Total Quality Management systems in music schools

 

 

Introduction & Comparison

 

Many Schools of Music in Europe are currently in the process of introducing an integrated quality care system, often referred to as Total Quality Management (TQM), in order to ensure and to improve the quality of education at the school.

 

Total Quality Management is a company philosophy, which advocates that all actions of an organisation must be aimed at pleasing all interested parties as efficiently as possible.

 

In most cases, one hereto uses a model that is developed by the European Foundation for Quality Management, the EFQM Excellence Model. The model is designed to help organisations to plan a pathway to excellence and supplies practical tools to measure and monitor where they are on that pathway. The measuring should identify gaps and stimulate solutions. The model can best be made concrete using a schedule.

 

 

 

The model consists of two types of areas of attention: the Enablers, the five blocks on the left, and the Results, the five blocks on the right. As the terms already suggest, these are the areas which can be influenced by the management and the areas which present the consequences of this influence, respectively. (The arrow pointing from right to left along the base shows that the results achieved should themselves be used to assess the effectiveness of how things are done.) The nine boxes represent the criteria against which the organisations progress can be assessed. The nine criteria are related to each other. Organisations perform more effectively when all the inter-related activities are understood and consistently managed.

 

The nine criteria cover sub-criteria that should be addressed.

 

 

Below each sub-criterion are lists of guidance points (in this model about 300). They are intended to further exemplify the meaning of the sub-criterion.

 

At the heart of the model lies the logic known as RADAR. The Approach, Deployment, Assessment and Review elements of the RADAR logic should be addressed for each Enabler sub-criterion and the Results element should be addressed for each Results sub-criterion. There is also the option to drive a score using the RADAR process.

 

The EFQM model is applicable for quality management of all organisations, whether large, small, commercial or non-commercial. It is therewith also applicable to music schools.

 

The countries that will be described, Norway, The Netherlands, Germany and the Basque country, applied either the EFQM model, or a model following the EFQM, to music schools.

 

 

 

 

The organisations that were responsible for the development of the models mostly also took care of the implementation.

 

 

 

A further description of the development of the models specifically established for schools of music can be found in the documents about the different countries. Firstly, a brief comparison of the used systems in the four countries will be given.

 

In general, the similarities between systems are especially prominent.

 

All four countries base their models on the criteria within the Enablers en Results categories mentioned above. The applied models are subdivided about correspondingly into sub-criteria. For each sub-criterion a number of guidance points occur.

 

All models are underpinned by the Plan-Do-Check-Act cycle of Deming, a continuous feedback loop to identify and change the parts of the process that need improvements.

 

All models use a matrix to assign a standardisation to the different criteria.

 

In all four countries, it is assumed that information based upon key figures will increase the value of the system. Firstly, key figures are objective data which allow assessment of the results as well as the formulation of objectives for improvement. Secondly, the use of key figures facilitates the comparison to other Schools. Reversely, the system may help with the data acquisition. The term which covers all this is identical in all countries and is ‘benchmarking’.

 

Apart from the similarities, the systems used in the four countries also show dissimilarities.

 

In general an important dissimilarity is the difference in the relation between the use of a TQM and the presence of a method for the acquisition of key figures and Benchmarking. To date, methods have only just started off in the Netherlands and the Basque Country, whereas in Germany, a well worked up system (EduR) runs parallel to the QsM.

 

In addition, obvious but small differences are found in the formulation of the criteria and the division in sub-criteria.  
(Comparison of Sub-criteria 1 to 5 )( Comparison of Sub-criteria 6 to 9 )

 

Larger differences occur in the number and formulation of the guidance points. In the Dutch KKV system, sub-criteria of the Enablers category are formulated in four different versions, corresponding to phases in which an organization can find itself. The standardization is thereby inherent in the formulation. In the German Enablers category, many more features are formulated, which offer five quality stages for each sub-criterion. The features are formulations of good practices. In the Norwegian system a number of possible instructions are formulated. One has to valuate each sub-criterion with the use of a score 1 to 5.

 

The score range and the standardisation are different in every system. For example in the Results category in the Norwegian system there are five levels which pose questions about the trend of the results and whether the results are good or not. In the Dutch system there are four levels. The questions include also: Achievement with respect to objective? And: Comparison with other suppliers?

 

Furthermore, the standardization is not visualized in the same manner in the four countries. Norway uses the matrix to draw a profile to give an impression to what extent all the (sub-) areas to address, are approached at the same level. The KKV from the Netherlands uses the Spider web (illustrated below) which visualises moreover to what extent the organisation shows coherence by approaching the nine areas to address.

 

To conclude, partly the formulations and choice of the sub-criteria, but especially the guidance points and driving of a score are the parts of the model that specifically have been applied to the sector of music- or music and art schools. A more detailed comparison of the models developed for schools of music and of the evaluations of the projects would be interesting.