Despite isolated pockets of enthusiasm in British higher education for ISO9000, there is
assurance systems across the sector. Fears, voiced just a few years ago, that higher
education would be faced with having to establish quality systems like the ones used in
industry and warnings that higher education should not rush to embrace ISO9000
In Britain, it appears that apart from Wolverhampton, only Luton, a very recently
established university, is seriously pursuing ISO9000 across a significant part of its
activities. There was little enough interest in ISO9000 in British higher education, but
that has declined further in the wake of the latest initiative
Investors in People
(IIP).
Staffordshire University, for example, referred at one time to BS5750 in its mission
statement but has subsequently shifted its interest to IIP.
Similarly, despite encouragement in some quarters for international comparability,
formal quality assurance systems such as ISO9000 are not taking off internationally in
higher education.
Australia, for example, is one country where much has been made of the potential of
ISO9000 (AS3900). However, there is, as yet, no widespread evidence of the adoption of
international standards of quality assurance in the Australian university sector as a whole.
Indeed, the establishment of a draft set of quality systems guidelines to aid interpretation
of ISO9000 proved to be a difficult task in relation to the university system ‘because of
its diverse aims, management process and outputs’ (Pithers and Peak, 1994, p. 206).
There is only one passing reference to formal quality assurance systems in the recent
‘official’ quality monitoring and improvement literature from Australia (AVCC/ACDP,
1988; Baldwin, 1992; Commonwealth of Australia, 1988, 1991; Dawkins, 1987; NBEET
HEC, 1992a, 1992b; Warren Piper, 1993). The mention of international standards occurs
in an appendix on examples of good practice, in the Higher Education Council’s report to
government, as a small part of a submission from The Royal Melbourne Institute of
Technology (RMIT):
Within some academic departments in both Higher Education and TAFE [Training and Further
Education] sectors, serious consideration is being given to adopting international quality
management standards as part of the quality development process. The rationale for such a move
includes the fact that all students work, or will work, in such environments and the teaching of
the quality management material, involving the standards and the recognition that adoption of
the standards within the departments can bring significant benefits. (NBEET HEC, 1992b)
Clearly, RMIT exhibits the same underlying rationale for the limited adoption of
international standards as do the British colleges: external business pressures.
It would be precipitous to foreclose on the potential take-up of IS09000 within the
Australian University system, given the recent draft guidelines of Standards Australia’s
subcommittee. It is fair to say that the value of using ISO9000 is still being evaluated.
However, as those close to the subcommittee admit, it will be difficult to adopt ISO9000
without encroaching on academic freedom and autonomy or without inserting another
layer of inflexible restrictive bureaucracy within university administrations, which will
serve to stifle creativity and fail to receive the confidence and support of staff (Pithers
and Peak, 1994).
This is a view reflected in the outcomes of a study at Swinburne University of
Technology. The pilot study of the Bachelor of Information Technology programme
explored the potential of ISO9000 to formalise the process of stakeholder review of
academic programmes (Calway and Murphy, 1994). ISO9000 was used as a ‘definitional
audit’ process, and generic standards from ISO9001 were used, suitably augmented by
the definitional framework established by Sandwell College. The conclusion was that