Ida Verna – Department of Management and Business Economics, University D’Annunzio, Pescara-Chieti, Italy
Elia Pizzolitto – Department of Management and Business Economics, University D’Annunzio, Pescara-Chieti, Italy




5th International Scientific-Business Conference – LIMEN 2019 – Leadership, Innovation, Management and Economics: Integrated Politics of Research – SELECTED PAPERS, Graz, Austria, December 12, 2019, published by the Association of Economists and Managers of the Balkans, Belgrade; Printed by: SKRIPTA International, Belgrade, ISBN 978-86-80194-27-1, ISSN 2683-6149, DOI:



This paper offers a reflection about the use of Quality Function Deployment (QFD) applied
to a university course of accounting. The aim is to classify the most effective teaching methods (teaching
strategies) with respect to specific relations: targets (stakeholders’ needs)/needs (students’ needs). In
particular, learning outcomes (LO) are expressed in terms of homogeneity or heterogeneity in learning
(at the beginning, underway and outbound) that a class of students shows with respect to the initial
target/needs of an accounting course. The study has been carried out through the observation of the
learning outcomes of different class of students, in three consecutive years of an accounting course,
carried out by the same teacher. The results of the experimentation have demonstrated that specific
target/needs are associated, over time, to the same teaching strategies. The continuous process carried
out by the teacher about the course design (with the QFD), the managing of education in class, the
evaluation/self-evaluation of the educational processes carried out and of the improving/standardization
(with the QFD) of the teaching strategies with respect to the initial target/needs of the course, has
allowed a classification of the most effective teaching strategies with respect to the evolution over time
of the relations target/needs (self-training of the teacher).



QFD, Quality Function Deployment, Higher Education, Teaching Methods, Teaching
Quality, Learning Outcomes, Accounting, House of Quality.




Bakhru, K. M. (2018). Aligning teaching methods for learning outcomes: a need for educational
change in management education using quality function deployment approach. International
Journal of Learning and Change, 10(1), 54-69.
Bier, I. D., & Cornesky, R. (2001). Using QFD to construct a higher education curriculum.
Quality Progress, 34(4), 64-68.
Casey, R., Gentile, P., & Bigger, S. (1997). Teaching appraisal in higher education: An Australian
perspective. Higher education, 34(4), 459-482.
Chou, S. (2004). Evaluating the service quality of undergraduate nursing education in Taiwan–
using quality function deployment. Nurse Education Today, 24, 310–318.
Donald S., E. (1995). Using QFD becomes an educational experience for students and faculty.
Quality Progress, 28(5), 131-ss.
Ezzell, J. M., A. Cudney, E., Phelps, J. A., & Mazur, G. H. (2016). One Size Does Not Fit All:
Utilizing Quality Function Deployment for Course Design. Quality Management Journal,
23(3), 37-53.
Giilser, K., & Alpay, E. (1998). Planning and design of industrial engineering education quality.
Computers & Industrial Engineering, 35(3-4), 639-642.
Ictenbas, B., & Eryilmaz, H. (2011). Linking Employers’ Expectations with Teaching Methods:
Quality Function Deployment Approach. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 28,
568 – 572.
Jaraiedi, M., & Ritz, D. (1994). Total Quality Management Applied to Engineering Education.
Quality Assurance in Education, 2(1), 32-40.
Lam, K., & Zhao, X. (1998). An application of quality function deployment to improve the
quality of teaching. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 15(4),
Liu, S.-F., Lee, Y.-L., Lin, Y.-Z., & Tseng, C.-F. (2013). Applying quality function deployment
in industrial design curriculum planning. International Journal of Technology and Design
Education, 23, 1147–1160.
Motwani, J., Kumar, A., & Zubair, M. (2008). Implementing QFD for Improving Quality in
Education: An Example. Journal of Professional Services Marketing, 14(2), 149-159.
Mukaddes, A., Bagum, M., Islam, M., Bashar, M., & Chakrabarty, V. (2010). Translating the
Student’s Voice into Teaching Techniques: A Quality Function Deployment Approach.
Proceedings of the 2010 International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations
Management, (p. 237-241). Dhaka, Bangladesh.

Mukaddes, A., Bagum, N., Anisul, I., & Mohammad Muhshin, A. (2012). The application of
quality function deployment to improve the teaching techniques in higher education. International
Journal of Industrial and Systems Engineering, 11(1-2).
Ogot, M., & Okudan, G. (2007). A Student Centered Approach to Improving Course Quality
Using Quality Function Deployment (QFD). International Journal of Engineering, 23(5),
Quinn, A., Lemay, G., Larsen, P., & Johnson, D. (2009). Service quality in higher education.
Total Quality Management, 20(2), 139 –152.
Raissi, N. (2018). Using QFD method for assessing higher education programs: an examination
of key stakeholders’ visions. International Journal of Management in Education, 12(1),
Sagnak, M., Ada, N., Kazancoglu, Y., & Tayaksi, C. (2017). Quality function deployment application
for improving quality of education in business schools. Journal Of Education For
Business, 92(5), 230–237.
Sahney, S., Banwet, D., & Karunes, S. (2006). An integrated framework for quality in education:
Application of quality function deployment, interpretive structural modelling and
path analysis. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 17(2), 265-285.
Sangeeta, S., Banwet, D., & Karunes, S. (2004). A SERVQUAL and QFD approach to total
quality education. A student perspective. International Journal of Productivity and Performance
Management, 53(2), 143-166.
Stampen, J. O., & Hansen, W. L. (1999). Improving higher education access and persistence:
new directions from a „system” perspective. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,
21(4), 417-426.
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),
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),
Verna, I. (2014). The quality function deployment and the customer satisfaction. The case of
universities. 1st International Conference on Social Sciences and Humanities, (p. 189-202).
Gaborone, Botswana.
Verna, I., & Perozzi, D. (2014). Applying TEM model (teaching evaluation model) in an academic
course in accounting: a comparison across five years. 1st Mediterranean Interdisciplinary
Forum on Social Sciences and Humanities, (p. 330-344). Beirut, Lebanon.
Verna, I., D., (2017) A public act filed with a notary of the Italian Republic.
Verna, I., Antonucci, G., Sargiacomo, M., & Venditti, M. (2019). Listening as ‘Guiding Tool’
in the Continuous Improvement of University Education: A Holistic Approach. European
Scientific Journal, 15(25), 57-78.



Download Full Paper




Association of Economists and Managers of the Balkans – UdEkoM Balkan
179 Ustanicka St, 11000 Belgrade, Republic of Serbia

LIMEN conference publications are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.