its application to education and training providers has been given considerable attention by the BSI itself. Guidance notes for education and training providers have been issued3 which are the result of several drafts and much consultation, and is due to be re-issued (yet again) in March 1992 to take account of comments received on its use in practice. A very small number of education and training institutions have actually gone down the road of BS5750 at this stage. Cleveland Accredited Training Centre, Sandwell

3 British Standards Institute (1991) BS5750 guidance notes for application to education and training.

Reproduced from 1991 Conference Proceedings, pp. 10-21 ã SCUTREA 1997

The search for quality

College4 and North East Worcestershire College have all attained the BSI registration mark, and therefore any re-writing of guidance notes is likely to be based on their experience. The guidance notes recognise that there are ‘philosophical and practical differences between education and training’ but these ‘real differences do not impact on quality systems to any degree’. The output of education and training is variously described as

the course, the programme, the curriculum, and the person who undergoes the chosen education or training. These notes define output as either the programme or the enhancement of skills and abilities gained by a person who undergoes the education and training process.5

In turn, the programme is defined as ‘the complete package for an educational or training course which normally includes content, presentation materials, equipment, appropriate resources, input requirements and output expectations’. The ‘purchaser’ of the product can either be an individual student or trainee or any organisation (private or public) which purchases the service from the supplier (i.e. the provider of the service). The ‘service’ is the education or training applied to a person, including administration and other support services which contribute to the effectiveness of the programme. Apart from dealing with definitions, the guidance notes give advice on interpretation of various sub-clauses of the standard from an education or training organisation perspective. Indeed, it clarifies the example above: control of non-conforming product or service can refer to the programme, the student/trainee’s performance, materials and services purchased for use in the provision of the service; corrective action addresses customer (or purchaser) complaints, student/trainee comment, the results of audits, retention rates, success rates and ‘should include the analysis of processes to prevent potential non-conforming product’. Whilst the guidance notes demonstrate, on paper, that the standard can be applied to an education or training service, and the limited number of examples can demonstrate its application and implementation in practice, they do not address the question as to the value or purpose of undertaking BS5750. Two major limitations are obvious. The first of these is the expense of going for BS5750. Whilst it is hard to calculate with any precision the actual costs, it is apparent that the amount that needs to be paid to the BSI for registration and the amounts paid to certification bodies constitute only part of the overall costs.6 The appointment of staff to co-ordinate and undertake the necessary description and documentation, the internal auditing and the putting in place of procedures to undertake corrective action, the required training of staff to operate effectively within the set procedures, and the evaluation of it, are all human resource-intensive. Actual costs do depend very much on the size of the organisation, and experience suggests that it is possible for only part of an organisation (usually a fairly discrete part, such as an enterprise unit, or that part which deals with cost-recovery programmes) to work towards BS5750, rather than the whole organisation. In the case of education and training providers, it would have to be remembered that most (if not all) have been in receipt of funding, usually from the Employment Department, that has assisted with the development costs. Moreover, given the limited number of education or training institutions that have followed through the process, they are now able to offer consultancy on BS5750 and raise income through that. The second, and much more critical set of questions about BS5750 are not to do with costs, but with its purpose, and - importantly, what it has to do with quality. The BS5750 registration mark is not a product quality kitemark or specification; nor does it establish a level of excellence for a product - it is no more than a way of describing the capability of the system to produce goods to specification. Its

4 See Britain’s First: Sandwell and 5750. In PICKUP in Progress, no. 25, Oct 1991; pp 27-28

5 BSI, op. cit. p.26 The Employment Department has sponsored a number of research projects to

identify the costs of BS5750 for (a) TECs and (b) Training Providers. See The management of quality: BS5750 and Beyond (Employment Department, November 1990); section 5.

Reproduced from 1991 Conference Proceedings, pp. 10-21 ã SCUTREA 1997

The search for quality

working definition of quality is simple ‘fitness for purpose and safe in use; that is, is the service product designed and constructed to satisfy the customers’ needs?’ The application of this working definition to adult continuing education would be interesting to contemplate. As well as requiring agreement on the purpose for which it is fit, who could say that education products are safe in use? This operational definition reminds us how problematic is the concept of quality itself it

Total Quality Management (TQM)Whilst the Employment Department is very keen on BS5750, the Department of Trade and Industry appears to have some investment in Total Quality Management. TQM is a philosophy rather than a process, but is application to education and training requires as much careful consideration as BS5750. According to a DTI publication,

Total Quality Management (TQM) is a way of managing to improve the effectiveness, flexibility, and competitiveness of a business as a whole. It applies just as much to service industries as it does to manufacturing. It involves whole companies getting organised, in every department, every activity, and every single person, at every Israel. For an organisation to be truly effective, emery single part of it must work properly together, because emery person and emery activity affects and in turn is affected by others.7

Thus, TQM is founded on the idea that quality begins and ends with each individual in an organisation, and their commitment and attitude. It is a particularly disciplined, rigorous and skilled process designed to challenge current practice and performance, continuously striving for improvement in quality. Its philosophy has its roots in both Japanese and North American management theories. The DTI recognises and outlines the work of S. Shingo, K. Ishikawa, G. Taguchi, A.V.Feigenbaum, J.M.Juran, C. Moller, Philip E. Crosby and W.Edwards Demming8. Edwards Demming, in particular, seems to have been the intellectual drive behind the post-war reconstruction in Japan, introducing them to the idea of involving and consulting with customers. From the writings and practices of these ‘quality gurus’, a number of distinctive features that represent the five guiding principles of TQM emerge. These principles and practice of TQM have been summarised in a newsletter produced by the Further Education Unit.9 An extract is given below.

Total Quality Management: Principles and PracticeTQM may be applied and introduced in a number of ways. It typically may be predicated upon five guiding principles:

• creation of an appropriate climate

• focus placed on the customer

• management by data/fact

• people-based management

• continuous quality improvement

Creation of an appropriate climate

A change in working practices and relationships is required in most organisations in order to create a climax of ‘not being satisfied’ with current inputs, processes, performance outcomes. The principles and practice of TQM enable a constant, self-conscious process of research, analysis/measurement of needs, requirements and expectations, of feedback, of measurement of results, impact and effectiveness, and

7 Department of Trade and Industry (no date) Total quality management: a practical manual. London: DTI8 Department of Trade and Industry (no date) The quality gurus: what can they do

for your company?; p.2. London: DTI9 Further Education Unit (1991) Quality matters: business and industry quality

models and further education. London: FEUReproduced from 1991 Conference Proceedings, pp. 10-21 ã SCUTREA 1997

The search for quality

of efficiency, in order to improve what is done and how it is done. This will include quality control processes, customer satisfaction, customer care, human resource development, financial resourcing and every other function in the organisation.

This change of climate is led by senior managers following an awareness and training Programme which is designed to harness their commitment to continuous improvement and equip them with understanding and skills of TQM principles and practice.

Focus placed on customer

The principle of focusing on the customer requires that the customer is consulted and involved in designing the process for delivering the product or service, and that suppliers and customers should be regarded as equal partners. This necessitates being very clear about who the organisation’s customers are.

The principle also refers to an organisation-wide commitment to continually satisfying agreed/negotiated customer requirements, needs and expectations. This means that it is essential to question customers very carefully, in order to elicit what they and the company really know and understand what they want, and in order to determine what the company can Provide. This in turn means that:

• customer requirements and needs are agreed, after discussion, explanation, negotiation and/or surveys

• expectations and interests are also addressed (i.e. the aim is not just a satisfied customer, but a delighted ones

• the customer plays an active part in the process or delivery system

• it is recognised that the degree of excellence of people’s operational inputs - as well as established processes - can be improved, and that this improvement is the key factor in the degree of excellence, and of success, of the outcomes. This is seen as particularly relevant in the public/professional where the quality of inputs is virtually wholly in the hands of the frontline providers/staff

• regular measurement and evaluation of progress and improvement is conducted in all functions, against identified and where possible quantified needs, interests, requirements and expectations. The timing of measurement and evaluation needs to be carefully planned to ensure that the activities coincide with, for example, opportunities to change on-going processes, rather than to discover retrospectively whether improvements could or should have been made. This data collection and analysis is used for quality planning and, where appropriate, for giving proof of quality and the extent to which it has improved

The concept of customers and their requirements is applied inside the organisation as well as outside it. Everyone has a ‘customer’ inside the organisation because everyone uses, or expects, or receives, outputs or outcomes from someone else’s work. Thus, everyone is at times a supplier, and at others a customer, and this applies to all levels in the hierarchy. Internally, therefore, it places equal accountability in all directions and means that both internal and external customer requirements, needs and expectations must be clarified, negotiated and clearly understood.

Management by data/fact

Management by data or fact means that reliance is placed on factual evidence of what is required internally and externally - in order to facilitate improvements and to meet requirements, rather than on assumptions, on traditional or past experience, or on hearsay. This is usually the result of statistical process control (SPC) and/or root cause analysis. It is often a very significant change in operation and links closely with the principle of focusing on the customer.

It is important accurately to determine, to prioritise and to quantify the requirements wherever possible, and to measure the gradual improvement in the rate of success in meeting and exceeding them. In this way proof can be Provided of successes and improvements. Describing the procedures that are followed does not prove either quality or its improvement.

Attitude and satisfaction surreys (of staff and customers) are sometimes used, and the analysis, measurement, evaluation and review of such surreys are used to assist with fact-finding, with appropriate measurements, planning and goal-setting. A

Reproduced from 1991 Conference Proceedings, pp. 10-21 ã SCUTREA 1997

The search for quality

common feature in the introduction of TQM is an employee surrey to elicit common problems/issues that they face and which perhaps prevent them from doing their job better. The creation, use and interpretation of such surreys or information gathering must become part of the portfolio of skills employed particularly, but not exclusively, by managers, team leaders, and anyone with a co-ordinating or facilitating role.

The results of such surreys and evaluations are analysed and fed into action plans, indicators, or objectives for improvement. The results are measured against the first set of findings to determine the degree or nature of improvement and change that is needed. In business and industry, this careful, documented measurement can form a pattern against which increased satisfaction and/or improvement may be Proved or predicted. Where appropriate, targets, goal setting or indicators could be informed by such data or predictability.

People-based management

People-based management means that management style is participative in order to enable and empower people at every level and in each function to share in management decisions, and to share in the responsibility for effecting decisions. It aims to improve job satisfaction. To support this, it is essential to know what is important to staff (for example, through surveys, as indicated). It enables people to identify and ‘own’ problems and their solutions - rather than passing them up or around the organisation, or worse, hiding them. It also means that people listen to one another. joint problem-solving, looking for improvement opportunities and teamwork are central keys in operating effectively. This goes beyond specialist teams. For example, project or other teams which cross functional and hierarchical divisions, may be established for short, medium or long-term activities designed to address Problems, initiatives, research, development, improvements and changes.

In addition, a TQM approach ensures that efforts are recognised and acknowledged. To this end, many TQM firms ensure that all staff have a ‘sponsor’ (rather like learners having a personal tutor) in order to encourage, acknowledge and bring to the attention the achievements, efforts and contributions of staff. Sponsors also play a part in mapping out, with those staff, their aspirations, plans, training needs, etc. Sponsors need not always be direct line managers.

Continuous quality improvement

The principles of continuous improvement are designed to ensure constant attention to what may be improved and to ways of improving it. This then helps to direct resources to those activities that impact most strongly on quality improvement, rather than resourcing on historical Precedent or according to ‘territorial boundaries’. The aim is excellence. This applies to internal and external operations, to outcomes or products, and to administration or support as well as to technical or professional functions.

When all of these Principles are successfully put in to practice an organisation may be said to operate TQM.

Behind these principles are a number of implicit assumptions that are worth spelling out. Firstly, it is management driven; it requires the commitment of the senior management of an organisation, as Figure 1.3 indicates. It follows that leadership is a clear factor in the success of TQM. Again, this has been recognised by the DTI who emphasise the leadership role in the process of quality assurance. But, importantly, if there is to be commitment to empowering all those who work in the organisation or are recipients of a service or product provided, then this requires a particular style of leadership.Second, the demand for quality has to be seen as an investment, and therefore adequate resources need to be put into the design, preparation and implementation of a system. In particular, if the system is to be both effective and efficient, then training is a crucial feature. Training should be provided at all levels and in all departments of an organisation if all people are to play an effective role in quality assurance. Part of this training must focus on the need to change the culture of an organisation to one that is committed to and supportive of quality assurance. Figure 1.3 The DTI Model of Total Quality

Reproduced from 1991 Conference Proceedings, pp. 10-21 ã SCUTREA 1997

The search for quality

Strategic Quality ManagementStrategic quality management shares the emphasis on the commitment of an organisation’s senior management to quality assurance, and is a recognition of the crucial role they need to play in the process. It is seen as one of three components of a system for quality improvement, along with quality control and quality assurance. A model showing how they might fit as a system and apply to the FE sector is proposed in Figure 1.4. This model has been developed as part of an Employment Department funded project carried out by Consultants at Work.10

The project utilised the results of work of small teams of LEA officers and college principals in Essex, Gwynedd and Newcastle-upon-Tyne, and sought to identify the components of Strategic Quality Management in relation to FE. Building on its earlier work, the project focused on four phases: pre-entry; at entry; during course; and on exit. At each phase, the relevant quality characteristics, quality standards and quality measures. Quality characteristics are those features of the learners’ experience that determine its quality; for example, information available for programmes of learning on offer; provision of guidance and counselling; an induction programme; a quality learning environment, and so on. For each quality characteristic, there is a standard which is defined by a realistic level of attainment - no standard should include statements which are known to be impossible to deliver. Existing provision will need to be matched against the specified standard, and therefore a quality measure needs to be proposed as a way of operationalising the standards.

It is the clarity which arises from the specification of quality characteristic, standard and measure which provides the basis on which to judge the quality of the service Provided to the student, while also acknowledging the contributions of the student and others.11

10 John Miller & Sonia Inniss (1990), Strategic quality management: The strategic management of a quality further education service; A working paper for LEA officers and college principals. London: Consultants at Work

Reproduced from 1991 Conference Proceedings, pp. 10-21 ã SCUTREA 1997

The search for quality

The learner is at the centre of the system, which is characterised by a commitment to quality, the development of a meaningful strategy, which is communicated and understood at all levels, involving a range of technical processes. In order to implement Strategic Quality Management, the senior management staff are required to clarify the vision, validate existing good practice within a development framework. Having identified the strategy, it is necessary to establish clear responsibilities and devise a programme of action.

Figure 1.4 The Consultant at Work Model of Quality Assurance

Figure 1.5 The strategic process

11 ibid; p.14Reproduced from 1991 Conference Proceedings, pp. 10-21 ã SCUTREA 1997

The search for quality

What is quality? A critical lookTypically, those who have developed or described systems of quality assurance do not dwell too long on the notion of quality. As we have seen, in BS5750, quality is defined merely in terms of fitness for purpose and safe in use. A product is of the required ‘quality’ when it is fit for its purpose, that is, when it complies with its planned life expectancy; in other words, quality is believed to be inherent in its design specification. For the DTI, in discussing TQM, quality is ‘simply meeting the customer requirements’. The emphasis on the customer is paramount.

Quality is defined as being a service doing what it is supposed to do and responding to the needs of users.12

In Strategic Quality Management, the authors write:

At its heart, the quality of education and training is expressed as the experience gained by the learner. Such experience is not easily quantified. There are some tangible outcomes of course, like examinations passed, credits awarded or competencies acquired. But there are also the more intangible outcomes, like personal qualities enhanced, friends gained, challenge or enjoyment. It is the

12 J. Stewart & K. Walsh (1989), The search for quality. London: Local Government Management Board

Reproduced from 1991 Conference Proceedings, pp. 10-21 ã SCUTREA 1997

The search for quality

balance of the tangible and the intangible which maces the quality of education and training so notoriously difficult to define and to capture in a few words.13

Elsewhere they have suggested that quality in FE is inherently difficult to specify, although students may know when they have experienced quality in a course or learning programme. They go on to argue that it is important that a definition of quality is attempted, and that there should be debates on the meaning of quality. There needs to be consistently agreed criteria as to the nature of quality, but as important is the articulation of the purpose and ethos of the quality assurance system. The dictionary definition of quality has two dimensions: (a) that which refers to the nature of something, that which makes a thing what it is; its attributes; its characteristics this is value and judgement free; or (b) that which refers to a ‘grade of excellence’, which is a social construct, value-related, and judgemental. The first of these is a factual description; the second qualifies that distinction. The word ‘quality’ is often used to refer to something good, but - of course - something could be of ‘poor quality’. This reminds us that the search for quality has to begin in understanding, even though the idea is more often used than it is defined. Quality appears to be more easily characterised by what it is not rather than what it is. For example, it is not the same as quantity - indeed, sometimes an emphasis on quantity means a reduction of quality. At the centre of quality lies an evaluation of a product or a service, not just the measurement of its amount, The search for quality requires the organisation to consider what quality means to users of the product or service, and how they evaluate it.14 Quality cannot be defined separately from use and user experience. A Service that provides quality for one user may not provide quality for another, because needs, requirements and expectations may vary. Specifying service quality will always involve considering how users will experience and evaluate a service and understanding the circumstances in which they will use it.15 In other words, quality is always something that will need to be measured or evaluated against specified standards or criteria, which may have to refer to excellence of outcomes: What constitute the criteria of quality, and what are valid and reliable measures of those criteria is a matter of negotiation, and also of perspective. What counts as good quality for a student, may not be shared by teaching staff. In asking Is Quality Good for You?, Naomi Pfeffer and Anna Coote argue that the concept of quality ‘is slippery and the meaning elusive’ because the concept is put to different uses and serves different purposes, and its meaning changes according to the interests that are driving it. While reiterating that different people experience quality in different ways, they go further by pointing to the way that increasingly quality is ‘linked to fundamental changes in the politics and organisation of the welfare state’.16 They recognise that quality is something that is unquestionably good, but in reality no such consensus exists. The debate about quality is a political debate:

On the Right of the political spectrum, quality is broadly connected with the idea of value for money; the desire to achieve economic efficiency is a major impulse behind quality initiatives. On the Left, quality appears to occupy a significant new position between the traditional goals of ‘liberty’ and ‘equality’. Equity remains a goal, but the Left is keen to dissociate itself from the idea that equity means uniformity; it stresses instead its commitment to a more flexible, pluralistic and responsive approach to welfare provision, and to the freedom of individuals to determine how their needs are met. As always, equality and liberty are goals that can conflict. When it comes to providing services in a modern welfare system, the

13 Miller & Inniss, op. cit; p.1014 Stewart & Walsh, op. cit; p.315 ibid; pp3-416 Naomi Pfeffer & Anna Coote (1991), Is quality good for you? A critical review of

quality assurance in welfare services. Institute of Public Policy Research Paper No. 5.

Reproduced from 1991 Conference Proceedings, pp. 10-21 ã SCUTREA 1997

The search for quality

pursuit of quality can form a bridge between them. It becomes the space in which reconciliation between the two goals can be negotiated.17

This debate on quality and equality probably needs to be taken further, especially as the Local Government Management Board in conjunction with Birmingham University have produced a pack which is recognised as ‘good practice’, but which is in need of some critical appraisal.18 From Pfeffer and Coote’s perspective the debate is furthered by an analysis of frameworks within which the meanings of quality are developed. They outline five such frameworks or approaches to quality: The traditional approach to quality, which addresses the issue in terms of high standards of production, delivery and presentation often associated with expensive products, and almost certainly has a social class basis. The scientific or expert approach is based on the idea not of perfection but of ‘fitness for purpose’, as in both TQM and in the address of BS5750. As we have seen, it involves the specification of standards to which goods or services must conform. It is driven by experts, who set the standards and monitor outcomes. This approach has grown out of an era of mass production (Fordism) and assembly-line methods of production in which skills are fragmented and jobs broken down into repetitive tasks (Taylorism) and the principles of ‘scientific management’. The managerial or excellence approach is a more recent arrival on the scene. Quality is seen as a measure of customer satisfaction, as represented in the work of Tom Peters, particularly, for example, in In Search of Excellence. The failure to provide quality would result in the loss of custom and profit, and therefore lead to the demise of the organisation. The reward for quality is success in a highly competitive environment. This ‘excellence’ approach is a philosophical as well as technical approach. Whereas the scientific systems place responsibility for quality at the top of the organisation, in the hand of experts and professionals in a paternalistic fashion, the new philosophy decrees that the entire workforce share responsibility for quality. Management is through leadership qualities, not status. Vertical organisational structures replace horizontal ones. This new managerialism initially developed within the private industrial sector, but has now found its way into public sector services, particularly in health, social services and education. With it has come a ‘contract culture’, the separation of purchasing and providing, decentralisation of services and outcome measurement. Power rests in the hand s of the managers, not the professionals. In education this has been demonstrated in the trend towards appointing university vice-chancellors and college principals (or chief executives, as some wish to be known), with managerial experience and competence rather than having been a good teacher, professional educator or academic. According to Peter Drucker, it is only in the last fifty years, that management has emerged as a distinct kind of work, or discipline with its own knowledge base. Whilst the higher education sector has moved to develop higher academic qualifications in the study and science of management, there is as yet no professional accreditation or regulation of managers equivalent to, say, the General Medical Council. Having generic skills and competence their commitment to a purpose and a set of values, as in professions, may be absent. In the public sector, managers are not accountable to the public, but are appointed, and their performance is evaluated in terms of inputs, outputs and outcomes. The consumerist approach suggests that quality can be achieved by empowering consumers. While the excellence approach expresses the desire of providers to satisfy customers, the consumerist approach expresses the desire of customers to be satisfied. It cast them, therefore, in an active role and seeks to increase their power where they can influence the decision-making process. Individual consumers would rarely have this degree of influence, but by joining consumer organisations or specialist pressure groups they may have their voice heard. In the public services, there is a tradition of such groups, but this is not a history of successful impact. Their ways of working may be outmoded. That we should be sceptical about this is reinforced by recent initiatives stemming from the Right, expressed mostly

17 ibid; p.318 Equality and quality: Service to the whole community. Local Government

Management Board/University of Birmingham.Reproduced from 1991 Conference Proceedings, pp. 10-21 ã SCUTREA 1997

The search for quality

concretely in the idea of a Citizen’s Charter. As Pfeffer and Coote say, on the surface, the Left and the Right seem to agree that it would be a good idea to empower the users of public services. However, it may be that the degree of political consensus is more apparent than real, and that behind the conclusion for action are quite different political philosophies. Besides, it is clear that the consumerist approach is in itself insufficient because it does not come to terms with differences between commerce and welfare; nor does it recognise that the role of the consumer is ambiguous, since consumers are also citizens. The democratic approach to quality does not actually exist yet, but if this approach is to be suitable for a modern welfare system, it will need to address the shortcomings of the other approaches, particularly the consumerist approach with which it might otherwise have some affinity. In other words, it must be able to distinguish the differences between commercial and welfare interests, recognise the complex role of individuals as both consumers and citizens, and between individual and community needs. Pfeffer and Coote suggest that in its development, the democratic approach may hold on to some ideas resident in other approaches. For example, from the scientific approach it might retain the notion of fitness for purpose, given that the main purpose of welfare is to promote equality (that is, not giving everybody the same, but giving everyone an equal chance in life). From the excellence approach, the notion of responsiveness can be taken on so encourage the public service to listen and respond to the diverse and changing needs of the population. And finally, from the consumerist approach, it could build on the notion of empowerment, providing it is taken to mean both an end in itself (given that a basic welfare goal to give people more control over their own lives), and a means to an end (empowered citizens might insist on a higher standard of quality in education, health and social care). In using Pfeffer and Coote’s differentiation of approaches to quality to assist in the critical examination of the notion of quality, we should not overlook the possibility of being critical of their typology itself. In applying what they say to the earlier discussion of models of quality assurance, inconsistencies emerge. This may well be because Total Quality Management, which shares an emphasis on fitness for purpose, but also is a set of principles which has both management through leadership and consumerism as a focus, is built on sets of incongruous assumptions, eclectically borrowed from here and there. Or, there is the possibility that the typology itself has not got it right. That Pfeffer and Coote conclude by encouraging the retention of bits of other approaches in the development of a democratic approach, would seem to suggest that this approach will itself be eclectic, and lack a coherent and consistent ideological base. At this stage this is a matter of conjecture, but it might be wise to treat the typology of approaches as a heuristic device, a starting point with which to examine the ways and purposes for which quality is used. Its value as a heuristic device is that it opens up the discussion of what counts as quality, as well as the applicability of various approaches to quality assurance to the public service sector, and specifically education. Much work is still to be done, particularly on understanding and illuminating the political complexities surrounding quality and its measurement. In particular, the implications for education - further, higher and adult - will need to be anticipated, and action taken.

Reproduced from 1991 Conference Proceedings, pp. 10-21 ã SCUTREA 1997