Innovation Knowledge Management Systems for Enhancing Education Quality Assurance at Rajamangala University of Technology Suvarnabhumi
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Background and Aim: The ever-changing landscape of higher education worldwide has led academic institutions to seek innovative strategies for ensuring globally competitive standards of excellence remain firmly in place. Knowledge management has increasingly come to the fore as a pivotal process supporting the ongoing refinement of educational quality at its core. Nevertheless, challenges persist in Rajamangala University of Technology Suvarnabhumi in systematically harnessing the power of knowledge into existing quality assurance mechanisms. This research aims threefold: first, to evaluate the current state and constraints of the university’s knowledge management application to quality assurance; second, to examine priority needs and defining success factors for crafting a customized knowledge management solution serving educational quality assurance; and third, to conceptualize and prototype an adaptive knowledge management system adequately responding to Rajamangala University of Technology Suvarnabhumi’s unique context and institutional imperatives.
Materials and Methods: This mixed-methods study employed stratified random sampling to collect quantitative data from 276 university personnel. A five-point Likert scale questionnaire measured current Knowledge Management System (KMS) use and needs, demonstrating high reliability at 0.92. Descriptive statistics revealed frequency, percentage, means, and standard deviations of responses. Inferential statistics, including t-tests and one-way ANOVAs, identified significant differences at the 0.05 level. Six qualitative in-depth interviews with quality assurance administrators provided deep insights. Additionally, twelve quality assurance staff engaged in focus group discussions. Thematic analysis uncovered key themes within the qualitative data. Ultimately, findings informed the development of an innovative KMS using design thinking merged with the PDCA cycle. Fifteen quality assurance and IT experts then evaluated the effectiveness of the developed innovation.
Results: The study into the university’s approach to knowledge management for quality assurance yielded intriguing findings. Firstly, the existing system was rated highly overall, with senior leadership endorsement seen as particularly strong. However, information technology use scored lower, highlighting a key area for improvement. A close examination pinpointed clear guidelines and administrators’ commitment as chief strengths, while segmented data and the lack of an integrated digital solution posed major obstacles. Staff highlighted the pressing need for a unified, user-friendly technological framework to consolidate disparate sources of information, reduce duplicate data entry, support insightful analytics, and facilitate online exchange of expertise. To address this, an innovative five-pronged quality assurance knowledge management system was developed, centered on the continual Plan-Do-Check-Act cycle. At its core were an integrated database, advanced applications, core functionalities, evaluation mechanisms, and a learning community. The system proved highly effective overall, earning especially high marks for its impact.
Conclusion: The university had created an impressive system to organize its knowledge base that noticeably reduced duplicated efforts. It allowed staff to analyze information more thoroughly than ever before, gleaning valuable insights that impacted decision-making across divisions. Both junior and senior employees felt included in important discussions, sharing perspectives on how to strengthen the institution. This model shows great promise for other colleges in Thailand dealing with similarly intricate bureaucracies. With refinement, it could serve as an exemplar for rethinking how all members of a school - from freshman to dean - work together to continuously refine curriculum and operations. Its approach of pooling collective intelligence in a structured yet flexible manner may encourage lifelong dedication to scholarship within a community.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Copyright on any article in the International Journal of Sociologies and Anthropologies Science Reviews is retained by the author(s) under the under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Permission to use text, content, images, etc. of publication. Any user to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of articles, crawl them for indexing, pass them as data to software, or use them for any other lawful purpose. But do not use it for commercial use or with the intent to benefit any business.
References
Abdullah, R., & Elias, H. (2022). The influence of behavioral factors and their effect on knowledge management system acceptance and usage: A conceptual framework for higher education institutions. Journal of Knowledge Management Practice, 23(4), 45–60.
Al-Jedaiah, M. (2020). Knowledge management and e-learning effectiveness: Empirical evidence from Jordanian higher education institutions. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 15(5), 50–62. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v15i05.11653
Chantarasombat, C. (2009). Developing a knowledge management model for educational quality assurance in the Faculty of Education, Mahasarakham University. Journal of Administration and Development, Mahasarakham University, 1(2), 38–51.
Chen, C. J., & Huang, J. W. (2009). Strategic human resource practices and innovation performance—The mediating role of knowledge management capacity. Journal of Business Research, 62(1), 104–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.11.016
Chesbrough, H. (2003). The logic of open innovation: Managing intellectual property. California Management Review, 45(3), 33–58.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340.
DeLone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (2003). The DeLone and McLean model of information systems success: A ten-year update. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19(4), 9–30.
Deming, W. E. (1986). Out of the crisis. MIT Press.
Dennis, A., Wixom, B. H., & Roth, R. M. (2015). Systems analysis and design (6th ed.). Wiley.
Djangone, A. (2022). Knowledge management in higher education: Effectiveness, success factors, and organisational performance.
Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change (4th ed.). Teachers College Press.
Garvin, D. A., Edmondson, A. C., & Gino, F. (2008). Is yours a learning organization? Harvard Business Review, 86(3), 109–116.
George, D., & Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference (4th ed.). Allyn & Bacon.
Haddist, R., & Handayani, T. (2020). The relationship between knowledge management and organizational performance in higher education. Journal of Education and Learning, 14(2), 98–110.
Kaesanuch, P., Upping, P., & Rattanaset, K. (2023). Participatory local economic governance in the new normal. UTCC Journal of Politics and Local Governance, 3(1), 33–45.
Kendall, K. E., & Kendall, J. E. (2019). Systems analysis and design (10th ed.). Pearson Education.
Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2015). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Laudon, K. C., & Laudon, J. P. (2020). Management information systems: Managing the digital firm (16th ed.). Pearson.
Meekhobtong, S., Bhooarworn, S., & Wangkaewhiran, T. (2022). The study of digital storytelling skills for undergraduate students focuses on developing an instructional model using the design thinking process. PSAKU International Journal of Interdisciplinary Research, 11(2).
Ministry of Education. (2018). Announcement of the Ministry of Education on Higher Education Standards B.E. 2561 (2018). Royal Thai Government Gazette, 135(Special Section 199 Ngor).
Nakarin Sakhon, B., Upping, P., Mettathamrong, J., & Chaichana, C. (2023). Factors influencing the success in quality assurance of education for excellence (EdPEx) of Rajamangala University of Technology Isan. UTCC Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 43(1), 106–126. https://so06.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/utccjournalhs/article/view/258609
Narint Sangkaraksa. (2018). Professional learning communities and school development in Thailand. Journal of Educational Innovation and Research, 22(1), 53–64.
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. Oxford University Press.
O’Brien, J. A., & Marakas, G. M. (2011). Management information systems (10th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
Office of Educational Quality, Rajamangala University of Technology Suvarnabhumi. (2021). Self-assessment report for the academic year 2021. Rajamangala University of Technology Suvarnabhumi.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). Free Press.
Rovinelli, R. J., & Hambleton, R. K. (1977). On the use of content specialists in the assessment of criterion-referenced test item validity. Dutch Journal of Educational Research, 2(2), 49–60.
Runrom, U. (2023). Knowledge management and the effectiveness of internal educational quality assurance systems. Journal of Quality in Education, 18(1), 65–78.
Saothongthong, N. (2023). Community-driven learning and political empowerment. Journal of Local Administration, 16(2), 100–115.
Seamsamak, N., & Rathachatranon, C. (2015). Faculty perceptions of internal quality assurance in higher education. Kasetsart Journal of Social Sciences, 36(1), 12–25.
Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. Doubleday/Currency.
Somjai, A., Sirinapatpokin, S., & Kumtabut, O. (2024). How the critical success factors of knowledge management affect the different perspectives of organizational performance and organizational strategy. Asian Education and Learning Review, 1(2), 62–78.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.
Sungrugsa, N., Boonkoum, W., & Pongtiyapaiboon, S. (2018). The professional teachers' development through research from continually learning experience with creative academic quality. Veridian E-Journal, Silpakorn University, 11(1), 1739–1746.
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2003). Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research. Sage Publications.
Thailand’s National Higher Education Standards. (2018). National higher education standards 2018. Office of the Higher Education Commission, Ministry of Education (Thailand).
Vehachart, R. (2018). Analyze elements of a professional learning community (PLC). Veridian E-Journal, Silpakorn University, 11(3), 2774–2781.
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186–204. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803932
