The Effect of Total Quality Management on University Performance in Jordan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Total Quality Management (TQM) a functioning idea to accomplish incessant performance improvement-is the word of mouth of the 1990s, attracting deep interest among organizations and educational institutions in many countries. Numerous policy-makers truly believe that TQM can improve the performance of their organizations but they did not test it to make sure the effect of TQM. Hence, the purpose of this study is to examine the effect of TQM on university performance in Jordan. This relationship obtains a substantial scholarly attention and several researches have been conducted in the western countries, but none has been conducted in Jordan in the recent year using this variable in a model. A structured survey was conducted and selected 10 public and 10 private universities in Jordan via cluster random sampling. The hypotheses were tested using SEM-AMOS package 22.0 based on resource based theory. Based on the statistical results, TQM has statistically significant effect on university performance in Jordan. Consequently, the findings evoked that there is a dire need to focus on TQM for boosting university performance and its sustainability in Jordan.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".