The application of quality function deployment to improve the teaching techniques in higher education

Using the QFD Matrix as a Major Continuous Improvement Tool to Improve Organizational Quality

“…a. The relationship matrix was completed by the QFD team as per the literature recommendations (Mukaddes et al, 2012). b.…”

“…Prepared by the QFD team based on Kano analysis and TR/IR focus group and interviews (Chin et al, 2001;Mukaddes et al, 2012;Talib & Maguad, 2011). b.…”

“…- Mukaddes et al, (2012); d. Service (sales) point(how well a CR will contribute to service improvement, with the service point value being between 1.0 and 2.0 - (Mukaddes et al, 2012); e. Absolute weight (calculated by multiplying the importance to customer, scale-up factor and the service point - (Aghlmand et al, 2010;Mukaddes et al, 2012;Talib & Maguad, 2011);…”

“…Degree of difficulty (to evaluate the ability to implement techniques to fulfil student's requirements using a 1-5 point scale difficulty rating, calculated for each TR/IR - (Mukaddes et al, 2010;Mukaddes et al, 2012); ii. Target value (values that must be obtained to achieve the technical descriptor; How much it takes to meet or exceed the students' expectations is answered by evaluating all the information entered into the HOQ and selecting target values); iii.…”

“…The importance of using QFD is that it provides a broader and clearer understanding of the needs of international students beyond what is available in the literature that mainly focused on mental health and psychological concerns with acculturation (Heyn, 2013).The literature on the use of QFD in higher education can be categorised into four major parts: curriculum design, teaching effectiveness, educational service quality, and other applications (Ahmed, 2006;Eftekhar et al, 2012;Hwarng & Teo, 2001;Mukaddes et al, 2012). It has proven to be an effective tool for translating the students' CRs into teaching techniques (Mukaddes et al, 2012).…”