**1. Introduction**

The aim of the chapter is to contribute to the emerging debate on the relationship and interplay between innovation and quality management. It explores how innovation and quality assurance (QA) interact in organizations, using massive open online courses (MOOCs) as a context to understand this phenomenon. Literature indicates that QA is considered a crucial part of any higher education system. QA improves the programs of higher education [1], and contributes to identifying problems and finding solutions [2]. QA is necessary to prove that the standards are sufficient and harmonize with global market needs [3], and it is the condition that indicates how effective learning can take place [4]. However, there are significant arguments about the relationship between quality management (including QA) and innovation. Some studies indicate that quality

management supports innovation [5–8]. Others have questioned this relationship, suggesting QA might hinder innovation [9–12]. In this regard, few studies have been conducted on the QA of technological innovation, and studies stress that QA is one of the greatest challenges to MOOC programs [13]. Studies also indicate that there is no clear view of the requirements and processes of QA and no standards for the quality of MOOCs [14], or the way of assessing the quality of these courses [15]. MOOCs, therefore, lack QA of the type commonly used in higher education, even though academic literature continually highlights the importance of QA.

The early attention to MOOCs emerged from the idea that these courses can be a relevant solution to the challenge of the global massive demand for education [16]. MOOCs also arose as a result of perceived shortcomings in the quality of distance education and developed through an increase in expertise in using distance learning and open education [17]. However, one of the main differences between the new online innovation (MOOCs) and traditional online courses more generally is that MOOCs are available to any learner, and they are under open access agreements, whereas most online courses are not available to learners who are not enrolled at a particular institution [18].

Despite criticisms of the quality of MOOCs, universities have developed and offered these courses. For example, the University of Edinburgh considers MOOCs to be one of its "strategic priorities" to support teaching and learning [19]. In fact, the Heads of eLearning Forum (HeLF) has created a steering group of MOOCs activities in the UK, and there are many universities listed as members of the steering group, as well as more than 140 "nominated Heads" from these institutions who participate in the activities of eLearning and aspire to enhance technologies of learning [20]. However, in reviewing the findings of the steering group, it appears that MOOCs confront both technical and educational challenges. For instance, MOOCs have a limited impact pedagogically due to characteristics, such as the use of short videos, self-evaluation, and absence of "conversational framework," as well as the use of formative assessments [21].

Although the QAA welcomes MOOCs as an advocate for quality in education, it expresses some concerns about the current limitations of these technologies. The auditing process of the QAA does not cover MOOCs, and MOOCs generally do not offer credit. Thus, it can be said that the QAA only reminds students that they must be aware of the importance of accreditation in their certifications [22].

Studies argue that the challenges of MOOCs must be addressed through the development of several approaches to ensure the continuance of MOOCs in higher education. The wide range of eLearning undoubtedly gives the potential for reliability that can reduce the risk of low-quality standards. MOOCs, however, still need to find solutions to other eLearning matters, such as developing assessment, curriculum, learning, and teaching [23, 24].

Woodgate [25], for example, suggests two approaches that help to ensure the quality of MOOCs. The first is "academic course development," which encourages the use of quality templates according to a subject and a team view, including the experiment of platforms. The second is "community and transparency," which focuses on four points: talking to peers and asking for feedback; development of teams—not individuals; encouragement to think about resources beyond MOOC space; and sharing the practice, such as where useful resources are to be found.

Therefore, the primary focus of this chapter is the relationship between technological innovation and QA. Specifically, it aims to determine how QA can be adopted to help develop technological innovation in higher education. Although the literature review indicates that quality management, generally, cannot be separate from

*Perspective Chapter: Approaches to Quality Assurance and Technological Innovation in Higher… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.109668*

innovation, certain studies have questioned this relationship, suggesting that QA may impede, and the relationship seems to be more complex with regard to technological innovation that is applied in higher education ([11]: [10]).
