In his report, Alstele makes an excellent case for adopting Total Quality Management (TQM) techniques such as benchmaking to enhance the quality of higher education. Goetsch and Davis (1997) define benchmarking as follows; "Benchmarking is the process of comparing and measuring an organization's operations or its internal processes against those of a best-in-class preformer from inside or outside its industry". It cannot be denied that benchmaking is a highly effective and easily understood TQM tool. In order to obtain the desired quality improvement, benchmarks must be distinct and must possess the ability to easily quantify measurements.
Alstete's executive summary makes an irrefutable case for adopting benchmarking. With tightening state budgets and increased competition for students, his comment that, "Benchmarking in the future may not be an option" may indeed be prophetic. The author's discussion defining benchmarking as it applies to the world of business is impressive. His translation of these techniques to administrative functions in higher education for areas such as recruiting, designing course offerings, providing student services and registering students is appropriate. Also, his identifying critical success factors (CSFs) and typical business indicators that could be found in a college or university's fiscal endeavors has unlimited potential. Examples of some excellent candidates are foundation activities, business office functions and capital campaigns.
The principal weakness of using a benchmark occurs when administrators attempt to identify root or common causes of unacceptable variation in academic areas such as years to graduation, retention rates and faculty evaluations. These three examples are not simple to define and a benchmark may be difficult to isolate for accurate evaluation. The data are easily collectible and may appear to represent quality. However, the same data may not necessarily be appropriate candidates for benchmarking. Inappropriate use could result in a university's lowering academic expectations and creating grade inflation to manipulate results. This could occur where inappropriate benchmarks are assigned without fully considering the institution's demography and mission. Thus one sees pitfalls to Alstete's advocacy of benchmarking academic areas.
When evaluating potential benchmarks, the institution's administration must insure that the selected variables truly represent enhanced quality. The temptation is to select those variables that are easily measured and manipulated. Thus true quality enhancement is never realized. In fact, implementation may impede continuous quality improvement.
With the exceptions of the concerns mentioned above , Alstete is to be commended for his attempt to advocate the application of TQM techniques to higher education. I strongly recommend that both academic administrators and faculty read the report and become familiar with both the strengths and weaknesses of the report's findings and proposals.
Robert D. Yearout
UNC-Asheville