Practicing Continuous Improvement in the Classroom



Practicing Continuous Improvement in the Classroom

An Individual Journey toward Teaching Excellence

Sid Sytsma, Professor of Statistics and Quantitative Methods

College of Business - Ferris State University

Most faculty members who have heard about Total Quality Management (TQM) or Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI) probably understand it to be some Japanese management technique used by businesses to get better quality products. Some may even know that it involves meeting customer needs. Probably very few college faculty members, other than those directly involved in teaching CQI, have had the opportunity to learn CQI philosophy and methodology and the tremendous implications CQI has for improving virtually any process, including the teaching/learning process. For the purposes of this paper, we will use the terms TQM and CQI interchangeably.

The aims of this paper are

to provide a historical perspective on the quality movement,

to explain what the philosophy and practices of continuous improvement are all about,

to describe areas in which universities have successfully adopted continuous improvement models,

to explore the concept of "the customer" in the context of higher education,

to suggest ways of utilizing a continuous improvement philosophy to improve classroom teaching and student learning, and

to suggest ways that a university can support individual faculty in this effort.

The Quality Movement -- A Historical Perspective

The concept of quality has been with us since the beginning of time. As early as the creation of the world described in the Bible in Genesis, God pronounced his creation "good"-- e.g., acceptable quality. Artisans' and craftsmen's skills and the quality of their work are described throughout history. Typically the quality intrinsic to their products was described by some attribute of the products such as strength, beauty or finish. However, it was not until the advent of the mass production of products that the reproducibility of the size or shape of a product became a quality issue.

Quality, particularly the dimensions of component parts, became a very serious issue because no longer were the parts hand-built and individually fitted until the product worked. Now, the mass-produced part had to function properly in every product built. Quality was obtained by inspecting each part and passing only those that met specifications. This was true until 1931 when Walter A. Shewhart, a statistician at the Hawthorne plant at Western Electric published his book Economic Control of Quality of Manufactured Product (Van Nostrand, 1931). This book is the foundation of modern statistical process control (SPC) and provides the basis for the philosophy of total quality management or continuous process improvement for improving processes. With statistical process control, the process is monitored through sampling. Considering the results of the sample, adjustments are made to the process before the process is able to produce defective parts.

W. Edwards Deming, then in his 30's, worked as Walter Shewhart's assistant and protégé. Western Electric (now AT&T) was the first American firm to adopt this revolutionary approach to improving quality. At about the same time, Shewhart also developed a never-ending approach toward process improvement called the Shewhart Cycle (also known in Japan as the Deming Cycle and most frequently today in the United States as the Plan-Do-Check-Act or PDCA Cycle). This approach emphasizes the continuing, never-ending nature of process improvement.

The PDCA cycle is really a simple feedback loop system. PLAN--A plan is developed to improve a process. DO--The plan is tested in a small field test. CHECK--The results of the test are assessed. ACT--If successful, the plan is implemented. The improvement process begins again and the cycle is repeated. The repetition of the PDCA cycle, with each cycle producing improvement, leads us to the term continuous improvement.

During the early stages of World War II, America had a substantial problem with military ordnance (bombs, bullets, torpedoes, etc.). A team, called the whiz kids--including Shewhart, was put together as an attempt to improve ordnance performance. The team was highly successful in further refining SPC and utilizing it to improve the quality of weaponry.

After World War II, Deming and Shewhart presented lectures on SPC and the wartime refinements to it to American engineers and managers involved in manufacturing. Many engineers who heard were convinced and adopted the SPC philosophy. Most managers were more interested in meeting the world-wide pent-up demand for products and concentrated on making more product rather than better product. Thus, the management implications were largely ignored in America.

Both Deming and Shewhart were selected to go to Japan and participate in Japanese reconstruction efforts. They presented their lectures in Japan. The Japanese managers and engineers listened and adopted the philosophy. Within five years they had internalized the philosophy. By the early 1970's, the United States had begun to feel the competition. By the early 1980's the quality gap between Japan and the United States had become critical.

In 1982, Deming published his books Out of the Crisis and The New Economics for Industry, Government, and Education which laid out his application of process control and improvement theory to management. The concepts in these books are summarized in what is known as Deming's 14 Points. The 14 Points have become the centerpiece of the quality philosophies of many companies. Deming has two contemporaries who also have contributed greatly to the philosophical development of the quality improvement movement--Joseph M. Juran and Philip B. Crosby. Although their perspectives and approaches are somewhat different, their philosophies have more similarities than differences and all are rooted in the philosophy of continuous process improvement.

Today, most organizations that have successfully internalized a philosophy of continuous improvement have followed the approach of Deming, Juran, or Crosby. These organizations include manufacturing, service, health, education, military and government agencies. As a result of continuous improvement, America is once again becoming competitive.

TQM/CQI Philosophy and Practices

Today, a TQM-based management philosophy includes not only the core TQM/CQI concepts but also supporting concepts directly related to continuous improvement. These supporting concepts are natural extensions of, supportive of, and in many cases prerequisite to, successful implementation of a TQM/CQI philosophy in an organization.

Central Core Concepts

The concept of a system and systems analysis

Process variability, including common cause and special cause variation

Statistical process control and control charts to identify special cause variation

PDCA cycle to improve processes continuously by reducing common cause variation

Tools to identify the root cause problems of processes and to assist in implementing new processes

Supporting Concepts

Emphasis on customers, both internal and external, and their needs

Employee issues including:

Empowerment

Teams, including cross-functional and self-directed teams

The value of employees

Emphasis on education and training

The Concept of a System

Deming (1986, p. 319) defines a system as the entire organization. Deming's system is composed of management; management philosophy; employees; citizens of the country; all facets of government, including laws, taxes, trade barriers, et cetera; foreign governments; customers; shareholders; suppliers; environmental constraints; and banks and other financial entities. He believed strongly that the components of the system should work together like a symphony orchestra. He even believed that competitors formed part of the system and so taught the Japanese in the early 1950's. This is probably a major reason for the synchronization and cooperation of Japanese industry and America's difficulty in penetrating that market today.

Processes and Process Variability

The concept of process variability forms the heart of statistical process control. For example, if a basketball player shot free-throw in practice, and the player shot 100 free-throw every day, the player would not get exactly the same number of baskets each day. Some days the player would get 84 of 100, some days 67 of 100, some days 77 of 100, and so on. All processes have this kind of variation or variability.

This process variation can be partitioned into two components. Natural process variation, frequently called common cause or system variation, is the naturally occurring fluctuation or variation inherent in all processes. In the case of the basketball player, this variation would fluctuate around the player's long-run percentage of freethrows made. Whereas, special cause variation is typically caused by some problem or extraordinary occurrence in the system. In the case of the basketball player, a hand injury might cause the player to miss a larger than usual number of freethrows on a particular day.

Statistical Process Control

Shewhart's discovery, statistical process control or SPC, is a methodology for charting the process and quickly determining when a process is "out of control" (e.g., a special cause variation is present because something unusual is occurring in the process). The process is then investigated to determine the root cause of the "out of control" condition. When the root cause of the problem is determined, a strategy is identified to correct it. The investigation and subsequent correction strategy is frequently a team process and one or more of the TQM process improvement tools are used to identify the root cause. Hence, the emphasis on teamwork and training in process improvement methodology.

It is management's responsibility to reduce common cause or system variation as well as special cause variation. This is done through process improvement techniques, investing in new technology, or reengineering the process to have fewer steps and therefore less variation. Management wants as little total variation in a process as possible--both common cause and special cause variation. Reduced variation makes the process more predictable with process output closer to the desired or nominal value. The desire for absolutely minimal variation mandates working toward the goal of reduced process variation. The PDCA cycle, repeated many times, provides the mechanism for accomplishing continuing variation reduction or continuous improvement.

Customer Focus

A major tenet of TQM/CQI philosophy is the emphasis on the customer. This customer focus occurs because customers define what quality is in a product or service. External customers are those who buy or consume the final product. Internal customers are those in the production system who depend on others and other processes upstream from them. If Process A produces material for Process B, then Process B is an internal customer of Process A. If A's quality declines, it most certainly will affect B's quality.

Employee Issues

A final principle of TQM/CQI is the emphasis on the value of the employee. For continuous improvement to work, people must work together in teams and they must know how to solve problems and make decisions. They are empowered to make process-related decisions because they are closest to the process and know it best. This means employees need new skills--team-leading skills, problem-solving skills, decision-making skills, and personal interaction skills. This requires a significant continuing investment in education and training. Employees with these skills are valuable and are treated as such--with the respect and dignity commensurate with being a highly valued part of the organization.

College and University Adoption of Continuous Improvement Models

Many colleges and universities across the United States have adopted or are adopting the philosophy of continuous improvement in portions of their operations. This includes community colleges, for-profit post-secondary institutions, four-year colleges, and large public and private universities. In Michigan, these include the University of Michigan, Wayne State University, and Western Michigan University. All have made major commitments and are beginning to see improvements in processes across their campuses. Several other colleges and universities are just beginning the process.

In these institutions, virtually all of the TQM/CQI activities are taking place in areas within "business" types of processes. Activities such as parking services, financial aid, registration, telecommunications operations, and dining services are typical initial process improvement targets. In all of these, clearly the student is the primary external customer, and the fundamental aim of the quality improvement process is to improve the quality of service and product to the primary customer.

Of course many other processes are being improved as well, such as administrative payroll or staff parking. Focusing on processes such as these only indirectly impact the student. However, improvements in these areas affect the general quality of life on the campus, the morale of the staff, the culture of the university, and consequently the attitudes of the people in the organization toward their student customers.

These organizations have made a conscious and public decision to get better and better at what they do and how they treat people. They have made a decision to change from their existing cultures to a culture in which people are valued. Change has become a way of life, processes are analyzed and reengineered, process performance is measured regularly, and the resulting quality gains are celebrated. The public celebration of the quality gains made is an important ingredient in moving the university culture toward one that embraces the continuous improvement philosophy.

The quality improvement gains documented in many of these early attempts at process improvement in these universities are in some cases extremely large. When one talks to the process improvement teams, they are genuinely excited about what they have accomplished and are eager to share their experiences with others. The excitement generated in many of these organizations is contagious and becomes a major factor in improving the culture.

Given both the commitment of many universities to continuous improvement and their stated missions focusing on teaching and learning, one would expect that organized attempts to improve the teaching/learning process would abound. Unfortunately, this does not appear to be true. Only a very small proportion of articles in the TQM/CQI literature in higher education are concerned with the application of continuous improvement models to the teaching/learning process.

The Concept of the Customer in Higher Education

Universities have a variety of customers. One definition of customer is that of "a buyer of a product or service." Students take classes, consume meals, sleep in residence halls, buy books and use many services for which they pay tuition and fees. The student certainly fits this definition of the word customer. The businesses and professions that employ the graduates are also customers, as is the general public.

Universities have an almost infinite variety of internal customers as well. As we have seen, internal customers of a service are those individuals or entities whose product or service depends on that service. For example, the payroll department is a customer of the computer center because without the computer and the computer center the payroll does not get produced. The dean's office is a customer of the accounting department because the dean's office needs timely, accurate financial information to make appropriate decisions.

Most frequently, external customers have the freedom to choose their supplier, and in fact, do so. This is, for the most part, not true for internal customers. They are stuck. They must use their service provider, because it is their only option. This lack of competition frequently breeds contempt for internal customers.

When one begins to treat a person or entity as an external customer, one's attitude toward that person or entity changes. A customer is important. A customer is vital to the survival of the organization. The customer can choose another supplier if the quality of the service or the product is inferior or deteriorates.

One of the most important aspects of the TQM/CQI-focused organization is that departments begin to treat other departments as important customers by trying to meet the customer's needs and time schedules. This simple concept has an absolutely revolutionary effect on the relationships that exist within a traditional organization.

The idea of the student being the customer of a professor is a concept that takes many faculty members a while to assimilate. Certainly the student/faculty relationship is obviously far more complex than that of a simple customer-supplier relationship. Yet, clearly one dimension of this relationship involves the student as customer. The student is buying the professor's course and has the unmistakable right to expect certain things for his/her money: relevant course content, fairness, access, expertise, and a reasonable learning situation. If a faculty member views the student as a customer, it is likely that the faculty member will become more tolerant, more interested in implementing ways to improve the learning process, more accessible, and more student-friendly.

Many faculty members say that the student is not the customer, but is the product. However, upon closer review, it becomes evident that the student is not the product; the product is the learning of the students. Learning is a team effort between the professor and the student. Jointly, they produce a product--the learning of the student. Both parties are responsible participants in that process.

Utilizing a Continuous Improvement Philosophy to Improve Classroom Teaching and Student Learning

Clearly, the teaching and learning that take place within a course is a process, albeit a complex one. The product of the process is the learning of the student (Tribus,undated). Primary team members in the process are the professor and the student. Many other team members also exist in this complex system, including librarians, other faculty members, tutors, lab assistants, and other students. The businesses, industries, and professions served are also team members because they help to identify relevant course content. Maintenance and custodial personnel are team members because they have a direct effect on the quality of the learning environment. The professor, based on his/her experience and expertise, develops the plan for learning and a process that results in student mastery of the course material.

When we apply modern SPC analysis to student performance data derived from a typical college course, we find enormous variation compared to most manufacturing processes. The situation is similar to what existed in manufacturing in the pre-Shewhart days. Quality is obtained, like the pre-Shewhart days in manufacturing, by inspection. Those who do well on tests are graded acceptable and are passed. Those who do not perform acceptably are scrap--rejected totally, or are reworked. Society can no longer afford this wasteful model!

We must consider alternatives to many of our current educational practices. For example, we could

change our current grading practices to reflect the opportunity for improvement, such as retakes on tests, mastery learning, and outcomes-based evaluation.

adopt the philosophy that all students can learn and that our goal is to develop teaching/learning strategies that will lead us toward zero defects--no failures (Crosby, 1984).

believe that intelligence is the rate of learning and that natural variability exists in this --process like all others and can be accounted for in appropriate teaching/learning strategies.

consider published outcomes and guarantees in courses--for example, in a typing course if a student buys 35 words/minute and only achieves 25 words/minute, he/she can retake the course at no cost.

examine policies at the university that inhibit a CQI model (e.g., registration only three times per year, the need for streamlined methods to award incomplete (I) or in process (IP) grades, the need for variable credit, and course length alternatives to meet customer needs, et cetera).

For most faculty members today, the primary instructional process is based on the lecture. They learned the material this way, as did the person they learned it from, and likewise, the instructors before them… This process continues in spite of the fact that most faculty members know that the lecture is one of the least effective ways to deliver instruction, even when it is done extremely well.

Why haven't educators made more successful attempts to improve the teaching/learning process? There are many reasons. Some faculty members

see few reasons to change; most feel they are doing just fine.

are far better talking about change in others than about making changes in themselves.

do not know how to change; they have been taught no credible alternatives to their old ways.

fear giving up the power that they now feel they have.

are by nature poorly conditioned to take risks.

simply don't care.

Faculty members have been much more interested in learning new content than in learning to improve their teaching. This has a striking parallel to the differences between the United States and Japan in how research and development funds are expended. Historically in the United States, we have spent about 2/3 on new product research and 1/3 on new process research (Thurow, 1993). In Japan, those two figures are reversed. The result is that Japan can produce comparable product much more inexpensively than the United States can because of superior manufacturing technology. The point is that expenditures pay off.

In colleges and universities, most teaching faculty members are selected for their content expertise not their content delivery expertise. Most faculty research, faculty travel, and faculty consulting relates to content expertise, not to the effective sharing of that content with others. Most universities have not made significant investments in omnibus attempts to improve the teaching/learning process nor have their faculty invested their own time and effort to do it individually. Many faculty members have never even taken a course in how to teach; some scoff at the very idea.

It is time to rethink our traditional ideas of what teaching and learning are all about. It is time to apply what we know about process improvement to the teaching/learning process. Process improvement theory and practice has stood the test of time. It is successfully used in process improvement worldwide. It can be used to improve the process of teaching and learning in the classroom as well.

It is easier to apply CQI philosophy in the classroom than it is to apply it in practically any other place on earth. This is because of the flexibility and control that professors have in configuring their courses. If professors want to use a CQI philosophy, they can just do it. They don't even need to ask permission. It can be an individual journey toward teaching excellence.

What attitudes are necessary to utilize this methodology to improve classroom instruction?

An open mind

A willingness to change

A willingness to learn some new things--none of which are rocket science--about continuous improvement: SPC, CQI/TQM theory, process improvement tools, planning tools

A willingness to take some minor risks and give up some control

A willingness to carefully monitor/assess/evaluate the teaching/learning process

A willingness to assume a new role--that of learning facilitator-- in the teaching/learning process

A willingness to learn about some new instructional techniques and how to use them effectively

A willingness to try new and innovative teaching/learning strategies; discarding those that prove to be ineffective and keeping and improving those that work

What will be the likely effect?

A new spirit in the classroom

A reduced emphasis on grades; an increased emphasis on learning and outcomes

Higher expectations by students of what they can learn

Students leaving the class wanting to continue to learn

An increase in student performance with reduced variation

Teams helping each other learn; teams helping the professor to continue to learn

How can one get started?

Read some of the articles cited in the references at the conclusion of this paper. The undated Tribus and Barr articles are particularly worthwhile. Research the topic for yourself. Be as concerned about the teaching/learning process as you are about your course content.

Talk to faculty members who are trying different strategies of instruction. Discover the effect these strategies have had on these faculty members' classes. Educational research clearly shows that only a few instructional strategies will lead to large (greater than two standard deviations) increases in student learning. These include the use of a mastery learning model with reteaching and retesting, instructor or peer tutoring, collaborative/participative learning (e.g., teams), and the uses of new technologies such as multimedia and the Internet.

Just do it. Try a new method for teaching a course topic. You needn't do a whole course. Remember, improvement comes step by step. Apply the PDCA model. Measure the resulting student learning. If you feel it works and can be further refined, continue to do so. If it clearly doesn't work, try something else. Ask the students if something is working or not and what they think might work. Use their ideas. After all, they are the customers.

Ways in Which a University can Support Individual Faculty Members in This Effort

One of the most wonderful things that could happen in a university would be for all professors to adopt a continuous improvement model--a very personal decision. Clearly, this is highly unlikely. If a university wants to support a high level of TQM/CQI in the classroom and increase the probability that individual faculty members choose to adopt a continuous improvement approach to teaching and learning, the university must change its behavior. Climate, resources, and rewards are prerequisites to long-term success in this endeavor.

Climate

Many faculty members would be encouraged to pursue a TQM/CQI approach to teaching/learning if a continuous improvement model was being practiced consistently within the rest of the university. For a substantial cross-section of faculty members to adopt the new philosophy in the classroom, credible examples of success in other areas would increase the probability of acceptance. For this to happen, the institution must make a long-term commitment to the philosophy; otherwise, adoption would be but a small fraction of what could be possible.

For a TQM/CQI philosophy to be adopted by a professor requires some risk taking. For faculty members to take risk, a climate must exist in which risk-taking is encouraged. This means that faculty members must trust the leadership and that the leadership must exhibit a genuine interest in what is happening with individual faculty members. Faculty members must feel valued and must believe that what they are doing is important to the college or university leadership.

Support Resources

For faculty to adopt a continuous improvement model in teaching/learning, education and training is essential. The following topics are prerequisite:

Knowledge of continuous improvement theory and practice

Using quality tools to improve teaching and learning

Knowledge of which instructional techniques and strategies work in different instructional situations.

Training on how to select the most appropriate technique for a particular topic and audience and how to effectively utilize that technique

Measuring the performance of instructional processes

How can this be accomplished?

A teaching and learning center with the appropriate expertise, the right funding, and a mission centered on a continuous improvement model for teaching and learning can be the focal point for faculty members to change their learning/teaching paradigms and to successfully implement a continuous improvement model in their classroom.

For such a center to be successful, the following ingredients must be present:

The mission of the teaching and learning center must be centered on the continuous improvement of teaching and learning, and focused on disseminating techniques that work with students.

The expertise in the center must be viewed as expert by the university community.

The center must be adequately funded so that faculty with needs outside the expertise of the center can have their needs met elsewhere with funding from the center.

The center should rely on existing faculty expertise and organized support clusters comprised of faculty who are at various stages of the continuous improvement process to assist newcomers in learning what TQM/CQI is all about.

The center should rely on existing faculty expertise and organized support clusters comprised of faculty who are using particular teaching techniques effectively to advise instructors who would like to use a new teaching technique.

The center must have state-of-the-art facilities, including computer resources with ties to electronic instructional resources outside the university, and staffed with personnel who know how to access these resources to solve a particular problem.

The center must be customer-focused and practice the TQM/CQI philosophy in its own management and operation.

Rewards

Probably the most important reward to a teacher is intrinsic--that of making a difference in the life of a student. And that, frankly, is what is going to motivate most faculty to get involved. If applying this methodology can improve learning, faculty are going to be more successful in what they do. Success is its own reward.

Public celebrations of successes are important too (With thanks and appreciation, October 17, 1995). This includes recognition of teams that have improved products, and recognition of faculty who have documented major gains in improvement in student learning, not just the best one or ones--all of them. It's the commitment to the process that's important. The more gains there are to celebrate, the further the institution has moved in a positive direction. The gains, and their celebration, are ultimately what change the culture and improve the institution as a whole.

The question of prizes, stipends, or salary increases to reward people for continuous improvement is a complex topic with many ramifications. There is no published research that I have found that demonstrates that monetary rewards cause improved performance among professors. It seems obvious, however, that an organization that values continuous improvement should reward people for their attempts at implementing it. Organizations should not claim that continuous improvement is important and then reward their employees for something else.

Some Concluding Thoughts

Our goal, as educators, must be to change our teaching/learning process from one which is dependent on inspection to obtain quality to one in which the teaching/learning process itself guarantees quality. Application of the TQM/CQI philosophy can move us toward that goal.

Adoption of CQI/TQM in the classroom will occur on two levels--individual faculty adoptions and large-scale institutional adoptions.

Individual Faculty Adoption

If a professor chooses to adopt the new philosophy, he/she can do it quickly. Learning about TQM/CQI is not difficult. Adopting new teaching strategies and monitoring them is well within the expertise of any faculty member. Every faculty member has the power to begin implementation in the classroom tomorrow. The toughest part is making the decision to change. Just do it.

Institutional Adoption

Obviously, a genuine institutional CQI adoption will provide the greatest gains. There are three reasons for this. First, more faculty will adopt the new philosophy and begin the continuous improvement journey. Second, the body of knowledge and expertise both in continuous improvement techniques and in effective teaching/strategies will be greater and consequently the gains will be greater and more rapid. Third, institutional adoption brings institutional resources to bear on the effort. This makes a systems approach to the effort possible, leading to synchronization and coordination of efforts and, therefore, greater gains. Because the knowledge and skills in basic courses are prerequisite to the learning that is possible in the more advanced courses (a true supplier/customer model), the potential gains possible from an integrated systems approach to teaching/learning are potentially very large.

If a university wishes to move its organization toward a culture that embraces positive change, the leadership of the university must lead the way. Leaders, including members the governing board and senior administrators, must not only "talk the talk," but they must "walk the talk." They must not only talk quality, they must demonstrate it in their management style (Glasser, 63-64). In addition, and perhaps most importantly, the university leadership must have the trust and respect of the university community (Glasser, 18-24). Adopting a TQM/CQI model institutionally requires the courage to make the change, the commitment to see it through, the financial resources necessary to make it possible, and the willingness to lead by example.

References

Aguayo, R. (1990). Dr. Deming: The American Who Taught the Japanese about Quality. New York: Lyle Stuart.

Baugher, K. (September 1993 and October 1993). Using student teams to improve teaching and learning. TQM in Higher Education.

Barr, R. A. and Tagg, J. (December, 1995). From teaching to learning--a new paradigm for undergraduate education. Change Magazine. 13-25.

Bateman, G. and Roberts, H. (November, 1993). TQM for professors and students. TQM in Higher Education.

Brassard, M. (1993). The Memory Jogger+. Meuthuen, MA:GOAL/QPC.

Chaffee, E. and Sherr, L. (1992). Quality: Transforming Postsecondary Education. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 3. Washington, D. C.: The George Washington University, School of Education and Human Development.

Cornesky, R. (1993). The Quality Professor. Madison, WI: Magna Publications.

Cornesky R., McCool S., Byrnes L., Weber R. (1991). Implementing Total Quality Management in Higher Education. Madison, WI: Magna Publications, Inc.

Crosby, P. (1984). Quality Without Tears: The Art of Hassle-Free Management. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Deming, W. E. (1986). Out of the Crisis. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Center for Advanced Engineering Study.

Deming, W. E. (1993). The New Economics for Industry, Government, Education. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Center for Advanced Engineering Study.

Feigenbaum, A. V. (1983). Total Quality Control 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Glasser, W. (1995). The Control Theory Manager. New York: HarperCollins Publishers.

Holecek, D. and Hadgraft, R.G. (1993). Can TQM work in a civil engineering department? proceedings of the 5th Annual Conference of the Australasian Association for Engineering Education. 284-289.

Hillmer, S. C. (January, 1994). A problem-solving approach to teaching business statistics. paper presented at the Winter Meeting of the American Statistical Association.

Ishikawa, K. (1985). What Is Total Quality Control? The Japanese Way. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Juran, J. M. (1989). Juran on Leadership for Quality. New York: The Free Press.

Kachurick, J. (February, 1994). TQM empowers students. TQM in Higher Education.

Kimbler, D. L. (undated). Teaching while using TQM methods.http:\\deming.eng.clemson.edu/pub/tqmbbs/education/teachtqm.txt

Lamkin, J. (May, 1994). TQM in the classroom: converting a course to quality. TQM in Higher Education.

Lezotte, L. (1992). Creating the Total Quality Effective School. Okemos, MI: Effective School Products Products, Inc.

With thanks and appreciation (October 17, 1995). M-Quality Expo '95 Program. p.10.

Moore, D. R. (Jan/Feb, 1993). TQM and radical change in education. Journal for Quality and Participation.

Orsini, J. N. (May, 1985). The quality-productivity connection. The United States Banker.

Scherkenback, W. W. (1986). The Deming Road to Quality and Productivity: Road Maps and Road Blocks. Washington, D.C.:CEEP Press.

Schoenfeld, C. (July, 1993). Listen to the people you serve. TQM in Higher Education.

Shewhart, W. A. (1931). Economic Control of Quality of Manufactured Product. New York: Van Nostrand-Reinhard. reprinted by the American Society for Quality Control, Milwaukee, WI (1980).

Stubblefield, J. (November, 1995). Satisfying the ultimate user. TQM in Higher Education.

Teeter, D. and Lozier, G. (1993). Pursuit of Quality in Higher Education: Case Studies in Total Quality Management. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publications.

Thurow, L. (1993). Head to Head: The Coming Battle Among Japan, Europe, and America. New York: Warner.

Tribus, M. (October, 1994). New ideas come more easily to those accustomed to change. TQM in Higher Education.

Tribus, M. (undated). Total quality management in schools of business and engineering. http:\\deming.eng.clemson.edu/pub/tqmbbs/education/busengtq.zip

Walker, S. (September, 1995). Applying SPC to the ABCS. Public Sector Quality Report.

REVEALING EXAMPLES: DEMING'S QUALITY MANAGEMENT TRAINING

Deming's Philosophy of Quality Management

Dr. Terry Halwes

Common sense informs us that quality is expensive. Psychologists who study skilled action refer to this as the "speed/accuracy tradeoff": you can work faster, but only at the expense of reduced accuracy; you can be more accurate, but only by taking time to be more careful. To create manufactured products of higher quality, for example, you must hire more experienced, better trained (and higher paid) workers or give them more time to do the work, inspect the finished pieces more carefully, and so on.

However, we now know that by adopting appropriate principles of management, organizations can increase quality and simultaneously reduce costs (by reducing waste, rework, staff attrition and litigation while increasing customer loyalty).

The management systems philosophy of Dr. W. Edwards Deming, an American physicist and statistician who taught in Japan during the decades following World War II, is already familiar to nearly all Japanese adults and to many Americans. Japan's most valued quality award, the Deming Prize, is named for him. Several other American consultants also contributed to the effort, and the Japanese, with their help, created a system out of what had been several more or less unconnected insights. Then, in the early 80s, this "Quality Revolution" came back to America, sparked by an NBC News White Paper If Japan Can...Why Can't We?. It tells how the Japanese captured the world auto and electronics markets by following Deming's advice to practice continual improvement and think of manufacturing as a system, not as bits and pieces.

Workers work in the system, which management created or allowed to continue. Management must work on the system to improve the process. With instruction, workers can be enlisted in this improvement.

To study the processes that make up their system, management must involve those who actually use those processes -- the people who actually do the work. The people who build the product or provide the service are the only people who really understand the processes that management has assigned them. The role of management changes from giving orders and giving out punishments and rewards, to leading and supporting the workers in improving quality.

If the workers are to succeed in studying the processes they use and in creating ways of improving them, they must have several kinds of support. For example, they must be given the understanding that change is possible and that management is committed to supporting them in studying and improving the system; they must receive training in their new job -- training in process improvement and in other skills they will need, as well as in Deming's philosophy of management; and their suggestions must be put into effect and the results studied. (An inappropriate suggestion must be discussed openly -- also, further training may be indicated.)

In Deming's presentation the changes that must be made by management, if any transformation is to succeed, are known as the Fourteen Points. As an example, Point 3 is: "Cease dependence on mass inspection." Inspecting a product as it comes off the line and either scrapping or reworking the defective items is expensive. "In effect, a company is paying workers to make defects and then to correct them. Quality comes not from inspection but from improvement in the process" (Mary Walton, Deming Management At Work, p. 17).

Along with making changes according to the Fourteen Points, management must avoid or remove each of Seven Deadly Diseases, along with several Obstacles. Dr. Deming feels that the Obstacles, like "Hope for instant pudding" (sudden improvement accomplished by "affirmation of faith") are somewhat easier to cure than the Deadly Diseases, such as "Lack of constancy of purpose," "Emphasis on short-term profits," " Mobility of management." Sadly, though, several of the Diseases and Obstacles are exactly what American business schools teach.

The Books, Web pages and videos listed in Resources for Learning About Quality Management give clear discussions of the Fourteen Points, the Deadly Diseases and the Obstacles, and the process-improvement tools. Here, though, our attention turns now to what happens once the various aspects of Deming's system are understood.

A lot of work, that's what happens! Putting Deming's philosophy into effect makes many jobs harder, not easier. The saving grace is that the work is much more interesting and more enjoyable; everyone may have begun working harder, but they will tend to be less tired. "By managing the process, you free up people to do what they want to do anyway. It's like being in a phone booth. You can turn around, but you can't move very far. Management's job is to continue to move the walls back." (Quote from Bob Dorn, chief engineer at G.M's Cadillac division; The New York Times, Sunday, January 26, 1992, business section, in the article "Take This Job And Love It.")

The organization's "culture" will change dramatically. Competition among individuals and among departments will be replaced with cooperation. Inter- and intra-personal tension will be reduced, and the ability to use intelligence to benefit oneself and others will be enhanced.

The training everyone has been receiving will have included an invitation to "first, pick the low hanging fruit" (using the colorful Japanese phrase). Some opportunities for improvement may be relatively easy to spot, and the benefit to the system of making the change may also be easy to document. Every individual will then have a chance to see that the new system is working.

Unfortunately, the supply of low-hanging fruit will surely be limited; sooner or later, more difficult problems will have to be addressed. However, the effort to reach higher will make the group more flexible, more agile; difficult today, easier tomorrow.

As everyone begins to understand more and more deeply not only that the transformation to producing quality is working, but how it is working, it will naturally tend to spread. Suppliers will tend to be selected for their willingness and ability to join in. Customers will be invited to help out with the problem-solving efforts. The teams will become more and more fed up with the meager supply of well - educated potential employees, and efforts will begin to extend the transformation to the institutions that are responsible for education and training. The government, the churches, medical facilities, service agencies of all sorts -- even competitors can be invited to participate in developing and continually improving a healthy society.

Deming's book, Out Of The Crisis (p. 246), William G. Hunter tells the story of a group of mechanics working for the city of Madison, Wisconsin. They developed a plan for preventive maintenance and presented evidence of the savings expected to the Mayor. His response was "You know how to find problems, you know how to solve them, and you wish to solve them. We should get out of your way and let you do it. I am very impressed with what you have shown us here today, and we are going to extend these methods to other departments in the city." Later offered payment for taking Deming's seminar and working on improvements on their own time, they answered "No, thanks. We are doing this stuff on the Deming Way because we are really interested. It is important to us. We are not doing it to get paid."

SPC Tools - Control charts

Processes that are not in a state of statistical control

show excessive variations

exhibit variations that change with time

A process in a state of statistical control is said to be statistically stable. Control charts are used to detect whether a process is statistically stable. Control charts differentiates between variations

that is normally expected of the process due chance or common causes

that change over time due to assignable or special causes

Control charts: common cause variations

Variations due to common causes

have small effect on the process

are inherent to the process because of:

the nature of the system

the way the system is managed

the way the process is organised and operated

can only be removed by

making modifications to the process

changing the process

are the responsibility of higher management

Control charts: special cause variations

Variations due to special causes are

localised in nature

exceptions to the system

considered abnormalities

often specific to a

certain operator

certain machine

certain batch of material, etc.

Investigation and removal of variations due to special causes are key to process improvement

Note: Sometimes the delineation between common and special causes may not be very clear

Control charts: how they work

The principles behind the application of control charts are very simple and are based on the combined use of

run charts

hypothesis testing

The procedure is

sample the process at regular intervals

plot the statistic (or some measure of performance), e.g.

mean

range

variable

number of defects, etc.

check (graphically) if the process is under statistical control

if the process is not under statistical control, do something about it

What is Quality?

David Straker

This article first appeared Quality World, the journal of the Institute for Quality Assurance

-- part 1 -- part 2 -- part 3 -- part 4 --

-- Print-friendly one-page --

The domain of the quality professional has changed. From its humble beginnings in manufacturing, it is now expected, along with other infrastructure professions, such as IT, HR and finance, to contribute at the organisational level. Unlike those other professions, quality expertise can be hard to define, perhaps because there are many views of what business-level quality means. David Straker considers current definitions of ‘quality’ and offers a new one, considering its ramifications for the quality profession.

At its simplest level, quality answers two questions: ‘What is wanted?’ and ‘How do we do it?’ Accordingly, quality’s stomping ground has always been the area of processes. From the bread and butter of ISO 9000, to the heady heights of TQM, quality professionals specify, measure, improve and re-engineer processes to ensure that people get what they want.

So where are we now?

There are as many definitions of quality as there are quality consultants, but commonly accepted variations include:

‘conformance to requirements’ - Crosby

‘fitness for use’ - Juran

‘the totality of characteristics of an entity that bear on its ability to satisfy stated and implied need’ - ISO 8402:1994

quality models for business, including the Deming Prize, the EFQM excellence model and the Baldrige award

So what is wrong?

Philip Crosby’s definition is easily toppled: if requirements are wrong, then failure is guaranteed. His focus is the domain of QA where, without a specification, quality cannot be measured and thus controlled. You cannot have zero defects if you do not have a standard against which to measure defectiveness.

This reflects the early days, where quality was clearly about product. Quality control, and later QA, was our domain - we didn’t care about customers; the research and design department was responsible for designing the job and sales and marketing for selling it. But those halcyon days of definitive specifications and jobs for life are long gone.

Though Juran takes a step further down the value chain, to the use of the product or service (at which point customers had forced their way into the frame), he still presupposes that we can fully understand how the product will be used, which is a great challenge (and not always possible). As Deming himself said, some things are ‘unknown and unknowable’.

ISO 8402 recognises this uncertainty with its ‘implied need’. It uses the word ‘entity’ as opposed to the ‘product or service’ definition of its earlier (1986) version, indicating a broadening uncertainty. Nonetheless, it suffers again from a simplistic, single-minded focus - all we need to do is to figure out what is wanted and then deliver it.

The quality models are a step further into broader business. Here, although processes are important, quality is much more about people: customers are there, but so too are stakeholders - employees, partners, suppliers, shareholders and society. Perhaps wisely, the models avoid nailing down a specific definition of quality, leaving us without a definition that encompasses a broader business view.

ISO9000:2000 steps in this direction also, talking about ‘customer and other interested parties’, but leaves the definition of quality at a rather generalised ‘degree to which a set of inherent characteristics fulfils requirements’.

Next -->

© 2002-2004

What is Quality?

David Straker

-- part 1 -- part 2 -- part 3 -- part 4 --

-- Print-friendly one-page --

Initial problems

Let’s face it, quality is difficult to define. We want to be precise, to create a quality definition, yet language is limited. Nor does it help that our domain has expanded from the relatively- constrained factory floor into the open realms of a broader business context, and beyond that, to environmental and social domains.

The IQA dallies with all of the above definitions on its website (), demonstrating the difficulty of naming quality. In the end, it plumps for a customer focus of quality that ranges throughout the product/service chain: this is still is not enough.

The perception of ‘quality’ as almost impossible to define, is not confined to our profession; in 'The Timeless Way of Building', architect Christopher Alexander calls it ‘the quality without a name’. In the same way that we know a good room when we use one, but cannot define exactly what makes it good, we can name its attributes of quality, but cannot define quality itself. One way to find a good definition of anything is to take a broader view. Alexander does this in his definition of a ‘pattern language’ for architecture, which reduces the whole of building and town design to 252 simple rule-sets. So can we find a new definition for quality by looking at the bigger picture?

A new beginning

Now for the audacious part: having knocked the existing definitions of quality and acknowledged that definition is not easy, let’s try it nonetheless. In the words of Susan Jeffers, we should ‘feel the fear and do it anyway’. The focus of our definition will remain in the general business arena. This is where most of us make our living. What if we follow the early quality mandate and ensure that we meet requirements? Of course, we can go out of business by producing goods that do not sell. So, strike the product/requirements-only focus.

What if we gave customers everything they wanted? What if they were totally delighted? Sounds good. But what if it cost us so much that we failed to make a profit? Again, we would go out of business. We need customers and products and services to satisfy them, but this is not enough. Why are businesses started? - To meet the needs of the people who start them, of course. So we must also meet the needs of the owners of companies, not all of whom are interested solely in money. Bill Hewlett and Dave Packard started HP to make a difference to society while having fun with the electronic engineering that was their passion. But they were aware that they had to make a profit to pay for their higher goals. Public companies are less egalitarian and have to toe the line that analysts and shareholders demand, which means a return on investment.

Effectiveness and efficiency are words we often use to define quality. Effectiveness is about meeting requirements, usually of customers. Efficiency is doing this at a minimal cost, which meets shareholders’ needs. Could we just focus on these? Skip the carpets and cafeterias; pay people the absolute minimum. Perhaps not, as in these times of hyper-competitiveness and scarce talent, your people are your most important asset. Employees have both needs and legs, and if the former are not met, the latter get into action; when you ask too much of your people, those with ‘get up and go’ are the first to do just that. We can be effective and efficient and still go out of business as our best employees leave and the rest repay our lack of care for them with a lack of care for us.

There are still people who can drive us out of business, from uncooperative suppliers and partners to environmental pressure groups and punitive governments. Where is the common thread? The phrase most commonly heard is ‘going out of business’. Deming recognised this when he pointed out that survival is optional. This is all somewhat negative, so let’s turn it around and say:

Quality means

staying in business

What is Quality?

David Straker

-- part 1 -- part 2 -- part 3 -- part 4 --

-- Print-friendly one-page --

Testing the definition

A good definition will withstand all kinds of serious criticism. What about those people who need things? Staying in business means keeping them all reasonably happy, so this works. What about growth? This is an interesting question: why do so many companies seek to grow constantly? If shareholders demand growth, and will take their money elsewhere otherwise, then it is still about staying in business. If our competitors grow, we need to grow to stay in the game.

Growth can be a management trap: if it leads to over-extension or unmanageable diversity, such that the business fails, this is not a quality situation. To quote Ricardo Semler1: ‘The biggest myth in the corporate world is that every business needs to keep growing to be successful. That’s baloney. The ultimate measure of a business’ success, I believe, is not how big it gets, but how long it survives.’

One of the frustrations we meet in quality is the focus on longer-term company survival; we know that products containing defects will lead to dissatisfied customers. We know that incomplete customer knowledge impairs our ability to correct external problems and repair internal processes. But we come up constantly against managers who are working on short-term problems, such as getting a delivery out today or pacifying an angry customer on the phone. So who is right, given our new definition of quality? The answer is both. Our perspectives may be different and we can both benefit from sharing one another's concerns, but we both want to stay in business, which means focusing on both the short- and long-term.

How do we stay in business?

If quality means staying in business, how do we do that? Perhaps there is no single, simple answer, but by exploring the issue, including going back-to-basics, we can take a few steps in the right direction.

What is business?

While we are rushing in where angels fear to tread, perhaps we should scrutinise what we mean by ‘business’. At its most fundamental, business is barter: I will swap you two sheep for one cow; I will invest in your business if you give me a good chance of getting rich quicker than the bank. What makes barter work is that we value things differently, for example - I have plenty of sheep but no milk. Business is not so much barter as value exchange.

If business were just about customers and ourselves, it would be easy. We would find what they wanted, make it and sell it to them. But it is not that simple: our problems begin when we find we are at the crossroads of many exchanges of value. There are shareholders, employees, customers, suppliers, partners and governments, all engaged in a complex web of value exchange.

To make things worse, we cannot make all of the people happy all the time. With a limited pool of resources, we try to keep customers happy, while being profitable enough for shareholders, while paying our suppliers (eventually), while paying for the new employee rest rooms. Sorry folks, but there is not enough cash to go around. Like any paymaster, we will need to make some tough decisions.

Staying in business then, means playing a dynamic balancing game, optimising value exchange, with an awareness of the very real resource limitations with which we work. This gives us a second level of detail we can use for our quality definition:

Quality means

optimising the whole system

of value exchange

© 2002-2004

Success through Understanding

What is Quality?

David Straker

-- part 1 -- part 2 -- part 3 -- part 4 --

-- Print-friendly one-page --

What does this mean for quality?

Casting a keen quality eye over this revised definition may lead to a certain queasiness. Optimising means making compromises but we have technology: remember Mr Pareto and his law, and Juran’s ‘vital few’. We are not counting defects but units of value, in terms of value created and of the levels and types of value required to keep each player in the game.

A simple conceptual model is to imagine everyone putting coins into a central pot and then taking them out again at a later time. As long as there is money in the pot, and there are people to play, the game continues. Staying in business means keeping the game going.

A consideration within this game is that some players can easily leave. When they are critical value contributors (as customers often are), they can demand a higher level of value in return. This can lead to low-value customers which many of us tolerate under the ‘customer is always right’ banner. What we sometimes forget is that if someone is taking too much out of the pot, they can be asked to leave.

If quality is making this game work, then quality professionals need to understand the game. It does not mean abandoning our concern for customers and products: far from it. But it does mean optimising the system so that the whole thing continues to operate. Blind quality is what killed TQM in many companies. Why should I map my processes? - Because it is the right thing to do. Why do I need to empower everyone? - Because it works. The revised view of quality proposed here pushes against such mantras. Thus, one more defining statement is:

Quality means

understanding and optimising

the whole system

of value exchange

If we are to accept this definition, the most important result is that it changes the what we must do as quality professionals. We must act on the words: understanding, optimising, system, value and exchange. It means understanding how things truly work, both individually and as systems. It means understanding people, what they value and how they effectively trade with others. And it means working out how these imperfect systems can be optimised so our businesses thrive.

An ancient Chinese emperor once asked his wise counsellor’s advice for the greatest thing that could happen. The counsellor said: ‘Grandfather dies, father dies, son dies.’

The emperor was shocked at such a morbid suggestion until he realised that changing this sequence would bring a far greater sadness. The same applies to our companies, which are often much like our children. We can change and advise them in many ways, but the greatest thing we can do is to give them the strength to outlive us.

References

2 Harvard Business Review, September/October, 2000

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download