Applying Total Quality Management to theEducational Process*

ROBERT C. WINNEngineering Systems, Inc., 4775 Centennial Blvd., Suite 106, Colorado Springs, CO 80919, USAROBERT S. GREENUSAF Directorate of Technical Training, Randolph AFB, TX 78150-4321, USA

Total Quality Management (TQM) is recognized as an important management philosophy and iswidely used in US industry. It has been used very successfully in the development and acquisition ofsystems such as satellites and aircraft to preparing officer performance reports. Over the last fewyears, TQM has been applied in the education industry. Most of the applications have been in theadministrative side of the institutions, but some schools have applied TQM to curriculumdevelopment. The Air Force Academy has been a leader in this application of TQM. In thispaper, the principles of TQM are described with an emphasis on the importance of identifying thecustomer and analyzing the processes. The 14 Points of Dr. W. Edwards Deming, which form aframework for the implementation of the TQM, are individually applied to the academicenvironment based on the experience gained at the Air Force Academy.

INTRODUCTION

TOTAL Quality Management (TQM) was firstespoused by Dr. W. Edwards Deming in the late1950's. His ideas were not accepted by US industrybut were heartily endorsed by Japan in theirrecovery from World War II. Largely as a resultof the implementation of TQM, `Made in Japan'has changed from a derogatory term to high praise[1].

In the 1980's, US industry began to see the valueof a TQM approach. Such companies as Motorolaand Federal Express have turned failing companiesinto world leaders. Motorola now does a good dealof business selling to Japan [1]. Universities, how-ever, have been slower to see the value of usingTQM in their business, although several schoolsare now using TQM to improve the administrationof the university. In 1990, Oregon State Universityendorsed TQM as its management philosophyand has experienced outstanding success inimproving the operations of the university. Forexample, using TQM they reduced the averageduration of remodeling projects by 23% [2]. In1988, the Air Force Academy began an attemptat applying TQM to curriculum development and,in 1990, offered a course that was designed andconducted using the principles of TQM.

The course that we chose as the target of ourTQM efforts was Energy Systems, a first course inthermodynamics. This course is a core course andis therefore taken by almost all of the cadets atthe Academy. Cadets from every major disciplinetake the course as a graduation requirement, so itdiffers from traditional thermodynamics courses in

that the classes have a large portion of stu-dents who are not engineers. Thermodynamics is adifficult subject for technically inclined studentsand is even more so for students whose interestslie in the humanities or social science. We choseEnergy Systems as our target for TQM imple-mentation for two reasons. First, Energy Systemswas not a very popular course among the cadets,not unlike thermodynamics courses anywhere elsein the country. We felt that if we could improvethis course in the eyes of the students, we willhave made a significant step. Second, the peoplecharged with running this course, the authors,had been strong advocates of implementing TQMat the Academy from the very beginning.

Several papers have been published whichdescribe just what we did to implement TQM inour course [3±5]. In those papers, we reportedimpressive improvements in many areas of thecourse. The students liked the course much morethan before and felt they learned more as well.Quantitative measures of student performanceincreased significantly as well. The purpose ofthis paper, however, is not to rehash the detailsof one specific implementation. Rather, it is tomake some observations and recommendationsbased on that experience that can be applied toany university situation. For readers that areinterested in the details of our particular imple-mentation, we refer them to the other papers orsuggest that they contact the authors directly.

TQM PRINCIPLES

The one factor that is the most influential in thesuccess or failure of a TQM implementation effort* Accepted 5 May 1997.

24

Int. J. Engng Ed. Vol. 14, No. 1, p. 24±29, 1998 0949-149X/91 $3.00+0.00Printed in Great Britain. # 1998 TEMPUS Publications.

is universal endorsement, in particular at the top.If management is not completely sold on TQM, itis unlikely that an implementation effort will besuccessful. Endorsing TQM represents a funda-mental change in the way one does business. Lessthan full support by anyone in the chain ofauthority essentially condemns the effort to failure.

In our case at the Air Force Academy, we hadthe support of everyone above us in the chain ofcommand, from our department head, through thedean, all the way to the Secretary of Defense. Thatis not to say that there were no opponents on thefaculty. Faculty members are a very independentgroup of people, and consensus on any issue isunlikely. Because those who opposed TQM imple-mentation were not in our chain of command,they did not prevent us from implementing TQM;however, if one of the opponents happened to be inour chain of command, we would have had a muchmore difficult time.

It was also very important to get the endorse-ment of the students as well as those up the chain.To earn the student's endorsement, we had tomake them part of the solution. TQM is a parti-cipative management philosophy, and the studentshad to participate throughout the effort. We there-fore had to teach them about TQM and then showthem how we were changing things in the course.Without that education process, we would nothave had the support of the students that weenjoyed.

Once the commitment is made to implementTQM, one of the first steps is to identify the`customers' or stakeholders. To do this, you musttreat the educational process as a system; allelements and the interactions between those ele-ments must be addressed. Process improvementshould begin and end with the customer [6].

A systems approach to industrial processimprovement is relatively common now. In anindustrial application, the customers will includethe purchaser of the product or service, suppliers,subcontractors, etc. A careful identification ofthe customers in the university setting needs to beaccomplished. It can rightly be argued that thereare many customers of the university including thestudents, the employers of the school's graduates,the parents of the students, the taxpayers, thewhole of society, the Board of Regents, the StateLegislature, etc. We have found that by identifyingour students and the employers of our graduates(the Air Force) as our primary customers, wewould end up satisfying all of the other customers.On the other hand, by focusing on a customer thatis too far removed from the operation, it is veryeasy to overlook the needs of the more immediatecustomers.

It is not uncommon for universities to addressthe needs of industry in curriculum development;however, students are usually treated more as aproduct than a customer. It is likely that many ofthe problems that plague some universities stemfrom an effort to make a remote body happy while

inadvertently ignoring the students. This is aclassic case of improperly defining the system. Allrelevant participants must be included in the edu-cational system. Once all participants are identi-fied, the relative importance of each participantcan be established. Taking a systems approach toeducation can be a very useful endeavor.

If the student is identified as one of yourcustomers, you must try to satisfy that customer,but you must be very sure you know what thatcustomer really wants. An Air Force general maysay he wants a fighter that can turn inside afootball field at four times the speed of sound,but he really does not want thatÐeven if it wastechnologically possible, he couldn't afford it,Customers must make an informed decision indeciding what they want, taking into accountcosts, performance needed, legal issues, etc. Stu-dents may say they want an easy `A' in every class,but what they really want is an education. If highgrades were passed out with no learning takingplace, prospective employers would quickly learnto avoid hiring the graduates of that university.The perspective we should take is that the studentsare, at least in principle, paying for the services weprovide. We must be sure that we are satisfyingtheir real long-term needs, not simply short-termdesires.

DEMING'S 14 POINTS

The 14 points of Dr. W. Edwards Deming forma framework for the implementation of TQM [1].We have used this list as a checklist of sorts in oureffort. These 14 points are general enough that animplementation at one school would probablylook considerably different from one at anotherschool. The way that these 14 points should beused is to come to a consensus as to the applicationof each point to the particular situation at hand.

In the following paragraphs, we will presentsome suggestions on how each point might beapplied to the university setting in the adminis-tration of the university and in the curriculum.Realize that these are just suggestions, many ofwhich will be totally inappropriate at a particularuniversity. Our purpose here is to give somefood for thought and suggest by comparison amethodology one could use to apply TQM to aunique situation.

1. Create constancy of purposeDevelop a mission statement as your corporate

purpose or aim. For example, the mission state-ment for a university might be, `To develop theskills, attitudes, and motivation in our studentsso they will become responsible citizens and becapable of making positive contributions tosociety.' The mission statement for a college ofengineering might be, `To develop the skills,attitudes, and motivation in our students so theywill perform in a technically competent, socially

Applying Total Quality Management to the Educational Process 25

responsible, and ethical manner as engineersentrusted with the safety and comfort of theirclients.' Developing a mission statement is not atrivial task; it requires a real understanding of justwhy the organization exists. The mission statementis also hierarchical; the department's missiondepends on the college's mission, which dependson the University's mission, and so on. Once themission statement is developed, everyone (not justthe faculty and administration, but everyoneemployed by the University) must know howthey contribute to the mission. The analysis sug-gested here is to assess the value added by aprocess. If a process or a position does not addvalue, that is, does not contribute to the mission, itshould be eliminated.

2. Adopt a new philosophyInsist on quality in everythingÐclassroom

instruction, bookstore service, campus policing,restroom cleaning, interactions with the legis-latureÐeverything. To achieve this quality, anatmosphere of cooperation as opposed to competi-tion must be instilled. This is particularly true inthe classroom; management must ensure that theprocesses put in force encourage cooperation atevery levelstudent to student and faculty to stu-dent. Do away with the `us versus them' attitude.Instead ask questions like, `What can we, thefaculty and staff, do to make the learning experi-ence in this classroom better?' or `What can we, theteacher and the students, do to ensure everystudent has the best opportunity to learn thismaterial?' It is a completely different approachthan most of us experienced in school as students.

3. Cease dependence on mass inspectionFocus on the product or service process. Don't

depend on audits, tests, or inspections to buildquality. Inspections will only keep bad productsfrom hitting the market, but there are large costsincurred with each bad piece. The analogy in educa-tion is that the failed student is scrap that must beeither reworked (take the course again or get extratutoring) or discarded. We need to develop pro-cesses in which there is less testing but more focus onprogress in learning. For example, ask yourself whyyou are giving a particular test. If the answer is toevaluate your students, then ask yourself if you needthis extra piece of evaluative information. There isevidence that we test far more than is needed toevaluate our students [7]. On the administrative sideof the university, are there too many checks andbalances? Can a process be changed to make inspec-tions unnecessary or at least to reduce the needfor inspections? Statistical process control can bean important tool in developing processes that donot require much inspection [8].

4. End the practice of conducting business on costalone

The lowest bid usually does not result in thelowest life-cycle cost. In all our processes, we need

to focus on long-term costs and benefits. That maymean that the trendy new course not be offered if itmeans the failure of a course with more long-termvalue. Awarding the printing contract to an off-campus vendor may have lower first cost, but theinability to get adequate turn-around time orpoorer quality may make the overall cost of thatdecision very high. University professors oftencomplain about the poor job the high schools aredoing in preparing students for college. The long-term costs of supplying educated people to societymay be less if some of the resources of the uni-versity were spent on improving high and juniorhigh schools.

5. Constantly improve processesAre your customers (the students and their

future employers) more satisfied than they werelast semester? Are the faculty members happier?Are the secretaries happier? Are the suppliers ofthe University happier? If the answer to a questionis no, find out why and fix the situation imme-diately. If the answer is yes, determine what it wasin the process that made it so. In any case, analyzethe process to determine what changes can bemade to make it better. Incremental improvementsmust be made every semester. This is essentiallythe Kaizen philosophyÐencourage innovation,but insist upon incremental improvements, espe-cially after the innovation [9]. The phrase, `if it'snot broke, don't fix it,' does not apply. To helpdecide where to look for things to improve, usecourse grades, student performance on `anchor'problems, student critiques, faculty and stafforganizational climate surveys, inputs to sugges-tion boxes, summaries of complaints, etc. Care-fully designed questions on anonymous surveyscan be very valuable, but talking directly to thecustomer is still the best way to find out what thebarriers are. There is a side benefit to talkingdirectly to the students about their problemsÐthey appreciate it and make the `us versus them'attitude much less likely.

6. Institute trainingEveryone needs to know their job. The faculty is

certainly well educated in their disciplines butmaybe not in the art of teaching. Faculty develop-ment programs help teachers know their jobs.Word processing classes help secretaries do theirjob better. Money spent on faculty and stafftraining has long-term payback. In addition, youshould teach TQM to everyoneÐfaculty, staff, andespecially students. The more everyone knowsabout the management principles used on a dailybasis, the easier it is for everyone to buy into theidea.

7. Institute leadershipEmphasize leadership instead of management.

Everyone at the university has a leadership roleof some sort. Each person in a supervisory role(including the faculty) should try to be a coach and

R. C. Winn and R. S. Green26

teacher, not a judge and overseer. As put bySenge, the leader should be a designer, a creatorof an environment [6]. Effective leaders will searchfor barriers to communication and productivityand remove them. A poorly lit classroom canhave a significant effect on student performance.A teacher who is an effective leader will see to itthat the lighting problems are fixed. A teacherwho will adjust the due date on a project basedon special student situations, will probablyincrease the learning of his students.

8. Drive out fearIn the academic setting, fear is often a big factor

in student and faculty performance. For students,any steps that can be taken to reduce the fearinvolved in taking a test will pay large benefits instudent performance and attitude. Allowing for amake-up exam, points for reworking missed prob-lems on an exam, and dropping a low grade areexamples of little things that can be done to reducestudent fear. Teachers must balance their roles aseducators versus evaluators. When asked, mostprofessors will readily say that their job is toeducate their students; however, the amount oftime they spend on evaluation tends to contradictthis view. On the faculty and staff side, fear canalso play an important role. If a high price must bepaid for failure, few people will be willing to riskexperimenting with a promising new innovation,thus keeping a process improvement out of thesystem. If a teacher would like to try an innovativeteaching technique, the effort should be applaudedeven if it is a failure. Certainly something ofvalue will have come from the experiment.Researchers must have the opportunity to failwithout the fear of demotion or lack of promotionopportunity. Fear is a powerful emotion and canhave very negative effects on the performance of anorganization.

9. Break down barriersEncourage cooperation, not competition. Encour-

age the forming of cross-function teams to addressproblems and process improvements. A teammade up of faculty, staff, and students (perhapsfrom more than one department) will have abroader perspective in addressing issues than amore narrowly composed committee. Whenaddressing a problem in the registration process,address it with a team consisting of representativesfrom every involved organizationÐfaculty, advi-sors, students, registrar, computer services, etc. Asolution devised by only one organization willusually have a negative impact on some otherorganizations. Bringing everyone in on the deci-sion process will usually result in a better solution,and certainly one that is easier to accept.

10. Avoid obsession with goals and slogansJust telling someone to do good is meaningless

without the means to achieve that goal. Manage-ment must improve the processes so that the goals

can be achieved. Stating that 80% is the minimumacceptable score on an exam will not by itselfachieve that goal. Stating that goal and thenproviding excellent instruction, arranging forstudy teams, giving extra help where needed, etc.,will give the students a much better chance forsuccess.

11. Eliminate numerical quotasIt is often said that numbers are the crutches of

poor supervision. On the assembly line, this prin-ciple is easy to see; in the academic setting, it is notas obvious but just as true. If there are quotasestablished for `x' number of papers per year or `y'number of majors enrolled, quality will decrease.The number one priority should be quality. Onlyafter the process is designed so that quality isassured should the questions of quantity beaddressed.

12. Remove barriers to pride of workmanshipPride is a strong motivator. In the academic

setting, pride certainly flows from personal andgroup achievements, but there is also a good dealof pride in the institution as well. Often thisinstitutional pride is a result of having survivedthe program, but it can also stem from havinghad a part in the development of that program. Ifthe students are included in some of the decision-making processes, they will develop a strong prideof ownership that can have a significant impact ontheir attitudes. A step as simple as talking tostudent representatives about their concerns canchange an antagonistic faculty/student relationshipinto a cooperative one. Using some of the elementsof cooperative learning also empowers the stu-dents by sharing some of the teaching role with thefaculty. A secretary who is allowed to choose howthe work is to be done and has a voice in some ofthe administrative decisions that affect secretarialwork will be a much more productive and happyworker. Barriers between departments and collegesshould be dismantled; each professor can learna lot by studying the operation of anotherdepartment.

13. Organization-wide involvementEveryone in the institution must be included in

the education process and be aware of and con-cerned for their immediate `customer'. Lab techni-cians who sit in on the courses that they supportwill have a much better idea of how their workcontributes to the mission. Secretaries who learnabout new techniques and technologies for use inthe office are much more likely to suggest improve-ments to the processes they are exposed to. Pro-fessors should audit courses in other departments,particularly those courses that are prerequisites fortheir own courses. Faculty members who learnabout TQM are much more likely to endorse theconcept and to suggest new ways to implementTQM in their jobs. One cannot predict just what

Applying Total Quality Management to the Educational Process 27

piece of knowledge will spark the idea that willlead to a significant process improvement.

14. Define management's responsibilities to makeit happen

Management, at every level but particularly atthe very top, must take and show pride inadopting the TQM philosophy. The meaning ofeach of the 14 points as related to the missionmust be clear to all involved. This is not a trivialprocess; a good deal of time must be spent inanalyzing the various processes and discussinghow the 14 points relate to those processes. Thetime spent in this effort forms the foundation forall of the TQM implementation.

APPLICATION OF THE 14 POINTS

The above 14 points are very general. WhenTQM is successfully applied, it is a result of acareful study of each point and a clear determina-tion of how each applies to the situation at hand.No two applications of TQM will be the same. Theform that a particular implementation takes isdependent on many factors such as the size ofthe institution, whether the institution is privateor public, and the strengths of the people involved,but the most important variables are the maturityof the students and the involvement of theemployer. Careful consideration of all aspects ofthe educational system will help determine justhow the TQM implementation will ultimatelylook.

The principles of TQM can also be applied tohigh school, middle school, and elementaryschool educational processes as well as to train-ing situations. The principle differences in the

implementation of TQM will be the result of therelative weight assigned to each of the customersat the different levels of education. The weightingthat is applied is primarily the result of thematurity of the students, but there are otherconsiderations as well. For example, in elementaryschools the most important customers, listed inorder of importance, are the parents of the stu-dents, the students themselves, and the middleschool to which the students are headed. As thematurity of the students increases, the studentsreplace the parents as the most important cus-tomer. In a training situation, the most importantcustomer is the organization that needs the individ-uals trained. Regardless who your primary cus-tomer is, it is essential that the students beincluded in the list of customers. Figure 1 showsa qualitative assessment of the relative importanceof various customers in different educationalenvironments. Please keep in mind that only a fewof the potential customers have been presented, butstudents must be considered in each case.

CONCLUSIONS

TQM can be a powerful tool in the educationalsetting even though it was developed with manu-facturing processes in mind. The key elements to asuccessful implementation are (1) gain the supportof everyone in the chain of supervision, (2) identifyyour customers, (3) focus on refining the process,and (4) use Deming's 14 Points as a guide andchecklist during the implementation effort. Thefinal result will be a more efficient operation anda teamwork attitude rather than an `us versusthem' attitude between faculty and students.

REFERENCES

1. M. Walton, The Deming Management Method, Perigee Books, New York, NY, 1986.2. L. E. Coate, Total Quality Management at Oregon State University, Oregon State University,

Corvallis, OR, March 1992.

Fig. 1. Relative customer importance.

R. C. Winn and R. S. Green28

3. R. S. Green, R. C. Winn, and M. L. Smith, Integrating Total Quality Management into athermodynamics course, Proceedings of the First International Conference on Post High SchoolTechnical Education, Jerusalem/Tel Aviv, Israel, December 1991.

4. R. S. Green, and R. C. Winn, Application of Total Quality Management to engineering education,Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference, Toledo, OH, July 1992.

5. R. S. Green, and R. C. Winn, Application of Total Quality Management to a thermodynamicscourse, USAF Academy Technical Report, (accepted for publication).

6. P. Senge, The Fifth Discipline, Doubleday, New York, NY, 1990.7. R. C. Winn, How much testing is enough? Proceedings of Frontiers in Education '90, Vienna,

Austria, July 1990.8. G. Bounds, L. Yorks, M. Adams, and G. Ranney, Beyond Total Quality Management: Toward the

Emerging Paradigm, McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York, NY, 1994.9. M. Imai, Kaizen, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, 1986.

Robert S. Green is currently attending the Air Command and Staff College. Previously,Maj. Green was a technology analyst studying distance learning at the Air Force'sHeadquarters Air Education and Training Command. He has also served as an AssistantProfessor of Aeronautics in the Department of Aeronautics at the US Air Force Academyand conducted aircraft propulsion research at Wright Aeronautical Laboratory in DaytonOH. Maj. Green received a B.S. in Aeronautical Engineering from the George WashingtonUniversity. He is a senior member of AIAA.

Robert C. Winn is a Senior Consultant with Engineering Systems, Inc. in Colorado Springs,CO. Prior to retiring from the US Air Force, Dr. Winn was a professor in the Departmentof Aeronautics at the USAF Academy. He also served as the Chief Scientist of the USAFEuropean Office of Aerospace Research and Development in London, England and was aninstructor pilot in several Air Force aircraft. Dr. Winn received a B.S. and M.S. inMechanical Engineering from the University of Illinois and a Ph.D. in MechanicalEngineering from Colorado State University. He is an associate fellow of the AIAA anda member of the SAE.

Applying Total Quality Management to the Educational Process 29