Revisions of curriculums; increasing the pays of university employees; library improvements; improvement in infrastructures and labs and much more has been done in the name of improving the quality of education for the universities but this had never proved itself to be a remarkable effort as far as the quality of education is concerned. The possible problems in any organization can be at individual level; group level or organizational level which can overall mar the organization. Therefore the main purpose of the research is the design of a model which can help changing the quality of education at university level using OD techniques.
The researchers have designed model by using the techniques of OD including business process reengineering which; in a sense; is also a part of OD; for improving the overall quality of education in public sector universities of Pakistan. The model if implemented with few changes with respect to the culture and environment can not only be applicable in Pakistan but also in all universities of the world.
Method of Study/Approach: Historical/ Descriptive research method is used for the research.
Value of Paper: The paper; if implemented; is very useful as it is meant for improving the quality of education at university level. Since it is applicable at all universities of the world (with some alterations) so it is not confined only to the prosperity of a single country rather it can help in overall improvement of the world by improving every university existing in it.
Keywords: Organization Development techniques; quality of education; university level; developing countries; improvement model
11th QMOD Conference. Quality Management and Organizational Development Attaining Sustainability From Organizational Excellence to SustainAble Excellence; 20-22 August; 2008 in Helsingborg; Sweden
1. Bartol; Tein and et al; (2003); Management: A Pacific Rim Focus; McGraw-Hill Australia Pty Limited; Australia.
2. Beardwell; I. et al; (1997); Human Resource Management‚ÄĚ; Pitman Publishing; London.
3. Beckhard; R.; (1967); ‚ÄúThe Confrontation Meeting;‚ÄĚ Harvard Business Review; 45; 2; pp 149-155.
4. Beckhard; R.; (1969); Organizational Development: Strategies and Models; Reading Mass; Addison-Wesley.
5. Brown; D. R. et al; (2006); An Experiential Approach to Organization Development; Dorling Kindersley (India) Pvt. Ltd.; India.
6. Epie; Chantal; (2001); ‚ÄúThe Trianing and Development Function and the Power of Getting Things Done‚ÄĚ; LBS Management Review; Volume 6; No. 2; 89-99.
7. French; W. L. et al; (2008); Organization Development: Behavioral Science Interventions for Organization Improvement‚ÄĚ; Dorling Kindersley (India) Pvt. Ltd.; India.
8. Hughes; E. C.; (1937); ‚ÄúInstitutional office and the person‚ÄĚ; American Journal of Sociology; 43; 3; pp. 404-413.
9. Jacka; J. M. and Keller; P.J.; (2002); Business Process Mapping: Improving Customer Satisfaction; John Wiley & Sons; Inc.; New York.
10. Manpower Service Commission (1981); Glossary of Training Terms; London: HMSO.
11. Memon; G. R.; (2001); ‚ÄúEducation in Pakistan: The Key Issues; Problems and the New Challenges‚ÄĚ; Journal of Management and Social Sciences; Volume 3; No. 1; 47-55.
12. Rainbird; H. and Maguire; M. (1993); ‚ÄėWhen corporate need supersedes employee development‚Äô; Personnel Management; February; pp. 34-37.
13. Tenner; A.R. & DeToro; I.R; (2000); Process Redesign; The Implementation Guide for Manager; Prentice-Hall PTR; New Jersey.
14. Townsend and Gebhardt; J.; (2006); Leadership in action: Complete Quality Process; Pearson Power.