[Education & Training] A Case Study in Teaching Quality Concepts

PDSA with a "Twist"

The Deming cycle of Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) is well used and documented in a number of publications discussing continuous quality improvement. At Kansas State University, the PDSA cycle has been given a twist by the College of Engineering. For the past 12 years, the Dean’s office has been using the PDSA cycle to identify and solve actual problems at our school.

The university and students have benefited from this process. Kansas State has realized a number of process improvements and students have been educated about the college itself, their individual departments, and the intricacies of the world around them. The outcome is a student with some practical experience in problem solving and better preparation to enter the workplace and participate in quality initiatives.

More than 100 students are enrolled in the fall 2006 Personal and Professional Development course. The course was created in the early 1990s. Currently, four of the nine departments in the College of Engineering require the course for graduation.

For the first seven weeks of the course, students are presented with a variety of personal and professional development topics. The instructor leads students through Myers-Briggs personality preference exercises. Techniques for improving technical writing skills also are covered.

At this point in the semester, members of the class are formed into teams of three to five students. Most of the teams are comprised of individuals with different genders, social styles, and majors. The teams are introduced to basic continuous quality improvement concepts and to a modified PDSA cycle (shown on page 7). Each team is told to brainstorm "all the hassles you experience as a student." The brainstorming list is consolidated and the team selects one problem to study. Teams are encouraged to select projects that are small, simple and with a limited span of control (Step 1).

Throughout the remainder of the semester, students are introduced to process control tools including flowcharting, data collection, Pareto charts and return-on-investment concepts. The teams use these tools to "do" the project (Step 2). Discussions with faculty, staff, and fellow students ensue. Data collection and analysis is required – surveys are discouraged.

As the semester ends, students present their conclusions and recommendations (Step 3). Practicing professionals evaluate the formal presentations and comment on individual performance as well as perceived viability of the proposed changes.

Then industry representatives, stakeholders, and students meet in a final session to prioritize and recommend projects for "act" (Step 4). When possible, teams carry out their project recommendations. However, many projects require some additional study or commitment of time that extends beyond student capability or interest. Those projects are forwarded to the next semester’s class participants.

PROGRAM BENEFITS. The modified PDSA cycle experience has worked well for students, faculty, and the college leadership team. A variety of improvements have been made including improved bicycle parking, better newspaper distribution, more logical building classroom numbering, changes in student advising and curriculum modification. Through this class, the PDSA cycle has had a positive impact on college operations.

Students learn it’s far easier to complain about a problem than it is to fix it. Teams gain insight about existing processes and the fact that things aren’t always what they appear to be. Students also find that issues are far more complex than perceived and they sometimes discover the impact of personalities and organizational politics. The college leadership team and faculty learn about student concerns and have an opportunity to openly address misconceptions as well as legitimate problems.

As with all continuous quality improvement initiatives, team members often lack knowledge and experience. Therefore, mistakes are made, unnecessary or poor data is collected, feathers are sometimes ruffled, and "real" process improvements seemingly take too much time. However, the bottom-line is that students gain practical experience to problem solving and are better prepared to enter the workplace and compete in a global marketplace.

This learning tool is also commonly used in the food industry when teams are allowed to improve working conditions and enhance programs. The self-inspection team is one of the best resources used to improve a facility’s food safety programs. This multi-disciplinary team inspects the process on an established schedule to reveal inadequately cleaned equipment, maintenance issues, design issues, training issues, or other factors that expose the product to possible contamination. The team also validates that established programs are successfully implemented on the floor.

It is always easy to find issues, but not as easy to assign corrective action because several departments may need to be involved, employees may need to be retrained, major investments may need to be approved, or production shifts may need to be rescheduled. In a food plant, it is often easy to assign a temporary control procedure, but other departments and upper management may need to be included to find a permanent solution.

While it is easy to be critical of a process or activity, we often don’t understand how each process affects the others. The self-inspection team should seriously consider using the PDSA cycle, or a similar problem-solving method, to address issues as they relate to the entire food operation. AIB

Tom C. Roberts, P.E., is Assistant Dean, Recruitment & Leadership Development, College of Engineering, Kansas State University, tcr@ksu.edu.