WORLD EDUCATION CONNECT MULTIDISCIPLINARY E-PUBLICATION
Vol. V Issue IX (September 2025)
International Circulation
This is an open-access, peer-reviewed, and refereed international publication in online & printed versions that features research papers, abstracts, theses, dissertations, and journals. It is registered to the ISSN National Center of the Philippines, and ISSN International Center, the Global Index for Continuing Resources with ISSN (Online) 2799-0842 and ISSN (Print) 2799-130X.
World Education Connect Multidisciplinary e-Publication, Vol. V, Issue IX (September 2025), pp.146-152
Dr. Jusffer C. De Leon
Professor, UPHSD, Metro Manila
Abstract
This article distills recent scholarship (2019–2025) on teaching Total Quality Management (TQM) in higher education and converts it into a practical, one‑semester course that produces measurable institutional gains—not just classroom mastery. Using a rapid narrative review of peer‑reviewed studies, course documents, and sector guidance (e.g., Baldrige and ISO‑aligned materials), the paper identifies three high‑yield moves: (1) run improvement projects on live campus processes with a named sponsor who accepts the handoff and owns the control plan; (2) use Lean Six Sigma’s DMAIC as the problem‑solving spine and SPC as the evidence language so teams act on signals, not noise; and (3) align artifacts to education frameworks so student work doubles as credible evidence for program review and accreditation. The blueprint provides a week‑by‑week sequence, deliverables (charter → SIPOC → data plan → analyze gate → pilot → control plan), and signature assessments: a sponsor‑scored DMAIC capstone, an SPC practicum with messy service data, and short briefs that map results to framework criteria and reflect on privacy/equity. A practical Quality 4.0 stance—lightweight dashboards, basic analytics, and minimum‑necessary data practices—keeps cycles fast while preserving human judgment and ethical safeguards. Reported outcomes include stronger chart literacy, clearer cross‑unit collaboration, shorter queues and turnaround times, and reusable evidence for accreditation. The design is delivery‑agnostic (face‑to‑face, online, or hybrid) and anticipates common risks (sponsor drift, change resistance, uneven measurement maturity) with gated reviews and control‑plan audits. Limitations of the evidence base are noted, with a call for multi‑site tests and post‑course verification of sustained gains.
Introduction
In higher education, TQM has shifted from a compliance exercise to a core capability. Academic and administrative units now depend on stable processes and disciplined improvement to meet expectations for access, timeliness, and equity. Enrollment teams use TQM to reduce rework and shorten queues; advisers standardize caseload triage; laboratories and clinics cut turnaround time; libraries and help desks make digital portals dependable. Compared with a decade ago, the research base has matured: definitions are clearer, measures are more consistent, and reported links to outcomes such as student satisfaction, throughput, and, in some settings, retention are more credible.
Shared reference models anchor this progress. The Baldrige Excellence Framework (Education) provides a common language—Leadership, Strategy, Customers, Measurement/Analysis/Knowledge, Workforce, Operations, and Results—that translates cleanly into learning outcomes, case prompts, and grading rubrics. In parallel, ISO 21001 adds an education‑specific lens that keeps equity, accessibility, and responsible data handling in scope. Together these lenses help faculty teach tools inside a broader system of governance, ethics, and results, and they give departments artifacts that stand up to internal review and external audit.
Methods
A rapid narrative review gathered practice‑relevant evidence from June 2019 through September 2025. Searches combined the terms TQM, Lean Six Sigma, SPC, Baldrige, and ISO 21001 with curriculum‑focused keywords (course, syllabus, pedagogy, learning outcomes, assessment) and higher‑education contexts. Sources included peer‑reviewed journals, conference proceedings, and official framework materials.
Inclusion criteria required a higher‑education setting plus either (a) empirical results, (b) detailed instructional designs, or (c) recognized frameworks used for teaching and assessment. Exclusions were industry‑only applications, opinion pieces without method, and institutional quality studies that lacked a teaching/learning component. Screening occurred in two passes (titles/abstracts, then full texts). A structured form captured context, course structure, learning activities (e.g., DMAIC projects, SPC labs), assessment design, alignment to Baldrige/ISO 21001, outcomes reported (knowledge, attitudes, process metrics, retention), and implementation conditions (sponsor engagement, data access, ethics). A simplified mixed‑methods appraisal judged clarity of design, data integrity, and pedagogical relevance.
Results
The results provide an overview of the verified teaching moves, the outcomes that were observed, and the risks that remained. The risks included sponsor-backed projects, the DMAIC-SPC backbone, and the alignment of the framework. The outcomes included measurable service improvements in various settings, and the risks included sponsor drift, resistance, and immature measurement techniques.
What works
1) Real projects with a sponsor.
The strongest driver of learning and transfer is project‑based improvement on live university processes—admissions queues, advising flow, laboratory or clinic turnaround, and library/help‑desk service levels—with a named process owner who accepts the handoff and owns the control plan. Students charter the work, map with SIPOC and swimlanes, write operational definitions, establish baselines, and document reaction rules. Studies using education‑sector models show that explicitly tying projects to recognized criteria clarifies aims and strengthens results. Practice reports also show that pairing Lean tools with basic analytics (simple dashboards, early‑alert triggers, queue metrics) standardizes retention workflows and reduces ad hoc escalations.
2) DMAIC + SPC as the backbone.
Courses that treat DMAIC as the narrative and SPC as the evidence language produce graduates who act on signals, not noise. Core topics include sampling and simple statistics, chart selection and interpretation (X‑bar/R, p, u, EWMA), and capability analysis; advanced offerings may add design of experiments and acceptance sampling. Services‑sector adaptations—measurement plans for qualitative outcomes, inter‑rater checks, and visual management—keep attention on decisions rather than tools for their own sake. SPC labs that use messy, timestamped campus data teach judgment about common versus special cause and prevent overreaction to noise.
3) Align to frameworks.
Mapping projects to the Baldrige education categories and to ISO 21001 principles deepens understanding and makes evidence easy to reuse for program review and accreditation. High‑leverage pairings include Voice of the Customer → QFD to translate needs into CTQs; KPI trees that connect course‑level measures to unit and institutional outcomes; and process maps linked to risk controls and audit trails. Aligned artifacts travel well across departments and survive leadership changes.
4) A practical Quality 4.0 stance.
Contemporary syllabi increasingly involve lightweight dashboards and basic analytics fed by learning systems or ticketing platforms. Courses model privacy‑aware access, transparency, and minimum‑necessary data practices so that algorithmic aids accelerate cycles without replacing human judgment.
What outcomes are reported
Across contexts, researchers and instructors report gains in student capability (chart literacy, problem framing, ethical reasoning), measurable service improvements (reduced variation, shorter queues, clearer communications), and better cross‑unit collaboration. A recent meta‑analysis associates TQM adoption with higher‑education quality and stakeholder satisfaction, while cautioning that methods vary across studies. Mixed‑methods work also describes a clearer “line‑of‑sight” from local fixes to institutional goals when a recognized framework provides shared vocabulary and criteria. Instructors report smoother collaboration between academic and administrative units, sponsors value before/after narratives that pair a stable chart with a simple cost‑of‑poor‑quality estimate, and students leave with portfolios—charters, process maps, control plans—that translate to internships and early‑career roles.
Persistent challenges
Three friction points recur. Sponsor commitment can waver when priorities shift, and projects then stall at the control phase. Change resistance shows up as tool skepticism, project fatigue, or discomfort with transparency when dashboards expose variation. Measurement maturity is uneven: many units lack stable operational definitions, routine data capture, or the habit of distinguishing signal from noise. Effective courses rehearse these realities with short cases and gated reviews, and they reward ethical data handling, stakeholder engagement, and sustainability of controls, not only short‑term gains.
Discussion
A one‑semester blueprint
The proposed 15–16 week plan treats TQM as a professional capability, not a toolkit. By the end of the course, students can (1) explain and critique TQM through the Baldrige and ISO 21001 lenses, (2) apply DMAIC/PDCA to a live campus process and deliver a sponsor‑owned control plan, and (3) demonstrate SPC judgment with messy service data.
Signature assessments
DMAIC capstone (≈40%) — scored on problem framing, method use, data integrity, ethics, and the sustainability of controls, including a brief sponsor appraisal.
SPC practical (≈20%) — verifies chart selection, capability analysis, and interpretation with service data.
Framework brief (≈15%) — maps project evidence to Baldrige categories and states a defensible contribution to Results.
ISO 21001 reflection (≈10%) — explains privacy, accessibility, and equity considerations.
Quizzes/participation (≈15%) — maintain fluency with vocabulary and cases.
Week‑by‑week spine
Weeks 1–2: establish common language; draft the charter and SIPOC with the sponsor.
Weeks 3–4: capture Voice of the Customer; translate needs into CTQs; identify waste; submit a data plan.
Weeks 5–6: build measurement discipline: operational definitions, data quality checks, SPC fundamentals using campus datasets.
Weeks 7–8: focus analysis: Pareto, cause‑and‑effect, and FMEA tailored to academic risks (equity, privacy, academic integrity), finishing with a brief Analyze Gate review.
Weeks 9–10: pilot improvements with DOE‑lite methods, mistake‑proofing, and simple scheduling rules; use low‑code dashboards to review effects with the sponsor.
Weeks 11–12: build control: owners, reaction rules, and visual management aligned to work as done; document access rights and version control.
Weeks 13–14: connect to strategy: basic Hoshin, an X‑matrix, and a before/after narrative tied to Baldrige Results.
Weeks 15–16: capstone presentations plus a forward‑look on Quality 4.0; schedule a 60–90 day post‑course check to verify that controls hold.
Pedagogy that sticks
Short, frequent labs build SPC fluency faster than a single high‑stakes task. Authentic partnerships with the registrar, library, advising, or clinics ensure projects matter and that data can be accessed lawfully. Rubrics reward restraint—act on signals, not noise—and humility about causality when designs are observational. Faculty mentoring is supported by DMAIC checkpoints and sponsor reviews that mirror campus governance.
Department‑level value
A Baldrige‑aligned curriculum offers a shared playbook across academic and service units. Over time, student projects create a reusable repository of process maps, control plans, and measures. Administrators get credible, chart‑based results stories that feed accreditation cycles without last‑minute scramble. Students leave with a portable improvement toolkit and a record of real impact.
Ethics, equity, and data stewardship
Improvement without safeguards can do harm. Ethics are made visible rather than implied: teams conduct quick stakeholder checks before measurement, document potential inequities when changes shift workload or access, and state how privacy risks are mitigated. When using dashboards, teams explain what a chart does—and does not—permit them to conclude. Attribute charts on pass/fail outcomes require careful discussion of policy, sampling, and bias. ISO‑style documentation clarifies access rights, version control, and audit cadence so improvements remain transparent and accountable.
Practical implementation tips
Scope projects to what teams can influence within a semester and to processes with accessible, lawful data. Define measures early; agree on operational definitions before collecting. Prefer lightweight dashboards that update reliably over glamorous visuals that decay. Keep sponsors engaged with short gate reviews; post reaction rules where the work happens. Protect privacy by provisioning minimum‑necessary access and logging data use. Celebrate controls that outlast staff changes more than short‑term spikes in metrics.
Limitations
This is a rapid evidence synthesis centered on 2019–2025 sources. Findings include single‑institution reports and heterogeneous methods; effects should be validated locally. Access to real data varies by campus, and evidence skews toward English‑language contexts. Even so, convergence on project‑based learning, DMAIC+SPC, and framework alignment is strong across disciplines and regions.
Conclusion
TQM education works best when method, governance, and real work meet. A modern course earns its place by coupling DMAIC for disciplined problem solving with SPC for sound judgment about variation, and by anchoring both in sector frameworks that define quality and ethics. Applied to live university processes with sponsor ownership and privacy‑aware data practices, this approach produces graduates who can create improvements that last—and departments that can show measurable, credible results.
References (reduced to 3)
Maciel‑Monteon, M., Limón‑Romero, J., Gastélum‑Acosta, C., Báez‑López, Y., Tlapa, D., & Rodríguez Borbón, M. I. (2020). Improvement project in higher‑education institutions: A BPEP‑based model. PLOS ONE, 15(1), e0227353. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0227353
National Institute of Standards and Technology. (2025, August 28). Baldrige Excellence Framework (Education): Proven leadership and management practices for high performance. https://www.nist.gov/baldrige/publications/baldrige-excellence-framework/education
Yusuf, F. A. (2023). Total quality management (TQM) and quality of higher education: A meta‑analysis study. International Journal of Instruction, 16(2), 161–178. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2023.16210a
DOI 10.5281/zenodo.17172950
