Empirical studies on quality management in educational institutions

Education lacks the adoption of tools capable of controlling quality and client satisfaction (^{Ramseook-Munhurrun and Nundlall, 2013}; ^{Ali et al., 2016}). There is a wider range of studies that aim to contribute to this academic gap and list attributes that reproduce educational services. Deshields Jr., Kara and Kaynak (2005) assessed the satisfaction level of 160 academics in management courses at an American university. They found that the technical knowledge of professors is one of the elements that most influenced the satisfaction variable. In the same line, ^{Navarro, Iglesias, and Torres (2005}) recognized in a survey carried out with 369 Spanish university students, that the team of professors added to the teaching methods and the course coordinator are factors that act on student satisfaction.

^{Butt and Rehman (2010}) and ^{Alcântara et al. (2012}) also supported the findings of Deshields Jr., Kara, and Kaynak (2005). They concluded that the professional experience, attitude, and competence of the professors were the elements that attracted the most attention from Pakistani administrators (Butt and Rehman, 2010; Alcântara et al., 2012). ^{Ramos (2015}), on the other hand, highlighted that employee responsiveness was one of the points that generated the greatest student dissatisfaction with the services provided by private schools in southwestern Brazil.

Ya ^{Mostafa (2007}), in the context of an Egyptian university, realized the inconsistency of the five dimensions proposed by SERVQUAL. It was observed that the generalization of the instrument is not solid, due to the fact that only three dimensions appeared: records and rates, officials, and physical environment. In this perspective, ^{Eberle (2009}) had identified the attributes and quality dimensions of the services offered by an institution of higher education in Caxias do Sul. A total of 521 postgraduate students were surveyed. Exploratory Factor Analysis was used in data processing. As a main result, six factors emerged that explain 63.32% of the variance of the data, which are: professors/teaching method, structure, image, course planning and development, teaching environment, and cost-benefit ratio.^{Milan, Corso, and Eberle (2013}) replicated this study with 605 students from the Management course. Ten dimensions of quality appeared, among which cleanliness, student care, convenience/integration, and parking/reprography represented new elements (Milan, Corso and Eberle, 2013). Despite the diversity of dimensions, the quality multidimensionality thesis was maintained (^{Cardona and Bravo, 2012}; ^{Alcântara et al., 2012}; ^{Annamdevula and Shekhar, 2012}; ^{Ramseook-Munhurrun and Nundlall, 2013}; ^{Ashraf, Osman and Ratan, 2016}).

^{Vergara and Quesada (2011}) investigated the relationship between the quality of academic service and the following variables at a university in Colombia: value perceived by the student, satisfaction, repurchase intentions, and intention to recommend the institution. To this end, an adaptation of SERVQUAL, with 21 components, was applied to 178 students. They concluded that the quality of the service is a precedent of the value perceived by the student and satisfaction, and the latter is a precedent of the future purchase intentions and recommendation of the educational institution (Vergara and Quesada, 2011).

Part of the contributions of ^{Vergara and Quesada (2011}) were corroborated by ^{Nyagowaa, Ocholla, and Mutula (2013}) and ^{Ali et al. (2016}). These academics argued that the quality of service provided by educational institutions contributes significantly to student satisfaction. Additionally, they reported that image and loyalty are consistent elements of perceived quality (Nyagowaa, Ocholla and Mutula, 2013; Ali et al., 2016).

^{Campos, Martins, and Neto (2011}) asked whether students from different courses at a private higher education institution in the Rio Grande do Norte had different expectations and perceptions of the performance of the services provided. Six hundred and fifty subjects were interviewed. They found that there are few points of intersection between the quality gaps perceived by Administration and Accounting students (Campos, Martins and Neto, 2011). In a similar study, ^{Dos Santos (2014}) applied a longitudinal approach. For the 33 attributes researched, it became evident that, with time, the expectations of the university students grew, and their perception of the service received decreased. Despite the observed quality gaps, some attributes need to be improved with greater urgency. This list includes: availability of internet access, cleanliness of the classrooms, restrooms and corridors, parking, and internal security. (Dos Santos, 2014).

^{Annamdevula and Shekhar (2012}) developed a scale, called Higher Education Service Quality (HiEdQUAL), comprised of 27 elements and designed to measure the quality of education service. By collecting data from 358 students at a university in India, they observed that the instrument was reliable (Cronbach’s alpha of 0.905). Backed by one of SERVQUAL’s critiques-that there is no generic set of dimensions that determine service quality-other researchers (^{Ramseook-Munhurrun and Nundlall, 2013}; ^{Souza et al., 2014}; ^{Duarte and Piratelli, 2015}) also validated specific tools capable of assessing quality in educational settings.

Table 1 shows the twenty-two empirical studies that served as sources to identify the key attributes that describe the academic services.

Competitive Positioning Matrix

The competitive positioning matrix traces a diagnosis on the elements of the organization that add more value to consumers, providing an advantage over the competition. The instrument relates the performance of the company vis-à-vis other competitors (relative performance) and the importance attributed by customers to the attribute (^{Stock and Lambert, 2001}). In order to obtain the relative performance, it calculates the differences between the performance evaluations of a company and its main competitor. There are nine quadrants in the matrix, among which those called “greatest strength” and “greatest weakness” stand out, as shown in Figure 2.

If the attributes are located in the quadrant “greatest strength”, the company should implement marketing activities that highlight them, because these are aspects highly valued by clients and where the performance of the organization exceeds the practices of rivals. On the other hand, the “greatest weakness” elements need to be improved urgently. They include attributes of great importance but there are other companies in the industry that execute them more efficiently and effectively than the form of organization analyzed (^{Stock and Lambert, 2001}).

Resource-based view

The influence of resources on the performance of the organization was an idea that has gained notoriety with the Resource-Based View (RBV) theory. Among its principles, it declared that an attribute package can provide the company with an advantageous position in the competitive market. However, this differential is only sustained in time if each resource retains its value, scarcity, and inimitability, added to the capacity to exploit it in an organized manner (VRIO approach, see Figure 3). Rarity and value, for example, are necessary, but not sufficient to achieve a sustainable competitive advantage. The simultaneous satisfaction of these four characteristics is that it leads a given resource to be perceived as a strategic asset for the company (^{Barney and Hesterly, 2007}; ^{Wu, 2010}; ^{Sanches and Machado, 2014}). This concept forms the structural current, which presupposes a static behavior of the segment. In addition, Sanches and Machado (2014) reported that the VRIO model allows to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the organization.

Complementarily, the other current of thought, called process school, recognizes that the creation of strategic resources passes through the basic competences and internal capacities of the company. It is not enough to just have them, it is necessary to optimize the way the team uses them (^{Sanches and Machado, 2014}).

Attributes

The 22 attributes used in the study are shown in Figure 5. The phrases that define each of these variables already contemplate the notes of the participating judges (students and professors) of the questionnaire improvement process. In front of the suggestions offered, only the V17 element (courses) was rewritten.

Universe, Sample, and Collection Plan

The population is comprised of 499 students enrolled in courses in the field of computer science in two public educational institutions: Federal Institute of Education of Rio Grande do Norte (IFRN) and Federal Institute of Education of Paraíba (IFPB). The sample had been stratified by institution. With a non-probability character, it reached the a maximum of 350 students, as shown in Table 1. The calculation of the sample size was developed assuming a 4% error and a 95% confidence level. Comfort and accessibility criteria were used to select respondents. A safety margin (10%) was adopted to ensure that any removal of questionnaires would not have adversely affected the value of the sample.

On the other hand, the course coordinators-one from each institution investigated-were questioned. Interviews with students and administrators took place between October and December 2016 and were carried out by a properly trained team. The places of approach were limited to classrooms and laboratories, in the case of students, and meeting spaces, in the case of administrators.

Only those questionnaires that met the following criteria were considered valid: a) all the questions marked with an indication of a single answer (withdrawal of those containing missing values and/or multiple answers); b) the marked answers could not present a homogeneous behavior (repetition of a single note). In the end, 362 questionnaires were validated.

Competitive advantage from the point of view of the students

The Competitive Positioning Matrix allowed the identification of attributes that demanded improvement actions from administrators. Table 4 illustrates notes resulting from this instrument. Aspects of the service that are projected in the quadrants of greatest and smallest weakness should receive special attention, balancing the degree of urgency according to the priority level established by the students. For the IFRN, qualification of the team of professors (V2) and environmental cleanliness (V11) represent the greatest competitive deficiencies. These findings make the ideas of ^{Campos, Martins, and Neto (2011}) and ^{Dos Santos (2014}) robust. They are configured as the attributes more valued by students in which the institution has a performance inferior to the best practices of the market.

In contrast, the variables mentioned above occupied the seal of greatest strength for the IFPB, along with environmental comfort (V6). This reinforces the need for the IFRN to implement, as a matter of urgency, actions that improve the level of service provided. ^{Butt and Rehman (2010}) reinforce these notes. These authors assert that attributes such as courses offered, learning environment, and classroom facilities have a significant and positive impact on graduate satisfaction. Nevertheless, the knowledge of the professors is the most influential factor, which requires greater administrative attention (Butt and Rehman, 2010).

Thus, it is proposed that: the institutional policy of training personnel be more effective, providing the participation of professors in postgraduate programs, trainings, courses, and scientific events; there be control of hygiene methods; administrators be required to comply with contractual clauses by the contractor; there be periodic maintenance of equipment that contributes to thermal comfort and lighting. In such cases, administrative inertia can lead to customer dissatisfaction and transaction disruption.

In addition, other elements also represent a competitive vulnerability. However, this threat is less intense because the degree of importance given by students is low. Although organizations have underperformance in relation to competitors, in aspects undervalued by customers, improvement actions can be put on a secondary level. This is what happens with the attributes that are within the quadrant of least weakness. Therefore, the recognition and suitability of courses (V17) for the IFRN organization; as well as procedures in relation to course coordination (V4), hours (V8), auxiliary services (V14), internet (V18), location (V19), and complaints (V22) for the IFPB are attributes found in this quadrant.

On the other hand, there are traces of services that are competitive benefits. Aspects that provide the differential of a company in relation to other competitors. They represent elements that should be praised, including the implementation of marketing campaigns that emphasize a greater or lesser intensity, which depend on the hierarchy of priorities determined by customers. The great strengths of a company symbolize highly valued attributes, where the performance of the institution surpasses the practices of rivals.

In this context, laboratories (V10) and internet (V18) were identified as the main points of competition of the IFRN institution. Because it is a course in the field of computer science, the exploitation of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) is indispensable within the classroom. Supported by the foundation set by ^{Alves (2009}), it is recommended that maintaining or improving school performance is the most appropriate strategy for the attributes under discussion.

Nevertheless, in other scenarios, specificities can lead to the same resources being subject to divergent evaluations by the client. In the research by ^{Dos Santos (2014}), for example, it was identified that Internet access was one of the elements that needed to be improved immediately. The students of courses in the field of social sciences, in the mixed mode of teaching (face-to-face and distance), recognized high deficits in quality in the provision of services.

Finally, for the IFRN: auxiliary services (V14), location (V14), and complaints (V22) were left in the quadrant of smallest strength. These are attributes that offer a competitive advantage, but students place them at a very low valuation level. In this case, it is recommended to maintain the level of service offered.

Competitive advantage from the point of view of the administrators

In order to determine the action priorities of the administrators of each institution, the resource-based view theory with a VRIO approach was used. On the other hand, evaluating the degree of contribution of each variable in relation to competitiveness allows us to understand why a company values improvement actions in certain aspects of the service, while others do not give much importance to the same element. For this purpose, an index (called Factor) was used to help understand how much an attribute leads the company to develop a competitive advantage.

The calculation of this factor corresponded to the sum of the scores, awarded by the administrators, based on the criteria established by the VRIO approach (Table 5). In this study, value interval standards were adopted to evaluate in which competitive position each attribute was placed. These are: scores between 0 and 9 (competitive disadvantage); 11 and 20 (competitive parity); 21 and 30 (time advantage); 31 and 40 (sustainable advantage).

From the point of view of management, most of the attributes are constituted as a time advantage (VT). For ^{Barney and Hesterly (2007}), service aspects are valuable, rare, exploited; however, the cost of imitating them is not so high. In short, the levels of rarity and difficulty in imitating were low. Thus, there are indications that in education there is a broad capacity of competitors to copy strategies. This leads to the standardization of teaching methods, physical structure, attention; in short, of educational services as a whole. This compromises the uniqueness of the resource, according to ^{Toledo and Fernandes (2013}). In this scenario, ^{Montgomery and Porter (1998}) assure that the organization will achieve a competitive advantage due to restrictions on the options of competitors, such as patents and concessions.

There is a need for management to frequently control the resources that transmit a temporal advantage, always in search of adding value to the element. An institutional innovation policy, for example, will allow a more effective protection of this competitive position and be the difference of a sustainable state. This thought is guided by the ideals of ^{Cruz, Santos, and Quintal (2016}) .

Other aspects of services represent the competitive parity position (P). Cleanliness (V11), for the IFRN, is perceived as a variable with value and exploited by the school. However, it does not appear as a resource that is rare and difficult to imitate. The administration does not see that this attribute will lead one student to choose one institution over another. Nor does this constitute a weak point of the organization. Therefore, those that fall into this competitive position tend not to be in the top priority for improvement. For example, that was the case of the attributes: administrative team and auxiliary services (IFRN); internet, library, and physical layout (IFPB); course coordination and hours (concomitantly for IFRN and IFPB).

Furthermore, the didactic classification (V1) is highlighted as an attribute that provides a sustainable advantage, in the opinion of administrators. They see it as a valuable aspect, rare, difficult to imitate and operated by the IFPB. This confirms the ideas of ^{Toledo and Fernandes (2013}).

Consonances and differences between competitive advantage perceptions

There is no full alignment between action priorities. For the IFRN, professor qualifications (V2) and courses (V17) are points of intersection. Students and administration see them as attributes that need improvement action in different degrees. While the former sees them as the main priorities for improvement, administrators point out that, if the level of service provided is not maintained or increased, the transition competitive advantage threshold will cease to exist. Similarly, administrators and students converged on the inevitability of reforming the level of service provided in the dimension of comfort, team of professors, and physical structure (D1).

For the IFRN, dissonances were recorded on issues of cleanliness (V11), environmental comfort (V6), laboratories (V10), other academic activities (V21), and professor service (V3). In the first two attributes, the urgency to improve the level of service was a unique demand of the students. For the latter aspects, only the administrators frame them in the list of urgent measures for improvement.

As for the IFPB, the misalignment between priorities was more evident. The students see an urgent need to improve performance in internet attributes (V18), complaints (V22), course coordination (V4), hours (V8), auxiliary services (V14), and location (V19). For administrators, improvement priorities should focus on the professor didactics (V1), corporate image (V16), courses (V17), and laboratories (V10). In terms of dimensions, the two categories were in tune. Customer service and auxiliary services (D2) was established as a priority in the implementation of actions to improve the service provided.

The inconsistency between the person demanding a service and the offeror, with regard to the aspects that deserve to be reformulated immediately, causes failures in the provision of services. Administrative actions must converge with what clients see as a priority. Errors in this alignment will lead to high levels of dissatisfaction and loss of students. According to ^{Eberle (2009}), the administration needs to know and satisfy customers better than the competition, this will make it possible to have a profitable performance.