Prediction of Adoption of TQM Practices in Indian

Universities

In the last decade many articles on the application of total quality began to
appear and many corporate began comprehensive total quality programs. After
that, total quality programs began to appear in universities. Since total quality was
not invented by universities, it was corporations who invited universities to get
involved in total quality (not vice versa), and since total quality achieved its fame
by improving manufacturing productivity and quality, it was anything but obvious
that it had something to offer universities. Only if one supposed, naively, that
universities and manufacturing corporations suffered from the same ills, would it
be obvious that total quality would do just as much good for universities as for
corporations. An unobvious conclusion without real data can not be reached. A
survey of administrators and faculty could be done to determine how total quality
and professionals interact, what determine faculty reaction to implementing TQM
to campus, and whether total quality in any way could be said to mitigate or
eliminate some of the dysfunctions of professions.

Implicit in this focus is the decisions that have been made to make total
quality applied to universities the focus of this study, not the concept of quality in
general in higher education. There are large extant literatures on quality in higher
education and various assessment methods, programs, and efforts. It can add more
value by focusing on the contribution of total quality to higher education.

Definitions
 2

For the purposes of this study total quality is defined as all programs,
efforts, sets of tactics, and human endeavors the goal or process of which involves
getting nearly all members of an organization to continually engage and work
toward quality improvement. Total quality can be represented by certain gurus, as
they are called (in Japan: Ishikawa, Imai, Kano, Makabe; in the US: Deming,
Juran, Feigenbaum, Conway, Crosby). They changed quality from a function,
like finance, marketing, or any other performed by a few professional staff to
something all employees across large workforces did and were trained in. They
emphasized the statistical nature of work and how management interventions in
response to fluctuations in work outcome often made things worse because
managers could not distinguish on statistical grounds fluctuations inherent in the
systems of work from fluctuations that were the result of special causes.

Total quality can also be represented by a particular form of small-group-

ism (as it is termed in the sociology literature) called quality circles. These were a
curious intersection of participatory with statistical management practices.
Ordinary workgroups were given the authority to research the business processes
that they were responsible for and continually improve them. Thus whole
organizations were transformed from just doing work to both doing work and
researching improvements in it (called “kaizen” the Japanese term for
improvement). This is not a complete characterization of total quality but enough
to move on with the research.

For the purpose of the study, Service Providers may be defined as the
Faculty and Administrators of the various departments of Universities

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

This study brings four literatures to bear on total quality applied to

university faculties, literature on the concept and components of total quality, the
 3

components of universities, the critiques of academia, and total quality applied to

universities.

An overall model of the components of total quality is created. Quality as

Profession is not total quality-quality practiced by whole workforces - be quality
practiced by a profession of quality assurance professionals. Its icon shows a
company hierarchy with one block-department-dedicated to handling quality.
Down–stream quality consists of Just-in-Time inventory management, fool
proofing of work-place (the Japanese term pokeyoke is used), and total preventive
maintenance. They were launched and largely stayed in manufacturing plants.
Solving Quality involves the QC story- a structured way of presenting data on
problem definition and solving-and kaizen, the managing of continuous
improvement. Bottom up Quality is where small groupism - quality circles -
appears. Also Prof. Kawase’s Line Centered Organization model belongs here.
Horizontal Quality involves systems for assigning owners of processes, setting up
systems to manage processes, creating cross-function processes and assigning
managers to them, and the like. Alignment Quality involves Policy Management
and Quality Function Deployment. These do virtually the same work, the first
vertically between organization levels the second horizontally along steps in
cross-function processes. Upstream Quality involves Taguchi design of
experiments for supplanting managerial decision with data-based decisions, and
kansei engineering a way of achieving Dr. Kano’s delight quality by surfacing
inarticulate customer wants. .

Universities are becoming environmentally vulnerable, in that:

government is demanding faculty productivity measures. TQM can be
implemented as a lesser evil in cases where outside constraints threaten faculties,
for TQM can allow universities to be seen to respond to such complaints but in a
way that preserves faculty autonomy under TQM’s bias for participative
management regimes. Faculty overall satisfaction is highly correlated with
faculty autonomy.
 4

Universities suffer from numerous imbalances, in particular ones: between

general education and professional education; between global and local role
(educating foreign students at the expense of home country students); between
research and teaching (knowledge generation versus knowledge transfer);
between knowledge generation and knowledge application (connection to national
productivity problems); between abstract indiscipline concerns and concrete
concerns outside the discipline. TQM has a number of methods for carefully
balancing trade-off items, most notably a quality approach called Quality
Function Deployment. TQM, however, uses a model of the customers of a
process and a model of their requirements as a may to prioritize where to fall in
the trade-off space. Faculties might welcome the methods for making trade-offs
while not welcoming the use of external customer requirements as the
desideratum of where to be in each trade-off relationship.

There is widespread questioning of university service role effectiveness, in

that: universities are not associated with solving any major societal need at
present, universities became big businesses and broke the trust needed for them to
operate in academia’s trust market ; journal articles, the faculty’s primary output
at universities, are not read and applied outside of academia, or even outside the
discipline itself; a large scale quality movement outside the university was
responded to ten years after launch by university research indicating significant
de-coupling of research agenda from societal values. This point focuses the
argument on faculty reaction quite nicely. If TQM is used on campus and the
disciplines and their journal requirements are modeled as a or the major customer
of faculty work, then TQM will be sued to generate more and better publishing’s,
upping faculty and institution prestige, and be seen, then, as quite helpful overall.
If TQM is used on campus and the disciplines and their journal requirements are
modeled as a secondary customer, then TQM will end up downgrading within-
discipline work and lowering faculty and institution prestige, provoking great
faculty resistance. The issue is not whether TQM is right or wrong so much as
 5

whether other faculty within one’s discipline are the right primary customer or
not. It is difficult to see TQM’s methods by themselves changing a faculty’s
decision about who their primary customer is. TQM can refine trade-offs where
faculty admit several customers of nearly equal importance, but TQM cannot be
itself persuade faculty to drop what has hitherto fore been their primary customer.
TQM might, however, reveal how substantial improvement in treatment of
secondary customers can be had at minimal expense to primary customers.

Next, a conceptual model of TQM applied in academia is summarized on

the basis of all literature review. It presents the factors (aspects of academia)
found in the review of literature to affect faculty reaction to TQM as an endpoint
to be achieved by implementing TQM on campus, the factors (aspects of
academia) found in the review of literature to affect faculty reaction to the guru-
recommended top down mode of implementing TQM, factors (aspects of TQM
itself) that interact particularly strongly with academia according to the literature
reviewed thus far in this study. That is, much of the literature on total quality
applied in academia mentions aspects of academia that resist total quality
implementation. Some of that literature also mentions aspects of total quality that
are particularly noticed and resisted by academia. Few mentions appear in the
literature of aspects of total quality that enable implementation to become easier.

First each factor is presented separately and then inter-relations among

factors is discussed and whether some might be components of others. Note, the
characterization of academia that results from this model is a generalization,
subject to many exceptions that do not necessarily invalidate the truth of the
model so much as constrain, reveal the outer limits of, its domain of validity.

The first factor is likelihood of imposition of change on the university by

external or internal stakeholders. Its definition is self-evident for our purposes
here. If the likelihood is high, then TQM is more likely to be implemented and its
implementation is likely to change more aspects of the institution. The threat of
imposed change if felt by the faculty removes dislike to TQM as “change in
 6

general” and brings to the surface the faculty ability to use TQM.. If the
likelihood of imposed change is low, then TQM will be seen by faculty as a
change that is imposed when there is little reason to change.

The second factor is faculty leadership. It is defined for the purposes of

this study as: the enabling leadership style, leading by modifying many things
slightly, leading by taking credit for happenings one did not create or plan,
increasing big business professional leadership styles (increasing
bureaucratization of leadership in universities as size increases), whether these are
applied by faculty leading faculty or administrators (deans) leading faculty. This
factor has a positive impact on implementing TQM.

The third factor is faculty mission, as elaborated by research of Clark,

March, and Baldrige that has already been cited. This is defined as: creating
professionals, improving individual prestige, improving institutional prestige,
having a single dominating criterion of published papers, having universities not
associated with solving any major societal need, having universities dedicated to
producing the learning of individuals rather than organizational learning, use of
the transcendent definition of quality “I know it when I see it”. This factor creates
the professionalization of knowledge that TQM undoes in society at large. TQM
is committed to not depending on elites and professionals for improving work and
attaining quality where most universities are committed to disseminate knowledge
through publishing and teaching, and to practice and apply knowledge as
professionals. This factor has an enabler role of prompting TQM implementation
on campus in that the learning promotion aspect of university mission synergizes
with TQM’s mission of enhancing organizational learning

The fourth factor is faculty polity. It is defined as; goal ambiguity,

fragmentation into disciplines, fragmentation into subcultures, fragmentation into
classes (students, faculty, staff), sheer opportunism of plan and action, garbage
can decisions, and organized anarchy. It conflicts with TQM emphasis on defined
processes for doing work, on teams as key units of doing work, and using impact
 7

on customers to prioritize work. It has no enabler role in implementing TQM on

campus. It has a strong barrier role in that fragmentation will hinder team work,
cross-functional process improvement, and other aspects of TQM.

The fifth factor is faculty professionalism. It is defined as: autonomy of

action, freedom from supervision, divided loyalties between discipline and
employing institution, valuing of diversity. It supports TQM as TQM tends to
treat, over time, all employees in an organization as professionals. TQM gets all
employees to become researchers of their work processes. Its enabler role is as
just stated; its barrier role is the way it resists the commonness of training, tools,
work process that TQM uses to enhance organizational learning. .

The sixth factor is faculty method. It is defined as: the empirical is true,
the scientific method is how to produce truth (whether that method be positivist
quantitative research, ethno-methodological qualitative research, or discourse and
text analysis hermeneutics), knowledge generation precedes knowledge
distribution in importance, theory-centered not application-centered work. The
enabler role here is how this factor and TQM share emphasis on the scientific
method. The barrier role here is how the sophistication of faculty methods of
doing the scientific method conflict with TQM’s deliberate simplification of them
The seventh factor is faculty mode of work. This is defined as: few
standard procedures, individual as key node of doing work, no systematic R&D of
teaching or research methods of faculty, little cross-functioning, little teaming,
strong resistance to committee work that intrudes on individual scholarship, weak
machinery for commonizing methods (across subfields, fields, and academic
departments), concepts, or points of view. This is a major barrier to TQM
implementation.

Here the inter-relations among these factors at universities is also

explored. Faculty leadership styles support and are supported by, primarily,
faculty professionalism. Faculty mission supports, primarily, and is supported by
faculty method. Faculties create new knowledge using the scientific method to
 8

overcome sheer opinion and tradition; the scientific method, enhanced with
qualitative research methods, produces new knowledge and learning. Faculty
polity supports, primarily, and is supported by faculty mode of work. The
likelihood of imposed external or internal change hinders faculty leadership,
professionalism, mission, polity, and mode of work (but not faculty method).
These are not all the interactions among the factors but merely the salient ones for
the purposes of this study.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Research Objectives

This study investigates faculty reaction to implementation of Total Quality

Management in universities. It does this for select Indian universities using data
from a sample of university faculty and administrators.

The research objectivess of this study are :

• To study the determinants of service providers’ reaction to TQM implement-

ation in the Universities.

• To examine whether service providers need the changes TQM offers.

• To examine to what extent service providers accept the changes in their mode
of work, methods and mission.

• To examine whether promoting TQM concepts among various disciplines in

universities would enhance efficiency.

The context in which this thesis is being executed includes the following.
Several hundred colleges and universities are applying for TQM today in the form
of NBA and NAAC Accreditation. TQM is becoming something like a whole
society movement affecting businesses and higher education.
 9

The last many years a large group of academia and business leaders have met
to define a core body of knowledge on TQM to be taught and researched
simultaneously in higher education and business.

The rise of TQM, the critique of professionals in society, and the rise of need
to improve quality of higher education that have all transpired recently, may be
related. By studying the determinants of faculty reaction to TQM implementation
on campus and thereby throwing light on its relation to the role of professionals
and the institutions that train them, this study may highlight possible
improvements in that overall societal process for inter-organizational learning.

Finally, the particular entities and relations that this study provides clarity on,
were chosen to be of immediate use to universities implementing TQM: we need
to know types of faculty reaction to TQM; we need to predict the sources of
faculty reaction to TQM so that we can modify faculty reaction where it is
misdirected or inappropriate; we need new thinking at the places that TQM
challenges the deepest aspects of the mission and meaning of our universities and
their functioning in our society today; we need new thinking at the places where
academia raises questions about the effects and effectiveness of TQM; we need to
be able to steer implementation of TQM approaches in universities so as to
address the root causes of inadequate university performance in society (if such
performance exists); we need a way to distinguish superficial implementation of
TQM at universities from profound implementation, so that the mere presence of
substantial resistance does not become automatically a reason to abandon TQM
implementation; and, finally we need a way to modify TQM in response to how it
fails to function of functions harmfully in academia.

Research Methodology

The purpose of this study is to identify possible determinants of faculty

reaction to TQM implementation on campus, in particular, to isolate possible
 10

sources of faculty acceptance of or resistance to such TQM implementation. This

study achieves this goal by using primary data to operationalize propositions from
a review of literature.

To proceed with, first, literature is reviewed on the components of total

quality itself. Then literature on the components of academia is reviewed.
Literature on critiques of academia is reviewed. Then the model of TQM and
model of academia is logically analyzed that resulted to produce a first
examination of how they might interact to, then, improve using the literature on
total quality application to universities. The literature on total quality applied to
universities is reviewed next. In reviewing literature on total quality certain
syntheses and models of all of total quality are emphasized. In reviewing
literature on the components of academia several alternative models of faculty
governance are emphasized. With models of academia and total quality in hand
from these 2 literatures, possible interactions are examined, then
confirm/disconfirm them from the nascent literature on total quality applied to
universities. In reviewing literature on total quality applied in universities, the all
too casual assumptions are striped away of many commentators that academia is
bad and total quality is the cure. This results in first conceptual mode, on how
components of academia determine faculty reaction to TQM implementation in
universities. After that, a reviewed recent model of organization change and
organizational culture to create a final conceptual model. This conceptual model
is then combined with the earlier one to form a comprehensive model of the
determinants of faculty reaction to TQM implementation in universities.

The literature review generated 16 propositions. These propositions

generated by literature review are operationalized by using primary data on
faculty reaction to total quality collected from university, faculty and
administrators by way of a questionnaire and observing the reaction of faculty and
administrators during informal discussions.
 11

Why limit the research to faculty and administrators? The answer is for
the sake of focus on that aspect of applying total quality to universities that is
least like applying total quality to businesses in industry. Of the three-faculty,
staff, students-staff and students more closely resemble industrial workforces in
their likely interactions with total quality application on campus. So faculty is
chosen to heighten the differences between application to industry and application
to academia. The research focuses on faculty reaction to TQM, therefore, because
there is evidence that delaying dealing with their reaction or ignoring it will
eventually reduce or eliminate the benefits of TQM implementation on campus.
Faculty is determinative of ultimate outcome in this matter.

Data Collection

Primary data was collected from faculty and administrators of four indian
universities. These four universities are 1) Jamia Milia Islamia University, New
Delhi, 2) Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra, 3) Himachal Pardesh University,
Shimla, 4) Kashi Vidyapeeth, Varanasi. These four universities were selected
with point of view to take data from the faculty of four different states. Also out
of these four universities two universities (1 & 4) are residential universities and
other two universities are affiliating universities.

A detailed questionnaire was structured for this purpose. In this way data
was captured on: 1) the reasons that they saw for change in their role and
institution, 2) the primary components of TQM culture that they saw, 3) the
barriers they saw to implementing TQM in their institution, 4) the enablers they
saw to implementing TQM in their institution, 5) their acceptance level for the
changes offered by TQM in their mode of work and methods, 6) perception of
respondents regarding overall effectiveness of TQM if implemented in
universities.
 12

The researcher collected and compiled the data from 144 respondents in
total. 33 respondents from university 1, 42 respondents from university 2, 38
respondents from university 3 and 31 respondents from university 4.

Finally the survey created agreement or disagreement of respondents to a

long list of reasons for change, barriers to implementing TQM, enablers to
implement TQM, acceptance to changes offered by TQM in faculty mode of
work, methods and mission.

Then each proposition from the literature review in terms of this data is
operationalized. Then, using the data, a number of data-derived interpretations are
produced. These are compared to the literature-derived proposition to produce the
conclusion. By, in this study here, developing more thorough characterizations of
total quality and more thorough characterization of what it interacts with in
universities, it is tried to lay the foundation for better correlational studies in the
future by other researchers.

Chapter 2 presents a review of several literatures that results in two

conceptual models, one of the components of academia that predict faculty
reaction to TQM and one of the organizational change approaches used for
implementing TQM and how they predict faculty reaction to TQM. These models
form a comprehensive conceptual model of determinants of faculty reaction to
TQM implementation in universities. Chapter 2 presents 16 propositions on how
total quality and research university faculty interact, from the literature.

Chapter 3 presents the research strategy; the kind of data sought and
obtained how variables are operationalized. This chapter discusses the kind of
data required, the way primary data was collected, instrument used for data
collection, selection of sample for survey and how this data was compiled.

Chapter 4 presents the analysis of the data itself. In this chapter the
data collected from survey was analyzed in four parts. In the first part enabler and
barrier aspects are analyzed. In second part internal and external reasons for
 13

change are analyzed. In third part acceptance level of respondents to changes in

their mode of work, methods and mission are analyzed and in fourth part their
perception regarding effectiveness of TQM concept is analyzed.

Chapter 5 presents the summary & conclusions of study and its use for
further research and for the practical aspects of implementing TQM usefully in
universities. The 16 literature-derived propositions are compared with the
corresponding data-derived interpretations to produce the conclusions.

DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

From the survey the following data were obtained:

1. Study the determinants of service providers’ reaction to TQM

implementation in the Universities.

• Most of the faculty do not agree with enabler aspects of faculty leadership.
Only 41% faculty agree to ‘empowered lower levels’ and 26% agree to
‘strong advisory board’. But a high frequency of agreement is found for the
barrier aspects of faculty leadership. 92% for ‘decentralization without
empowerment’, 89% for ‘teams unrewarded’, 82% for ‘lack of management
training’ and 85% for ‘visionless, unempowering, biased leaders’.

• Faculty professionalism was mentioned nearly equally as barrier and enabler.

TQM as new academic material (86%), faculty autonomy (72%), high ability
people (60%) are the enabler aspects. Whereas resist change (87%), taking
selves too seriously (89%), inadequate management training (79%) are the
most frequently mentioned barrier aspects.

• Faculty mission was equally mentioned as barrier and enabler. As enablers

commitment to competitiveness (80%), appreciation of excellence (71%) and
student readiness and demand (65%) are mentioned more frequently. As
 14

barriers poorly defined requirements (68%), lack of agreement to fully satisfy

customers (74%), isolation from industry (65%) are most frequently marked
aspects.

• Faculty method was the only which is mentioned as enabler more frequently
than as barrier. Capability at the scientific method (87%), drive for excellence
(80%), common base (90%), empirical is true (90%) are the enabler aspects.
Whereas barrier aspects are quantitative culture that ignores intuitions (59%),
superiority complex in faculty (35%) and resistance to conformity among
faculty (36%).

• Faculty polity was primarily seen as a barrier by these faculty. They

mentioned segmentation (89%), decentralization (87%), diversity (76%) and
conflict among departments (72%) as major barriers to TQM implementation.
A few mentioned diversity (16%), inter-disciplinarity (13%) as enablers.

• Faculty mode of work was mentioned more often as barrier than as enabler to
TQM implementation. Resistance to change (93%), lack of time, resources,
personnel (91%), TQM is formal and rigid (83%), no common vocabulary
(82%) are the major barriers.

2. Examination of whether service providers need the changes TQM offers.

• While analyzing the reasons for change, it was found that most frequently
mentioned sets of internal reasons were ‘change in demand’ at micro level
(92%) i.e. change in student requirement, expectations, technology etc., ‘for
increasing the satisfaction or value’ (72%) and need of improvement cross-
functionally (64%). Whereas most frequently mentioned external reasons
were change in macro level demand (89%) i.e. change in need, expectation of
society, national priorities, world dynamics; securing resources (81%),
changed mission (68%).
 15

3. Examination to what extent service providers accept the changes in their

mode of work, methods and mission.

• As far as acceptance level of service providers to change in mission,

methods, mode of work is concerned, we got a mixed reaction. About 50%
do not agree to absorb TQM as new paradigm for management and practice
but 62% are agreed to appreciation of excellence as their mission and 58%
are agreed to expand the university mission to teach society. Whereas 65%
agree to knowledge application instead of only knowledge generation and
55% strongly agreed to application centred research work. And about 56% do
not agree to team work and machinery for commonizing methods, concepts,
point of views.

4. To examine whether promoting TQM concepts among various disciplines

in universities would enhance efficiency.

• Respondents were interested in including TQM in the curriculum: 43%

strongly agreed it should be included. Respondents were willing to use TQM
to improve the teaching function: 47% strongly agreed TQM should be used
to develop and deliver courses that they teach; 47 plan to use TQM to
develop and deliver the courses that they teach. Respondents would apply
TQM to administration: 80% strongly agree TQM should be adopted within
administrative functions. 48% respondents strongly agree to TQM for
improvement of efficiency of their work as teacher, 56% as researcher and
78% as administrators. 45% respondents agree with TQM can improve
overall efficiency of academia.

CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 16

It is started with review of literature that produced 16 propositions which

are compared with data analysis. It produced a set of conclusions and
recommendations. These are the results of the study which are explained below.

• Faculty leadership is barrier to TQM due to decentralization without

empowerment, teams unrewarded, lack of management training and
visionless, unempowering, biased leaders.

• Faculty professionalism is barrier to TQM due to segmentation of values,

autonomy, resist change, taking selves too seriously, inadequate
management training.

• Faculty polity is barrier to TQM due to segmentations, decentralization,

diversity and conflicts among segments.

• Faculty mode of work is barrier to TQM due to general resistance to change,

lack of time for group work, little interest for process work, informality of
method compared to TQM’s formality, individualism and lack of facts.

• Faculty mission is barrier to TQM due to lack of agreement to fully satisfy all
customers, priority of research customers and is enabler due to fostering
learning.

• Faculty method is barrier due to generating but not applying knowledge,

quantitative culture that ignores intuitions. Faculty method is enabler due to
capability at the scientific method, drive for excellence, common research
base.

• Implicit in much of the external criticism asking universities to link

themselves and their research better to impacting societal needs, is an
 17

expansion of university mission to teaching, not individuals, but society as a

whole.

• Faculty do not want to have much change in their mode of work and hesitate
to adopt standardized procedures as may be offered by TQM.

• TQM will be more successfully promoted inside disciplines of knowledge

than inside particular universities.

• TQM can improve efficiency in administrative functions of academia more

effectively than in teaching and research.

• Faculty are willing to accept TQM as a discipline, also want to inculcate its
philosophy to improve their efficiency but don’t want to lose their autonomy
and value for diversity.

• The faculty have a felt need for a means of effective action beyond their
segmentations. This need felt by faculty will be met by using TQM as a
common language among different segments: professions, sources of
diversity, and centers of initiative.

EVALUATION OF RESEARCH

This amounts to faculty intent to absorb the TQM non-professionalization of

knowledge paradigm into the academia professionalization of knowledge
paradigm. The data overall tell us that current faculty fractionated structure

(polity) affects faculty reaction to TQM−faculty are willing to add it as a

discipline but not willing to make it a change of structure (polity).The
 18

implications of that can be seen by looking at TQM as a permanent structure to

add on to academia or a permanent process to go on within academia. We have
institutions, universities, with careers, budgets, buildings, and the like committed
to them. We have disciplines, with careers, journals, grant-giver institutions,
conferences, research centers, buildings, and the like committed to them. There is
enormous overlap between universities and disciplines.

Along come TQM proposing a set of processes, campaigns, and methods,

called TQM, as a change in university structure−not just a different body of

knowledge to be absorbed as a new discipline within existing university structure.
There is an imbalance of power involved. How can a set of processes, a

campaign, a set of methods balance two major sets of institutions−universities and

disciplines? The inequality, of what is engaging what, causes TQM to be
inadequately powerful, perhaps, to balance and change the fundamental structure
of universities. Only if the whole society movement grows, and endures so that
nearly every institution of society except universities operates in a TQM way,
communicates with its suppliers and customers using TQM methods, governs its
policy-making using TQM “vehicles”, and so on, will TQM achieve enough
substantiality, enough power, to modify significantly academic structure.

LIMITATIONS

In the beginning of study, two more objectives were also sought to be studied.

• To study the comparison of service providers resistance that should be

overcome from the resistance that should not be.
 19

• To study the conflicts amongst the service providers when TQM concepts are
adopted.

But the data related to these objectives was not available because these two
objectives require data from the universities where TQM either has been
implemented or being implemented.