American Institute of Chemical Engineers

ChAPTER One

by Robert E. Babcock, R.W. Skeith, M.A. Thornton, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, Arkansas

The engineering profession is one of many groups that are making sweeping changes in the way they operate as the third millennium approaches. Accordingly, the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) has enacted new guidelines for engineering accreditation entitled "Criteria 2000." The new criteria are quality management-based, and, when boiled down to their essence, require that a program identify a customer, set goals and objectives for satisfying that customer(s) needs, perform outcome assessment leading to feedback that closes the loop and impacts future goals and objectives and, thereby achieve continuous quality improvement.

TQM applied to higher education

Over the last several years, many have grappled with how to apply Total Quality Management (TQM) techniques to higher education, particularly in the colleges of business and engineering.

This discussion was helped along considerably in 1991 by the now well-known "Glavin Challenge," issued by Bob Glavin, CEO of Motorola. Basically, it invited faculties to visit industry and see TQM techniques demonstrated, and then challenged universities to implement these practices in their management, curriculum, and research activities. IBM, Milliken, Procter & Gamble, and Xerox then joined Motorola and formed the "TQM University Challenge Program," which provides significant funding for universities selected from the pool of schools that accepted the challenge. Eight universities were originally accepted for funding. The preliminary results of this program were reported at the ASEE 1994 College and Industry Conference in San Antonio (1). Numerous other publications have discussed higher education’s attempts at implementing TQM. (2,3,4)

At the heart of these discussions is the question of whether students are the "customer" or the "product." This is a key question because TQM demands that the customer be identified. A quick unscientific poll was taken of the faculty in the College of Engineering at the University of Arkansas as to whether they considered the students a "customer" or the "product." Surprisingly, over 60 percent of the faculty responded, which gives some indication of the level of awareness of TQM on campus. The other surprising result is that the vast majority of the faculty responded that students were both the customer and the product. Comments were made like "the student is the customer until they graduate and the product after they graduate." This can be true only if one is careful to distinguish between a student’s (customer’s) needs and wants. Even then, one still has to deal with the role of the student’s parents, state legislatures, and employers of the student (product). It makes more sense to consider "society" as the customer and students as the product. Our overriding goal as engineering colleges must be to produce a product (students) that performs to society’s expectations and needs.

Obviously, another key factor is the degree to which the faculty of a college or department of engineering have "bought into" TQM. Figure 1 shows the importance of faculty buy-in as a key issue in determining the level of "Quality Management Maturity" of a department or school. Conventional wisdom suggests that implementation proceeds best by identifying "CQI Champions," and giving some type of quality council the responsibilities of communicating and implementing quality, instead of using a heavy handed approach from upper administration.

Comments often come up as to the cost of implementing quality. One would do well to acknowledge that "it isn’t quality that cost, but instead the lack of it". (5) An excellent academic example of this point is low graduation rates. Tremendous resources are expended on unproductive activities when six-year graduation rates are low. Numerous other examples may be cited, such as late date dropping of classes by students, faculty failing to achieve tenure, lack of continuity and correlation between course syllabi, etc.

Criteria 2000

A fundamental characteristic of Criteria 2000 is the concept of continuous improvement that can be facilitated by a process that includes the following feedback path:

1. Identification of objectives and goals

2. Implementation of procedures for goal achievement

3. Determination of assessment techniques

4. Feedback to allow procedure modification

5. Evaluation for measuring the degree of goal achievement

This type of process is characterized in Figure 2.

Blueprint for Success

The following concepts are presented as a blueprint for success for moving into the next millennium under Criteria 2000:

Æ Consider society in all its different aspects as customers.

Æ Accept the fact that the lack of quality costs, and that engineering programs must be much more productive with the resources that society, as the customer, has allotted us.

Æ Learn to accurately collect and assess relevant data.

Æ Develop an attitude of flexibility and prepare to adapt to society’s changing needs.

Æ Develop the ability to quantify and document the value contributed to society as a student matriculates through an engineering program and proceeds through a professional career.

Æ Develop and implement the concept of team based processes that provide for the use of outcome assessment results to bring about continuous quality improvement.

Æ Develop the capacity to respond to unique opportunities.

Æ Learn to anticipate society’s needs.

Æ Accept and implement post-tenure review.

Æ Become accustom to constructive negative feedback and learn to respond to it objectively.

Æ Disregard the practice of raising funds by asking for a "handout," and, instead, document outcome data that demonstrates value added to society (the customer), through the quality of the product, (the student).

Literature cited

1. ASEE 1994 College and Industry Conference, San Antonio, Texas, January 31-February 4, 1994.

2. CQI 101: A First Reader for Higher Education, AAHE’s Continuous Quality Improvement Project, American Association for Higher Education, Washington, D.C., 1994.

3. 25 Snapshots of a Movement — Profiles of Campuses Implementing CQI, AAHE’s Continuous Quality Improvement Project, American Association for Higher Education, Washington, D.C., 1994.

4. The AQC Baldridge Report, Academic Quality Consortium, American Association for Higher Education, Washington, D.C., April 1995.

5. Crosby, Phillip B., Quality Is Free, McGraw Hill, New York, NY, 1979.

6. Skeith, R.W., and M.A. Thornton, "Assessment Analysis in Criteria 2000," Assessment Analysis in Criteria 2000, ASEE 32nd Midwest Section Conference, April 1998.

Figure 1: Academic Quality Management Maturity Evaluation Grid Taken with minor modifications from Philip B. Crosby’s book, Quality is Free, McGraw Hill, 1979/ Rater Unit
Measurement Categories	Stage I: Uncertainty	Stage II: Awakening	Stage III: Enlightenment	Stage IV: Wisdom	Stage V: Certainty
Management understanding and attitude	No comprehension of quality as a management tool. Tend to blame others for "quality problems"	Recognizing that quality management may be of value but not willing to provide money or time to make it all happen.	Going through quality improvement program and learning more about quality management; becoming supportive and helpful.	Participating; understand absolutes of quality management. Recognize their personal role in continuing emphasis	Consider quality management an essential part of college and university system
Quality organization status	Quality is hidden. Individual accountability probably not part of organization. Emphasis on appraisal and categorizing	A quality leader is appointed but main emphasis is still on appraisal and moving the student toward graduation.	Quality person reports to dean, all appraisals are incorporated and quality person has role in management of college.	Quality person has an administrative position; effective status reporting and preventive action involved with student affairs and faculty assignments.	Quality person has high administrative position. Prevention is main concern. Quality person is a thought leader.
Problem handling	Problems are fought as they occur; no resolution; inadequate definition; lots of yelling and accusations.	Teams are set up to attack major problems. Long-range solutions are not solicited or emphasized.	Corrective action communication is established. Problems are faced openly and resolved in an orderly way.	Problems are identified early in their development. All functions are open to suggestion and improvement.	Except in the most unusual cases, problems are prevented.
Cost of quality as measured by assessment outcomes	Not reported: unknown	Reported qualitatively	Reported quantitatively: no action taken	Reported quantitatively, with discussion	Reported quantitatively with feedback action implemented
Quality improvement actions	No organized activities. No understanding of such activities.	Trying obvious "motivational" short-ranged efforts.	Implementation of a step by step program with thorough understanding and establishment of each step.	Continuing the step - by - step program and starting to move toward the certainty stage.	Quality improvement is a normal and continued activity.
Summation of quality posture	We don’t know why we have problems with quality.	Is it absolutely necessary to always have problems with quality?	Through management commitment and quality improvement we are identifying and resolving our problems.	Defect prevention is a routine part of our operation.	We know why we do not have problems with quali

 

 

Figure 2: Block Diagram of Continuous Improvement Process

[Elements] [News] [Member Services] [Meetings] [Publications] [Education Services] [CCPS] [CWRT] [DIPPR] [DIERS] [pdXi]  [Career & Employment Services] [Government Relations] [AIChExpress Service Center] [Feedback] [Site Map] [Top] 

© 1997 American Institute of Chemical Engineers. All rights reserved.