The issue of quality education in higher learning institutions is timely and crucial due to the Malaysian governmentâ€™s aspiration to turn the country into a centre of educational excellence in the Asian region.Â Quality education acts as an indicator of the institutionâ€™s ability to provide tertiary education to the society as well as an instrument for the nationâ€™s economic growth.Â To date, numerous studies have been conducted to measure the quality of education in higher learning institutions in Malaysia.Â However, the task of identifying the challenges faced by these institutions in providing quality education and the critical success factors to address the challenges has largely been ignored by previous researchers.Â It is within this overall context that this study employs the Analytic Hierarchy Process, with the aim of identifying and ranking the challenges and also their critical success factors. Data was collected from the stakeholders of Malaysian private HLIs via semi-structured interviews and a questionnaire survey.Â Results indicate that â€˜Establishing financial capabilities for the institutionâ€™s self-sustainabilityâ€™, â€˜Complying with the rules and regulations of regulatory agencies and relevant professional bodiesâ€™ and â€˜Providing facilities to ensure the delivery of quality educationâ€™ are the challenges that need to be carefully handled by the management of these Malaysian private HLIs.Â Critical success factors that act as practical solutions to address each challenge were also identified and ranked in this study.
quality education, challenges, critical success factors, higher learning institution, Analytic Hierarchy Process
success factors in higher education. Business Process Management Journal, 13(3), 451-
Aly, M.F., Attia, H.A., & Mohammed, A.M. (2014). Prioritizing faculty of engineering
education performance by using AHP-TOPSIS and balanced scorecard approach.
International Journal of Engineering Science and Innovative Technology, 3(1), 11-23.
Anis. A. & Islam. R. (2011). Multiple criteria decision making ’10-’11. Poland: The
University of Economics Katowice.
Ao, Y., Yang B., Yi F., & Zou G. (2012). The application of modified Delphi-AHP
method in the college students’ comprehensive quality evaluation system. International
Journal of Information and Education Technology, 2(4), 389-393.
Arokiasamy, L., Ismail, M., Ahmad, A., & Othman, J. (2009). Background of Malaysia
private institutions of higher learning and challenges faced by academics. The Journal of
International Social Research, 2(8), 60-6.
Arokiasamy, L. (2011). An analysis of globalization and higher education in Malaysia.
Australian Journal of Business and Management Research, 1(9), 73-81.
Basak, I., & T.L. Saaty (1993). Group decision making using the Analytic Hierarch
Process. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 17, 101-109.
Belle, S.W. (2009, Jun 11). Colleges and universities must not rest on their laurels.
Diverse Issues in Higher Education, 26(9), 66. Retrieved from http://www.questia.com.
Accessed on November 20, 2010.
Bornman, M.G. (2004). Program review guidelines for quality assurance in higher
education: a South African perspective. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher
Education, 5(4), 372-383.
Brown, S. (1987). Drop and collect surveys. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 5(1), 19-
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative & mixed method
approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publication Inc.
Donald, E.H. (2003). Building a leadership vision: eleven strategic challenges for higher
education. EDUCAUSE Review, 38(4), 24.
Dong, Y., Zhang, G., Hong, W.C., Xu, Y., Xu, Y. (2010). Consensus models for AHP
group decision making under row geometric mean prioritization method. Decision
Support Systems, 49, 281–289.
IJAHP Article: Islam, Anis, Abdullah/ Critical Success Factors of the Challenges in Providing
Quality Education: A Study on Malaysian Private Higher Learning Institutions
International Journal of the
Analytic Hierarchy Process
100 Vol. 7 Issue 1 2015
Eric, C. (2007). Challenges facing business schools in the future. Journal of Management
Development, 26(1), 87-92.
Fion C.B.L. (2009). Education hub at crossroads; the development of quality in assurance
a competitive tool for Singapore’s private tertiary education. Quality Assurance in
Education, 17(1), 79-94.
Fion, C.B.L. (2008). Understanding quality assurance: a cross country case study.
Quality Assurance in Education, 16(2), 126 – 140.
Grandzol, J.R. (2005). Improving the faculty selection process in higher education: A
case for the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Association for Institutional Research, 6, 1-13.
Harvey, L., & Green, D. (1993). Defining quality. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher
Education, 18(1), 9-34.
Hayrapetyan, R.L., and Mohan Kuruvilla (2012). A decision support system for college
major selection. International Journal of Business, Marketing, and Decision Sciences,
Henny, V.W., & Jan, V. (2006). Choosing a quality improvement project using the
analytic hierarchy process. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management,
Islam, R. (2010). Critical success factors of the nine challenges in Malaysia’s vision
2020. Journal of Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 44 (4), 199-211.
Kiarazm, A., & Koohkan F. (2013). Performance evaluation in higher education institutes
with the use of combinative model AHP and BSC. Journal of Basic and Applied
Scientific Research, 3(4), 940-944.
Kim, Hyunwoo;Han, Younggoo;Kim, Sehun;Choi, Myeonggil (2005). A curriculum
design for e-commerce security. Journal of Information Systems Education, 16 (1), 55.
Lam, M.Y., Poon, K.K., & Chin, K.S. (2008). An organisational learning model for
vocational education in the context of TQM culture. International Journal of Quality and
Reliability Management, 25(3), 238-255.
Laurie, L. (2004). Embedding quality; the challenges for higher education. Quality
Assurance in Education, 12(4), 157-165.
McNaught, C. (2003). Innovation and chance in higher education: managing multiple
polarities. Perspectives, 7(3), 76-82.
Morshidi, S. (2006). Malaysia, in UNESCO-APEID & SEAMEO-RIHED. Higher
Education in South East Asia, Bangkok: UNESCO-APEID.
Muhamad J., Chan H.C., Shahnon, S., & Sibly, S.S. (2006). Enhancing quality of faculty
in private higher education institutions in Malaysia. Higher Education Research
Monograph, National Higher Education Research Institute, Monograph 9.
Owlia, M.S., & Aspinwall, E.M. (1997). TQM in higher education – a review.
International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 14(5), 527-543.
Philip, G.A. (2007). Intelligent Asia: fostering Asia’s brightest. Far Eastern Economic,
Philip, G.A., & Daniel, C.L. (2005), Private higher education: A global revolution.
Rotterdam: Sense Publisher.
Pourhasomi, M.H., Khamseh, A.A., & Hosseini, S.S.M. (2012). Integrating Kano’s
model into quality function deployment to optimally identify and prioritise the needs of
higher education: case study: Engineering Faculty of Tarbiat Moallem University.
Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, 4(4), 233- 246.
Rahorjo, H., Xie, M., Goh, T.N., & Brombacher, A. C. (2007). A methodology to
improve higher education quality using the Quality Function Deployment and Analytic
Hierarchy Process. Total Quality Management, 18(10), 1097-1115.
Rockart, J. (1979). Chief executive’s define their own data needs. Harvard Business
Review, 57(2), 81-93.
Sahney, S., Banwet, D.K., & Karunes S. (2008). An integrated framework of indices for
quality management in education: a faculty perspective. A TQM Journal, 20(5), 502-519.
Sipahi, S., & Timor, M. (2010). The Analytic Hierarchy Process and Analytic Network
Process: An overview of applications. Management Decision, 48(5), 775-808.
Sirvanci, M. (2004). TQM implementation; critical issues for TQM implementation in
higher education. The TQM Magazine, 16(6), 382-386.
Srikanthan, G., & Dalrymple, J. (2003). Developing alternative perspective for quality in
higher education. International Journal of Educational Management, 17(3), 126-136.
Strasser, S.E., Ceyhun Ozgur, David L. Schroeder, (2002). Selecting a business college
major: An analysis of criteria and choice using the Analytical Hierarchy Process.
American Journal of Business, 17(2), 47 – 56.
Tang, S.W., & Hussin, S. (2011). Quality in higher education: a variety of stakeholders
perspectives. International Journal of Social Science and Humanity, 1(2), 126-131.
Terry, N.L., & Stanley, E.F. (2002). Benchmarking the challenge to quality program
implementation. Benchmarking International Journal, 9(4), 374-387.
The Tenth Malaysia Plan (2011 – 2015).
The World Declaration on Higher Education (1998). Higher education in the twenty-first
century: vision and action. World Conference on Higher Education, Paris.
Timothy, N. (2008). Standards to assure quality in tertiary education: the case of
Tanzania. Quality Assurance in Education, 16(2), 164 – 180.
Tsinidou, M., Gerogiannis, V., & Fitsilis, P. (2010). Evaluation of the factors that
determine quality in higher education: an empirical study. Quality Assurance in
Education, 18(3), 227-244.
Umayal Karpagam, P.L., & Suganthi, L. (2010). A strategic framework for managing
higher educational institutions. Advance in Management, 3(10), 15-21.
Vroeijenstijn, A.I. (1991). External quality assessment: servant of two masters?
Conference on Quality Assurance in Higher Education, Hong Kong.
Watty, K. (2005). Quality in accounting education: what say the academics? Quality
Assurance in Education, 13(2), 120-131.
Woo, K.Y. (2006). Malaysian private higher education: A need to study the different
interpretations of quality. JASA Review papers, 17-21.
Yaakob, M., Ahmad Tarmize, M.A., Yunus, B., Abdul Ghani, Z., & Mokhtar, M.Z.
(2009). Directions and challenges of private institutions of higher learning in Malaysia: A
holistic approach from the perspective of Universiti Tenaga Nasional (UNITEN),
ASAIHL Conference, International University Cambodia.
Ye?im Yayla, A., & Ortaburun, Y. (2011). Redesigning curriculum in higher education
by using analytical hierarchy process and spearman rank correlation test. European
Journal of Scientific Research, 53(2), 271-279.
Copyright of all articles published in IJAHP is transferred to Creative Decisions Foundation (CDF). However, the author(s) reserve the following:
- All proprietary rights other than copyright, such as patent rights.
- The right to grant or refuse permission to third parties to republish all or part of the article or translations thereof. In case of whole articles, such third parties must obtain permission from CDF as well. However, CDF may grant rights with respect to journal issues as a whole.
- The right to use all or parts of this article in future works of their own, such as lectures, press releases, reviews, textbooks, or reprint books.
- The authors affirm that the article has been neither copyrighted nor published, that it is not being submitted for publication elsewhere, and that if the work is officially sponsored, it has been released for open publication.
The only exception to the statements in the paragraph above is the following: If an article published in IJAHP contains copyrighted material, such as a teaching case, as an appendix, then the copyright (and all commercial rights) of such material remains with the original copyright holder.
CDF will receive permission for publication of copyrighted material in IJAHP. This permission is not transferable to third parties. Permission to make electronic and paper copies of part or all of the articles, including all computer files that are linked to the articles, for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage.
This permission does not apply to previously copyrighted material, such as teaching cases. In paper copies of the article, the copyright notice and the title of the publication and its date should be visible. To copy otherwise is permitted provided that a per-copy fee is paid.
To republish, to post on servers, or redistribute to lists requires that you post a link to the IJAHP article, which is available in open access delivery mode. Do not upload the article itself.
Authors are permitted to present a talk, based on a paper submitted to or accepted by IJAHP, at a conference where the paper would not be published in a copyrighted publication either before or after the conference and where the author did not assign copyright to the conference or related publisher.