World Class University[TM]--the implementation of strategic quality management (SQM).
Pryor, Mildred Golden ; Hendrix, Mary ; Alexander, Christine 等
INTRODUCTION
World Class denotes standard-setting excellence in terms of design,
performance, quality, customer satisfaction, and value when compared
with all similar items ... in the world
(http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/world-class.html). The
successful implementation of Strategic Quality Management enables
organizations, including universities, to move toward world class
status. Through such implementation, universities and their stakeholders
have the potential for great impact on their communities and society in
general. Therefore, it is essential that university leaders make a
commitment to performance excellence and implement excellence
initiatives throughout their respective universities.
The concept of organization-wide improvement initiatives may seem
counter-intuitive to some organizational leaders which will cause a
decrease in implementation speed and process improvement. As a result,
only pockets of excellence may exist at those universities. Even when
university leaders want to rapidly move forward with organization-wide
improvement initiatives, it is sometimes difficult for them to
operationally activate the execution of their improvement plans because
of the complexity of their organizations and the multiple initiatives
that compete for their time and energy (Pryor, Anderson, Humphreys,
& Toombs, 2008; Winter, 1998).
This study includes realistic examples of concepts and tools that
are essential for the implementation of Strategic Quality Management in
any organization. In addition, details are provided that demonstrate
their specific application to universities that are seeking world class
status.
LITERATURE REVIEW
For a number of years, there have been criticisms levied against
educational institutions. Various researchers (Bowden & Marton,
1998; Haworth & Conrad, 1997; Padro, 2009; Tierney, 1998) tend to
believe that at the heart of the criticisms there is a crisis of
confidence. These researchers indicate that the causes of the confidence
crisis include the failure of educational leaders to respond
appropriately to public concerns and to the needs of students as well as
the rapid deterioration of standards in higher education. Recently, the
number and urgency of the criticisms have increased dramatically.
Anttila (2009) emphasized that "In most countries, education
systems are subject to severe criticism, in particular, because of
resistance to change, inability to cope with serious and complex
problems facing contemporary people" (p. 91). Karapetrovic,
Rajamani, and Willborn (1999, pp. 81-94) and Dyer (1997, pp. 66-71)
indicate that Tom Keenan, dean of continuing education at the University
of Calgary warned that "Those (universities) not prepared to pick
up the ball and run like mad will not survive." Anttila (2009)
further emphasizes the need for urgency when she states, "We speak
today, more strongly, of a revolution in education" (p. 91). Bond
and Kelsey (2001) offer another reason for urgency for public colleges
and universities, i.e., customer satisfaction when some of the customers
are "citizens who fund public educational institutions (and who)
demand higher accountability" (p. 59). Srikanthan and Dalrymple
(2004, p. 276) agree with Bond and Kelsey in terms of accountability and
suggest that the assurance of quality requires "improvement and
accountability ... (and) the focus should be on improvement with
accountability being a consequence." Babbar (1995) challenges
educational leaders and faculty members to work to ensure excellence in
education and emphasizes, "It is the quality of education that
shapes the long-term prosperity and wellbeing of both nations and their
people" (p.35).
Banta (2002, 1999), Banta, Lund, Black, and Oblander (1995) and
Ewell (2008, 2007a, 2007b, 2007c) address the need for accountability
and assessment to ensure continuous improvement. While much of their
work is on institutional effectiveness and degree program improvement,
Banta (2002, 1999), Banta, et al (1995), and Ewell (2008, 2007a,b,c)
remind us that the improvement most needed is in student learning.
Therefore, they encourage university leaders and others to have a sense
of urgency as they make assessment, accountability, and excellence an
integral part of their learning systems.
Accountability requires integrity and a commitment to excellence as
well as the creation of different expectations regarding quality,
success, and results. Organizational leaders understand accountability.
However, it seems to be difficult for some of them to implement
accountability approaches that ensure improvement in institutions of
higher education because of organizational complexity. The National
Commission on Accountability in Education (2005) cautioned that
decentralized systems as well as complexity are reasons for the failure
(of educational institutions) to develop accountability approaches that
improve performance.
Padro (2009) indicates that "learner outcome indicators are
replacing traditional indicators based on ... budgeting ... " (p.
10). Padro (2009) suggests that university administrators "need to
rethink how they view ... institutional performance" (p. 11). For
their respective universities, they need to rethink (1) identity,
mission, and vision; (2) curricula; (3) relationship with stakeholders;
(4) definition of quality; and (5) verifiable performance results.
Anninos (2007) addresses some of the challenges that universities
face, such as "the need for accountability, the focus on the
economic perspective of higher education and funding related issues, the
appearance of new types of higher education institutions, the
globalization and increasing competition among universities, university
networking activities, and the diversification of student body"
(307). The authors concur with Anninos (2007) who indicates that the
pursuit of quality in mission attainment demonstrates that excellence
serves as a "basic objective, a reference criterion, and a seal of
efficient and effective university management and operation" (p.
308). Implementation of Strategic Quality Management (SQM) will help
university leaders address many of the challenges and problems they and
their respective universities face. Also SQM can be the foundation for
their efforts to achieve world class status based on integrity as well
as improvement in key performance indicators related to efficiency and
effectiveness.
STRATEGIC QUALITY MANAGEMENT (SQM) IMPLEMENTATION
The following discussions indicate many of the necessary steps in
the implementation of Strategic Quality Management. In addition,
excerpts from the strategic plan of World Class University[TM] are
provided.
Gain Consensus
While consensus on the implementation of an organization-wide
improvement initiative would be beneficial, Dr. Deming (1986) indicated
that it would be advantageous to move forward even if only 10% of the
people were positive about the effort. The effort would take longer to
put in place, but at least it would be moving forward. In a university
setting, it is often difficult to get consensus on minor issues, and it
is almost impossible on change initiatives which impact the whole
organization. In order to move forward, with or without consensus,
organizational leaders should develop and distribute an improvement plan
which is integrated into the strategic plan for the university. To be
the most successful, an excellence or quality initiative should be an
integral part of strategic and tactical operations of the university.
Therefore, our terminology for the implementation of an improvement
initiative is Strategic Quality Management (SQM) Implementation Plan.
Create an SQM Implementation Plan
While one person (or a small team) could be responsible for its
formulation, the SQM implementation plan should be developed using input
from a vertical and horizontal microcosm of the organization so that it
is representative of many viewpoints. In addition, focus groups
(including the top leaders and middle level administrators) should be
held so that they can impact the plan from the leadership perspective.
Communicate the SQM Plan
As soon as the basic rudiments of the SQM plan are developed, they
should be widely distributed throughout the university so that all
employees have opportunities to provide input to the final plan. Then
the final SQM plan should be integrated into the university's
strategic and tactical plans as well as those plans for colleges and
other sub-units throughout the university. While email is an expedient
way to disseminate information, when strategic and tactical plans are
being developed, intranet, focus groups, formal unit communication
channels, and other methods should also be used.
Integrate SQM into Strategic and Tactical Plans
It should not be too difficult for university leaders to integrate
an improvement initiative into strategic and tactical plans if they are
personally and professionally committed to the achievement of
performance excellence. An example entitled World Class University[TM]is
provided which demonstrates how to integrate quality goals, strategies,
and tactics into the university strategic plan.
Assess Existing Improvement Initiatives
Whatever improvement initiatives exist, they should all be aligned
with Strategic Quality Management as the overall umbrella. Examples of
existing improvement initiatives are: (1) "green" (i.e.,
sustainability or environmental) initiatives; (2) ISO 9000 assessments;
(3) the use of Malcolm Baldrige Quality Award Criteria for assessment
and improvement as well as award application; (4) the use of Six Sigma
teams to analyze and improve processes (e.g., course and curriculum
approval processes; and (5) accreditation efforts.
While they may be entitled something else, most universities have
ongoing improvement initiatives. For example, accreditation standards
now include continuous improvement as a requirement. So, as university
employees are preparing for accreditation agency visits, they must
demonstrate improvements in curricula, courses, measurement systems,
etc. Examples of the many accreditation agencies are (1) Southern
Association of Colleges and Schools (one of six regional accreditation
agencies); (2) Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business
(AACSB); (3) National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education
(NCATE); and (4) the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology
(ABET). With accreditation agencies requiring continuous improvement
efforts, most university leaders are involved in documenting and
reporting improvement results to them. However, this does not mean that
the improvement efforts are organization-wide or that they are used for
improving processes and relationships or even products (e.g., courses
and curricula).
Assess Current Culture, Values and Operating Guidelines
An organization-wide improvement initiative requires supportive
culture, values, and operating guidelines. Therefore, conducting an
assessment enables university leaders to understand changes needed in
order for their excellence initiative to be successful. Figure 1 is a
model of a university's culture, values, operating guidelines and
expected results. This figure depicts some of the groups that impact a
university's culture, and it is those groups which should provide
input with respect to needed changes as well as support for them. Such a
myriad of impacts contributes to the complexity of universities and
their respective cultures. Since they are the foundation of an
excellence initiative, once the existing culture, values, and operating
guidelines are improved, they should be documented and communicated
throughout the university.
Assess Training Needs
Training exists in most organizations, including universities.
However, the training may not be the type that is needed to support
excellence initiatives. Therefore, a training needs assessment should be
done to determine the extent to which training is deficient. To increase
the potential for success, training should be conducted on such topics
as Quality Tools, Empowerment, Leadership, Change Management,
Statistical Process Control, and Six Sigma. Since quality award criteria
can be used for self assessment as well as for award application,
Baldrige National Quality Award Training should also be conducted.
Activate Teams and Expect High Performance
Universities are comprised of a variety of sub-units such as
colleges, departments, and committees, none of which are designated as
high performance teams. In fact, the terminology "team" is
typically not used. Yet high performance teams are essential for
excellence initiatives to be successful. Teams are not a natural
phenomenon. It is incumbent on team members to work together to achieve
high performance team status. Therefore, university leaders should set
the expectation that departments and committees will function as high
performance teams, track results over time, and assist in the
improvement of products, services, processes, and relationships.
Suggestions for inclusion in a university faculty and staff handbook
are:
* All academic and other departments will function as natural work
teams focused on continuously improving products (e.g., courses and
curricula), processes, relationships and service.
* In addition to natural work teams, project teams, cross
functional teams, and virtual teams will be utilized as needed.
* All teams and members of teams will be committed to performing
work efficiently (doing things right) and effectively (doing the right
things).
* Members will ensure that their respective teams function as high
performance teams.
Empower Employees
Empowerment is the provision of resources, information, and
authority needed by an individual or a team of individuals to accomplish
their work. Follett (1941, 1924, and 1918) emphasized the importance of
empowerment when she noted that we can confer authority, but no person
can give or take power and capacity. Empowerment of individuals and
teams enables them to better participate in the improvement of
processes, relationships, products and services. Empowerment does not
happen automatically in most (perhaps all) work environments. This is
especially true if people have worked in an environment where
empowerment was limited or nonexistent. Examples of actions that must be
taken to encourage empowerment are:
* Teach organizational leaders empowerment concepts and how to
implement empowerment with accountability.
* Teach employees how to function as empowered, accountable team
members.
* Provide support, information, resources, and tools that are
needed for employees to be successful.
* Measure results--when people fail, teach them how to succeed.
Understand and Utilize Change Management Concepts and Tools
An excellence initiative is a change initiative. Therefore, it is
imperative for university leaders who are engaged in improvement to
understand and utilize change management concepts and tools. The
essential elements for change management are vision, knowledge and
integrity, reasons to change, resources, action plans, and measurement
and feedback. One tool that is helpful at the beginning of an
improvement initiative is force field analysis. This tool is used to
document driving and restraining forces in an environment where movement
is anticipated from the existing state to a desired state.
Understand and Utilize the Baldrige National Quality Award for
Performance Excellence
The Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award Criteria (Figure 3) can
be used for self assessment as well as application for an award. The
Criteria categories comprise an excellent management system. The
criteria and self assessment document are available on the website for
the National Institute for Standards and Technology
(http://www.baldrige.nist.gov) as well as many state award websites such
as the Quality Texas Foundation which administers the Texas Award for
Performance Excellence (http://www.texas-quality.org/).
An example of how category owners and champions at the highest
level of an organization should be designated is provided in Chart 1.
Reasons for the designation of category champions include: (1) It
negates the question as to whether the leadership team members are
serious about the implementation of an improvement initiative and using
the Baldrige National Quality Criteria as one of the vehicles for
accomplishing continuous improvement throughout the organization; (2)
The leadership team members will feel more ownership and be more
prepared to take needed actions; and (3) Written documentation makes the
ownership and championship of the improvement initiative and the
Baldrige Criteria more formal and "real." This is especially
true in universities since different colleges (i.e., Arts and Sciences,
Business, Education, Engineering, etc.) often function somewhat
independently of each other. If a university is applying for the
Baldrige National Quality Award, writing team members and training team
members should be designated as well. See Chart 1.
Ensure Process Documentation, Ownership, Management and Improvement
Processes are how work gets accomplished. They have a beginning,
middle steps, and an end, and they are capable of being replicated. If
processes are going to be improved, they must be documented. In fact, if
they can not be documented and replicated, they are not really
processes. The documentation should first be a list of processes,
process owners, and key performance indicators. See Chart 3 in the World
Class University[TM] Example. Further process documentation can be done
using flowcharts, process maps, or simple checklists. Specific actions
for process documentation, management, and improvement are as follows:
* For each unit and sub-unit, list processes and process owners.
* Develop a checklist, process flowchart, or process map for each
process.
* Prioritize processes in order of importance to the University,
unit, and sub-unit.
* Establish process measurements, baselines, and targets for
improvement.
* Streamline processes (eliminate non-value-added items, process
constraints, duplications of effort, etc.).
* Where possible, transform processes with serial steps into
processes with simultaneous steps.
* Track and feedback improvement results (successes and failures),
and document process changes.
Utilize the 5P's Strategic Leadership Model
Unfortunately, many leaders of educational institutions do not seem
to understand that colleges and universities are complex systems with
interconnected, interdependent components. Therefore, many improvement
initiatives in universities address only the symptoms, not the
underlying causes, of problems. As a result, meaningful improvements do
not occur. Thornton, Peltier, and Perreault (2004) indicate that
educational leaders must think of their institutions as "organic
organizations" (i.e., organic systems) capable of continuous
learning and improvement.
The 5P's Strategic Leadership Model in Figure 2 depicts an
organizational system comprised of five elements which can be described
and documented independently but which must be aligned for a system to
achieve the best results. The five elements are Purpose, Principles,
Processes, People and Performance (Pryor, et al, 1998, 2007). The
5P's Strategic
Leadership Model (Pryor, et al, 1998, 2007) is the basis of the
Excellence Initiative discussed in the World Class University111
example.
[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]
WORLD CLASS UNIVERSITY[TM] (WCU)--AN EXAMPLE
The following are excerpts from WCU's strategic plan. In,
addition, the elements of the 5P's Strategic Leadership Model are
explained and utilized in an abbreviated fashion.
Purpose
The first element of the 5P's Model is Purpose which includes
sub-elements that are a part of strategic direction for an organization
(Pryor, et al, 2007, 1998). The sub-elements are vision, mission, goals
and objectives, strategies, and measurements. These are developed within
constraints that are identified as a part of a SWOT analysis in which
internal strengths and weaknesses and external threats and opportunities
are identified.
Sub-Elements under Purpose
Vision--An organization's vision is where its leaders expect
it to be in the future. If WCU's leaders expect a world class
university where students and employees want to be, they should write a
vision that describes such a future. An example of a vision statement is
as follows:
Vision
WC University will be an organization where students and employees
want to be because of our commitment to excellence in teaching,
research, service and stakeholder satisfaction.
Mission--An organization's mission is why it exists. All
people in an organization should know why it exists so that they can
contribute to the mission. If the mission is simply to provide
opportunities for learning, that would not encompass research, service,
and other items that are essential for a university to make the most
positive impact. The following is WCU's mission statement:
Mission
WC University exists to: (1) provide opportunities for lifelong
learning; (2) empower students, faculty, et al to discover and
disseminate knowledge for leadership and service in an interconnected
and dynamic world; and (3) nurture partnerships for the intellectual,
cultural, social, and economic vitality of our nation and the world.
Goals, Objectives, and Strategies--Goals and objectives are broad
expected outcomes and specific, measurable results (Pryor, et al., 2007,
1998). These must be established before strategies and tactics can be
developed. Once a specific goal is established, the question becomes,
"How can we achieve this goal?" Chart 2 includes broad goals
as well as strategies and tactics.
Once goals are developed, questions should be asked to help define
strategies and tactics to achieve the goals. If the goal is to improve
courses and curricula, examples of those questions could be: (1)
"What courses and curricula need to change for students to be
successful personally and professionally?" (2) "How can we
change (i.e., update courses and curricula?)" (3) "How fast
can we change them?" (4) "How can we streamline the processes
for updating courses and curricula so that we are on the forefront of
change and not being reactionary?" (5) "What constraints exist
that would keep us from updating our courses and curricula?"
Goal 4 is a specific goal, the performance toward which can be
measured and tracked over time. Student enrollment can be increased in
two ways: (1) WC University can spend more marketing money (and increase
operating expense) to recruit more students, or (2) WCU can find ways to
retain more students until they graduate. In the terminology of Goldratt
(1996; 2004), WCU can find ways to increase throughput (i.e., the number
of students who graduate compared with the number of students who
initially enrolled). Thus, it would be important to identify
bureaucratic problems that help cause the current dropout rate,
eliminate those constraints, and increase throughput. In working toward
Goal 4 (when it is seen as a throughput issue), WCU will also be working
toward Goal 5 (improving student retention).
Principles
Core values or Principles are the guiding philosophies,
assumptions, or attitudes about how the organization should operate and
conduct business. This includes the integrity base, ethics, and values
to which employees are expected to make a commitment when they are
hired. Employees (management and non-management people) should care
passionately about the principles and core values because it is these
core values that are the foundation for people's behavior. Together
the core values and behavior are the basis for operating guidelines
(i.e., how people are EXPECTED to behave).
Core values (also known as Principles) and operating guidelines are
an integral part of each other and can therefore be considered
sub-elements under the 5P element Principles. Chart 3 below depicts some
of the core values and operating guidelines of WCU.
It is important to recognize that everything is part of a system
and that changing any part of the system impacts the whole system. This
is a major reason for identifying core values that people believe in
passionately and to which they commit through their agreed-upon actions
(i.e., their operating guidelines).
Processes
Processes are organizational structures, systems, and procedures
that are used to make the products and/or perform the services that the
organization provides, as well as the infrastructure and rules that
support the systems and procedures (Pryor, et al, 1998, 2007). Various
authors (Deming, 1986; Goldratt,1990, 1996, 2002, 2006; Goldratt &
Cox, 2004; Goldratt & Fox, 1996; Ishikawa, 1982; Juran & Gryna,
1988; & Pryor, White & Toombs, 1998, 2007) propose theories,
tools, and actions that can have major impact on process management and
improvement, in terms of process baselines relating to cycle time (i.e.,
throughput) and numbers of bottlenecks as well as products, service, and
relationship quality and other key performance indicators.
Important Process sub-elements include the sub-processes themselves
as well as process owners who document, manage, and improve processes.
Examples of WC University's processes are depicted in Chart 4. Of
course, this chart should also include key performance indicators,
baselines, and metrics targets.
People
People are the individuals and teams of individuals who perform
work that is consistent with the Principles and Processes of an
organization to achieve its Purpose (Pryor, et al, 2007, 1998). They are
the active components who accomplish measurable output (i.e.,
Performance results). Purpose, Principles, and Processes must be in
place before People can be consistently effective. The best Processes
are useless without knowledgeable People who are willing and able to
achieve the goals of the organization.
People want to do "what's right." They want to be
effective and efficient. Goldratt (1996; 2004) offers theories, tools,
ways of thinking, concepts relating to data and information, and even
suggestions about initiating and managing change as opposed to
maintaining the bureaucratic status quo. Using Goldratt's (1996,
2004) theories, everyone in an organization would (1) understand, and
commit to achieving, the organization's overriding goal, (2) seek
to reduce operating expenses, increase throughput (speed or cycle time
for any process), and reduce inventory (physical items, but also
in-process inventory of students who take too long to graduate), (3)
understand information and data and problems therewith, (4) identify and
eliminate bureaucratic process constraints that interfere with goal
accomplishment, (5) understand how to effect and manage change, (6)
understand intuitive thinking and be able to verbalize our intuition in
order to make appropriate decisions.
Performance
Performance includes the measurements and expected results that
indicate the status of the organization and are used as criteria for
decision making (Pryor, et al, 2007, 1998). As a means of feedback and
control, Performance results are fed back into the strategic management
process. At that time, changes can be made in the mission, vision,
goals, strategies, and tactics as needed. Goldratt (2006) challenges
organizations to reduce operating expenses, increase throughput, and
decrease inventory. However, he also suggests that organizational
leaders need to know the differences in (1) information, 2) erroneous
information, 3) data, 4) erroneous data, and 5) invalid data. They need
to know what to measure and how to measure it so that the results are
meaningful and can be used to make decisions.
CONCLUSIONS
In the same way as for-profit organizations, universities, colleges
and other not-for-profit organizations face competition, policy and
process constraints, and problems identifying and accomplishing goals.
Universities may also face many other challenges such as (1) a crisis of
confidence from stakeholders; (2) public criticism; (3) failure to
adequately address issues such as accountability; (4) resistance to
change; (5) failure (or inability) to cope with complex issues facing
their stakeholders as well as the universities; (6) the difficulties
involved in improving performance; (7) globalization issues; (8) online
learning opportunities; (9) diversity of students and differences in
their needs; and (10) increased competition among universities and from
alliances of various universities.
While the implementation of Strategic Quality Management will not
eliminate all of the challenges that universities face, it will enable
university leaders to integrate excellence initiatives into their
strategic and tactical plans. As a result, universities will be better
able to address many of the issues and challenges facing them relating
to accountability and verifiable performance results. In other words,
university leaders will know what improvements are needed and the extent
to which they are being accomplished. The implementation of Strategic
Quality Management throughout universities will require improvements in
(1) products--e.g., courses and curricula; (2) processes--i.e., how work
gets accomplished; (3) relationships--i.e., the teaming of faculty,
staff and administrators to operate universities and units within them
as high performance teams; and (4) the services that they provide to
students and other customers and stakeholders. These are the types of
improvements that employees of world class universities routinely make
as a part of their daily work because they are an integral part of their
strategic and tactical plans.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR UNIVERSITIES
Throughout this article, we offer implementation suggestions,
including the need for integration of an excellence initiative into the
strategic and tactical plans of a university and their deployment
throughout the organization. In this section, we reiterate some of those
previous suggestions and offer additional ones.
When contemplating the implementation of Strategic Quality
Management, university leaders must address various potential
restraining forces, some of which are typical for all organizations
undergoing transformation and some of which are unique to universities.
Some of the issues that are typical for all organizations are: (1)
Resistance to change; (2) Organization-wide strategic and tactical
execution issues; (3) Lack of continuity in leadership; and (4) Culture,
values, and territoriality issues. Some of the issues that are unique to
universities are: (1) University employees may consider SQM to be a
Business or Industry initiative and not applicable in universities; (2)
Some faculty members may not think of students as customers; (3) Issues
of process management and accountability for key performance indicators
may seem counterintuitive to some people in university settings; and (4)
Some university employees may not understand the extent to which they
must compete on the basis of excellence and innovation in order for
universities to survive and flourish in the long term. This is
especially true in a global environment where virtual universities are
plentiful.
While an organization-wide Strategic Quality Management initiative
is preferable, university leaders may start an excellence initiative at
a sub-unit level and gradually increase the number of units and
sub-units involved. While this takes longer, it does give leaders
opportunities to document improvements and ensure that the processes
don't revert to their previous un-improved status. Again, time is a
competitive issue. The best universities will compete on the basis of
safety, time, course and curricula currency and relevancy, and other key
performance indicators as well as quality.
Involving stakeholders upfront in the development and definition of
a quality initiative will increase their support and involvement. Those
stakeholders may be process stakeholders (i.e., internal process
customers and suppliers), alumni, students, university employees,
employers, and others. Some of the questions that must be addressed are:
* What does each of the classifications of stakeholders want?
* What skills do employers want students to have?
* How can processes and relationships be improved so that
performance results are what the stakeholders expect in terms of safety,
quality, speed, convenience, and other key performance indicators?
Since excellence is a matter of integrity and honor, university
leaders and other stakeholders should determine what excellence means
for their universities, what their respective roles are in the
excellence initiatives, and how to make long term commitments of
involvement and support. Also it is important to ensure alignment of
stakeholder needs and university capabilities to meet those needs.
IMPLICATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH
In an effort to assist universities in their respective commitments
to excellence, empirical research is being conducted to determine what
quality initiatives exist in universities and the extent to which they
have been successful. Future studies should also address accountability,
turbulence, verifiable institutional and process performance results,
stakeholder relationships, and other such issues that can impact a
university's potential of long term survival and success.
REFERENCES
Anninos, L.N. (2007). The archetype of excellence in universities
and TQM. Journal of Management History, 13(4): 307-321.
Anttila, C. (2009). Challenges on the implementation of quality
management systems in universities in Finland. Review of General
Management, 9(1): 91-97.
Babbar, S. (1995). Applying total quality management to educational
instruction: A case study from a US public university. The International
Journal of Public Sector Management. Bradford: 8(7): 35-56.
Banta, T.W. (2002). Building a Scholarship of Assessment. San
Francisco, California: Jossey Bass/John Wiley & Sons.
Banta, T.W., ed. (1999). Assessment Update: The First Ten Years.
Boulder, Colorado: National Center for Higher Education Management
Systems.
Banta, T.W., Lund, J.P., Black, K.E., & Oblander, F.W. (1995).
Assessment in Practice: Putting Principles to Work on College Campuses.
San Francisco: Jossey Bass/John Wiley & Sons.
Bond, J.A., & Kelsey, K.D. (2001). A Model for Measuring
Customer Satisfaction within an Academic Center of Excellence, Managing
Service Quality 11(5): 359-367.
Bowden, J., & Marton, F. (1998). The University of
Learning--beyond Quality and Competence in Higher Education. London:
Kogan Page.
Deming, W. E. (1986). Out of the Crisis. Cambridge, Massachusetts:
MIT Center for Advanced Educational Services.
Dyer, V. (1997). Academia, Inc., McLean's Canada's Weekly
Newsmagazine 110(47), 66-71.
Ewell, P.T. (November/December 2008). No correlation: musings on
some myths about quality. Change Magazine, 40(6).
Ewell, P.T. (2007a). Assessment and accountability in America
today. In Victor M. H. Borden and Gary R. Pike (eds.), Assessing and
Accounting for Student Learning: Beyond the Spellings Commission, New
Directions in Institutional Research Assessment Supplement.
Ewell, P.T. (2007b). The quality game: External review and
institutional reaction over three decades in the United States. In Don
F. Westerheijden, Bjorn Stensaker, and Maria Joao Rosa, Quality
Assurance in Higher Education: Trends in Regulation, Translation and
Transformation. Baltimore, Maryland: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Ewell, P.T. (2007c). U.S. Accreditation and the Future of Quality
Assurance: A Tenth Anniversary Report from the Council for Higher
Education Accreditation. Washington, DC: Council for Higher Education
Accreditation (CHEA).
Follett, M.P. (1924). Creative Experience. London: Longmans, Green
and Co.
Follett, M.P. (1918). The New State--Group Organization, the
Solution for Popular Government. New York: Longman, Green and Co.
Retrieved Full Text October 1, 2008 from
http://sunsite.utk.edu/FINS/Mary_Parker-Follett/Fins-MaryParkerFollett-
02.html.
Follett, M. P. (1941) Dynamic Administration: The Collected Papers
of Mary Parker Follett. Edited by Henry Metcalf and Lionel Urwick.
London: Pitman. New edition published in 1971 edited by Elliot M. Fox
and Lionel Urwick.
Goldratt, E.M. (1996). Critical Chain: A Business Novel. Great
Barrington, Massachusetts: North River Press.
Goldratt, E.M. (2002). It's Not Luck. United Kingdom: Gower
Publishing Ltd.
Goldratt, E.M. (2006). The Haystack Syndrome. Great Barrington,
Massachusetts: North River Press.
Goldratt, E.M. (1990). What Is This Thing Called Theory of
Constraints? Great Barrington, Massachusetts: North River Press.
Goldratt, E.M., & Cox, J. (2004). The Goal: A Process of
Ongoing Improvement. Great Barrington, Massachusetts: North River Press.
Goldratt, E.M., & Fox, R.E. (1996). The Race. Great Barrington,
Massachusetts: North River Press.
Haworth, J.G., & Conrad, C.F. (1997). Emblems of Quality in
Higher Education. London: Allyn and Bacon.
Ishikawa, K. (1982). Guide to Quality Control, 2nd Revised Edition,
Tokyo, Japan: Asian Productivity Organization.
Juran, J., & Gryna, F. M. (eds.). (1988). Juran's Quality
Control Handbook, 4th ed., New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.
Karapetrovic, S., Rajamani, D., & Wilborn, W.W. (May 1999).
University, Inc., Quality Progress 32(5): 87-94.
Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award. Retrieved October 5, 2009
from the National Institute for Standards and Technology website
(http://www.baldrige.nist.gov/Criteria.htm).
National Commission on Accountability in Higher Education (2005).
Accountability for Better Results, Denver, Colorado: State Higher
Education Executive Officers.
National Institute of Standards and Technology (2010). Malcolm
Baldrige National Quality Award Criteria for Performance Excellence.
Retrieved July 19, 2010 from http://www.baldrige.nist.gov.
Padro, F. (April 2009). The applicability of Deming's System
of Profound Knowledge to universities. The Journal for Quality and
Participation, 32(1): 10-14.
Pryor, M.G., Anderson, D.A., Toombs, L.A., & Humphreys, J.
(2007). Strategic implementation as a core competency, Journal of
Management Research, 7(1): 3-17.
Pryor, M.G., Singleton, L.P., Taneja, S., & Toombs, L.A. (2009,
August). Teaming as a strategic and tactical tool: An analysis with
recommendations, International Journal of Management, 26(2): 320-333.
Pryor, M.G., White, J.C., & Toombs, L.A. (1998, 2007) Strategic
Quality Management: A Strategic, Systems Approach to Quality Management,
USA: Cengage (Southwestern).
Quality Texas Foundation (2010). Texas Award for Performance
Excellence Criteria. Retrieved July 19, 2010 from
http://www.texas-quality.org.
Srikanthan, G., & Dalrymple, J. (2004). A Synthesis of a
Quality Management Model for Education in Universities, The
international Journal of Educational Management, 18(4/5), 266-279.
Thornton, B., Peltier, G., & Perreault, G. (May/June 2004).
Systems Thinking: A Skill to Improve Student Achievement. The Clearing
House, 77(5): 222-227.
Tierney, W.G. (1998). Responsive University: Restructuring for High
Performance. Baltimore, Maryland: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Winter, R.S. (1998). The quality journey: What I saw, what I heard,
what I learned. Total Quality Management, 9(2/3): 379-386.
[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]
[FIGURE 3 OMITTED]
Mildred Golden Pryor
Mary Hendrix
Christine Alexander
J. Robert Collins
Texas A&M University-Commerce
About the Authors:
Mildred Golden Pryor is Professor of Management, Teaching
Excellence Award Recipient, and Faculty Mentor for the College of
Business and Technology at Texas A&M University-Commerce. Her Ph.D.
is in Business with fields in Production and Operations Management,
Organizational Theory and Behavior, and Quantitative Methods. Her
postdoctoral studies are in Leadership, Quality Management (under the
direction of Dr. W. Edwards Deming and Dr. Joseph Juran), and
Organizational Transformation (National Training Labs). Her articles and
cases are in Harvard Business Review, Academy of Strategic Management
Journal, International Journal of Management, Journal of Applied
Management and Entrepreneurship, IJBEP, Industrial Management, Journal
of Management and Marketing Research, The Delhi Business Review,
International Journal of Business and Public Administration, IJER,
Journal of Management History, Journal of Management Research and
International Journal of Business Excellence. She has served on the
Board of Overseers and as an Examiner and Judge for the Quality Texas
Foundation which administers the Texas Award for Performance Excellence.
Mary Hendrix is Vice President of Student Access and Success at
Texas A&M University-Commerce. She has also served as Interim
Provost and Vice President of Academic & Student Affairs and in
other administrative and teaching positions. She was instrumental in
creating a new organizational structure that focuses on quality
enhancement in enrollment management, first-year experiences, and campus
life and student development. Her Ph.D. is in Educational Psychology.
She has secured grants in excess of $14 million to support her passion
for raising academic expectations for students to meet real-world
requirements, improving instructional strategies, and using technology
as a medium to foster s s
Christine Alexander is Assistant Professor of Management
Information Systems (MIS) at Texas A&M UniversityCommerce. Her Ph.D.
is in MIS with a minor field in Production and Operations Management.
Her research interests and publications are in the areas of Management
Information Systems, Experiential Learning, eBusiness Adoption in Small
Businesses, MIS Education, and The Role of IS in Logistics. Her
publications have appeared in Journal of Internet Commerce, Industrial
Management & Data Systems, International Journal of Business,
Marketing, and Decision Sciences, and International Journal of Education
Research. She is a member of Association of Computing Machinery,
Decision Sciences Institute and Production and Operations Management
Society.
J. Robert Collins is Senior Lecturer and Executive in Residence,
College of Business and Technology (CBT), Texas A&M
University-Commerce. Since joining the University from Industry, his
focus, teaching, and research have been in the areas of
Entrepreneurship, Strategy, and Systems Engineering. He was Co-Chair of
the University's Strategic Planning Committee and is currently
Chairman of the CBT Strategic Planning Committee. Dr. Collins served as
Corporate Vice-President and Officer for E-Systems, a Fortune 500
Defense Electronics Company headquartered in Dallas, Texas. His
responsibilities included Corporate Strategic Planning, Domestic and
International Marketing, Research & Development, and Government
Relations. His education includes a Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering,
MBA, Master of Engineering in Electrical Engineering, and Bachelor of
Science in Mathematics.
Chart 1
Baldrige Quality Award Category Owners/Deployment Champions,
Writing Team Members, and Training Team Members
Category Owner(s) Additional
Deployment Deployment
Categories Champions Designees
1 Leadership University President
2 Strategic Planning Vice President Strategic
Planning Team
3 Customer Focus Vice President for
Students
4 Measurement, Analysis, Vice President for
& Knowledge Business Affairs
Management
5 Workforce Focus Vice President Human
Resources
6 Process Management Vice President Unit Leaders
7.0 Results President Unit Leaders
7.1 Student Learning Provost and Vice Academic
Outcomes President for Deans
Academic Affairs
7.2 Customer Focus Vice President for
Outcomes Students
7.3 Budgetary, Financial Vice President for Budget Team
& Market Outcomes Business
7.4 Workforce Focus Vice President
Outcomes
7.5 Process Effectiveness Provost and Vice Academic
Outcomes President for Deans, et al
Academic Affairs
7.6 Leadership Outcomes President
Writing Team Training Team
Categories Members Members
1 Leadership
2 Strategic Planning
3 Customer Focus
4 Measurement, Analysis,
& Knowledge
Management
5 Workforce Focus
6 Process Management
7.0 Results
7.1 Student Learning
Outcomes
7.2 Customer Focus
Outcomes
7.3 Budgetary, Financial
& Market Outcomes
7.4 Workforce Focus
Outcomes
7.5 Process Effectiveness
Outcomes
7.6 Leadership Outcomes
Chart 2
World Class University[TM] Broad Goals, Strategies and Tactics
* Broad Goals
* Note: Specific goals should be Strategies and Tactics
developed.
To educate students who will be Develop appropriate courses,
successful personally, curricula, and other requirements.
professionally, and as a part of
society.
To involve individual (and teams Establish and implement a
of) students, faculty, staff, and continuous improvement system
other stakeholders in continuous (i.e., an excellence initiative).
improvement efforts. Establish teams of students,
faculty, staff members, et al to
improve products (e.g., university
courses, curricula), services,
processes, and relationships.
Provide training as needed (e.g.,
teaming, Quality, customer
satisfaction, etc.)
To involve faculty and students in Select faculty mentors who are
research, experiments, and other committed to excellence in
creative/innovative projects and teaching and research to serve as
learning situations. mentors for junior faculty
members. Faculty members - include
innovative learning situations,
experiments, etc. in classes.
To have an enrollment of 12,000 Identify policy or process
students by the Fall Semester, constraints that hinder increases
2010 in enrollment. Improve student
retention which will positively
impact enrollment trends
To improve student retention. Identify retention problems.
Determine constraints that cause
students to drop out of the
university.
To reduce operating expenses. Identify and eliminate items that
do not add value. Streamline
processes. Use concurrency in
processes instead of serial
thinking.
Source: Pryor, M.G., Singleton, L.P., Taneja, S., and Toombs, L.A.
(2009, August). Teaming as a Strategic and Tactical Tool: An Analysis
with Recommendations, International Journal of Management, 26(2):
320-333 - An adaptation.
Chart 3
World Class University[TM] Core Values and Operating Guidelines
Core Values Operating Guidelines
Integrity We care about integrity, so we shall do what
we say we'll do.
Customer Satisfaction We care about satisfying customers so we
shall identify and meet or exceed their
requirements.
Results-Orientation We care about results, so we shall be
accountable.
Performance Excellence We care about performance excellence, so we
shall deliver to our customers, team members,
et al products and services that are the best
in terms of quality, cycle time and other
relevant key performance indicators (KPI's).
Chart 4
WC University Processes, Process Owners, and Opportunities for
Improvement
Processes Process Owners Opportunities for
Improvement
Registration Registrar's Office Simplifying processes
for registration,
payment, and
enrollment
verification.
Tuition Payment Business Office Inaccurate billing;
Slow responses
Scholarship Scholarship Director Limited visibility for
Application students; so
scholarships receive
no applications while
students are in
desperate need of
financial assistance.
Teaching/Learning Faculty Members Learning outcomes for
Students courses and degrees
that are standardized.
Curriculum Development Deans and Department Serial approval
Heads process = bottlenecks
& slow cycle time
(throughput)
Course Development Individual Faculty Serial approval
Members process = bottlenecks
& slow cycle time
(throughput);
Frustration because of
delays; and Faculty
members develop fewer
courses.
Student Recruitment Undergraduate and Target recruitment;
Graduate Admissions; Goals.
Academic Departments
Student Retention University College Early intervention
Faculty Members processes; Feedback;
Action plans; and
Follow-up.
