CIB W89 BEIJING INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE, 21-24 OCTOBER, 1996

ADDRESSING THE PARADOX OF IMPLEMENTING TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT INCONSTRUCTION EDUCATION

Robert F. Cox, Ph.D.

The University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, U.S.A.

SUMMARY

Total Quality Management and Continuous Improvement philosophies have become one of the primary focuses for leadingconstruction organizations. It is generally accepted that there does not exist a single best application for the construction industryand that no two organizations are going to adopt these philosophies in the same manner. These beliefs hold true in the applicationof TQM and CI philosophies within education. However, a paradox exists in the application of total quality management ineducation due to the fact that the customer is also the product of the process. In addition, to complicate this issue further, theemployer of the graduating student also feels like they are the customer of the education process. At the heart of implementingtotal quality management is high involvement management and employee participation and effective empowerment. With this inmind, where does an education program draw the line in terms of student, who perhaps could be considered the customer, theproduct, and the employee in the education process. This paper covers each of these issues while discussing the process ofimplementing TQM strategies in construction education. The paper offers insights and interpretations of one total qualitymanagement facilitator / trainer.

KEYWORDS: Total Quality Management, Education, Continuous Improvement

INTRODUCTION

Total Quality Management (TQM) and Continuous Improvement (CI) has become a focal point of most organizations. A recentstudy conducted on TQM within the top 100 U.S. construction firms as ranked by Engineering News Record, found that 69%confirmed that they did have a quality management program [1]. Given this level of quality saturation within the top 100 U.S.construction firms it leads one to believe that quality management must be addressed in construction education. This means thatquality management should not only be taught, but it should be implemented and effectively utilized within the constructioneducation department or program. However, implementation of a quality management or continuous improvement philosophywithin an academic setting is met with an extreme paradox. This paradox is that the student is often considered the customer, theproduct, and even the employee of the process.

With this in mind, this paper will address the paradoxes involved and discuss several strategies to assist in overcoming them whileimplementing TQM into construction education programs.

The paper begins with the author's development of an operational definition of Total Quality Management. This is followed by adiscussion of the existing TQM paradoxes within academics. Once the paradoxes have been identified, some strategies forimplementing quality management into an academic setting are presented. This paper is intended to create innovative ideas withinthe reader, and only offers the views of one quality consultant and educator.

OPERATIONAL DEFINITION

Total Quality Management has many definitions. As a matter of fact, while attending a four-day conference by Dr. W. EdwardsDeming, he never once defined TQM [2]. In a series of discussions, one could ask ten people and get ten different answers.Therefore, in an effort to steer clear of any confusion, this author operationally defines total quality management as:

"A conscious, systematic and documented process which utilizes a collaborative effort to improved performance at the individual,group, and organizational levels."

This definition is the result of several years of reading quality and improvement literature, and over six years of contractorconsulting in the areas of employee participation and continuous quality improvement.

WHY TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT?

In many cases the response to such a question would be, 'Why not?' However, in this situation, the question warrants a morecomplete response. The literature concerning the application of quality management in education states that there are variousreasons behind such an effort, some of which include: enhancing their competitive advantage, improving market shares, providingbetter leadership and management philosophies; a need for higher quality, more cost effective products; improved morale andmotivation through participation, improving student outcomes and creating 'joy in learning'; and improved attraction and retentionof administrators, faculty, staff, and students [3].

It is quite obvious that TQM is a beneficial philosophy to follow in education. This is reinforced by the reported benefits whichhave included such things as: high involvement leading to improved processes and environments; changed mindsets and overallclimate; team building and improved collaboration between academic units, departments, colleges, and universities; realization ofcommon goals, objectives, and principles; improved efficiencies and effectiveness through elimination of redundancies and waste;and improved overall cost effectiveness [4].

Reading the suggested reasons behind and the benefits of forming a total quality education philosophy, one comes to therealization that academics is not that much different from any other organization. In fact, perhaps one of the most important pointsto be made is that education is a business. Just like any other organization, universities must effectively address the same threecomponents of a business: (1) sales or marketing, (2) finance, and (3) production or value-adding processes. Sales, production,and finance are becoming thrusts in all academic systems. The decrease in government financial support has drastically increasedthe need for alternative funding sources and it is not so surprising to see that many institutions of higher learning are being ranmore and more like a business. In doing so, administrators and academicians are changing their mindsets and embracing newmanagement philosophies in hopes of improved overall performance and cost effectiveness. Becoming catalysts for a qualitymovement and making the paradigm shift to addressing education as a business, brings with it the frustrations of severalparadoxes.

EXISTING PARADOXES

Many of these frustrations are the result of the lack of clear operational definitions. Knowing that each point of view has its owninterpretation of the quality system and its components, lets turn our attention to briefly discussing the existing paradoxes ineducation as it applies to implementing total quality management. However, this is not to say that these are the only possiblecorrect interpretations of these issues. In fact, it may be fair to suggest that 'quality is in the eyes of the beholder.' In other words,the developers of the system are clearly entitled to their own 'correct' interpretation and if they take the time to operationallydefine these components of their quality system, then they will be well on their way to effectively addressing each of these issues.

Figure 1: A Total Quality View of the Educational System

Raw Materials

The raw materials that are placed into the value-adding process of education come from an array of sources. Each of the sourcesshown in Figure 1 provide a somewhat different raw material. For instance, the high school provides a large majority of thestudents entering higher education, while some of these students become the raw material input at two-year colleges or vocationalschools, and others go directly into four-year institutions. These students are typically in the 17 - 19 year old age group and

require some additional value-adding attention before they are considered finished products of the university. Such attentionincludes the development of social skills and providing an environment that will nurture the maturing student throughconscientious advising and mentoring. In short, these raw materials may require a little more value-adding effort on the part of theuniversity system. In addition, when the discussion turns to the customer of the education system, we will find that this sourceperhaps has a different perception of the customer of the system.

Turning to the other raw material providers, the junior colleges or two-years schools provide their own value-added process to thestudents and then the products of their educational system become either a finished product or an enhanced input into anothereducational system. This same idea holds true for the students who come to the university from another university after havingreceived some value-added components elsewhere which may even result in the awarding of a bachelors or masters degree. In anyevent, these raw materials typically have another set of customers and require yet another series of value-adding educationalprocesses. The same paradox holds true for those persons entering the higher education system from corporate levels. These rawstudent materials have industry experience, often times coupled with some higher education, which results in yet another set ofvalue-adding system's needs and customer expectations. Only further complicating the existing raw material paradox.

Value Adding Process

What is the value-adding process of higher education? Could there be a series of value-adding processes that exist within theeducational system that must be effectively documented, understood, measured, managed, maintained, and continuouslyimproved? The educational process in and of itself is the value-adding process. Through learning one increases their knowledge,as well as their ability to learn, which in turn adds a 'potential value' to anyone. The situation may exist where the value addedprocess is the development of minds that are not only capable of understanding our history, but are capable of using our history toshape the future. Teaching about the past is easy, teaching students and preparing them for the decisions they face in the future isthe challenge faced by our attempts at value adding processes. This type of knowledge base of understanding the past, present,and desired future is the heart of the Grand Strategy System [5].

The Product

Referring back to Figure 1, the wide-variety of products in the educational system include: students, technology, innovation,services, theory, and knowledge. In each case, the quality expectations of the product produced differs based upon the end user.With respect to the student, the product is a person with potential to contribute to an organization or society immediately upongraduation. The key word is contribute. Following an education, a person needs to be able to accept a role within anorganizational system and make a measurable contribution to their overall performance. This is critical when we look at the'voice of the customer' in the next section.

The products of service, innovation, theory, and knowledge are more intangible. This is not to say that one can't develop ameasurement system that will effectively monitor and evaluate these outcomes, but rather these products often-times carrydifferent 'potential value' depending on the consumer or end-user.

The Customer

As mentioned earlier in this paper, it is sometimes very difficult to grasp the concept of an educational system without identifyingthe customer and clearly defining their expectations and needs. This is probably one of the most debated of all paradoxes in theapplication of quality principles to education - who is the customer?

There are many customers and end-users of the products of higher education. First, let's consider the student. The student isclearly the identical person, no matter if we are looking at them as the raw material, the product, or the customer of the system.However, students serve a vital role as one of the many customers of higher education. The students in the classroom serve as theimmediate internal customer of the lectures and discussions. In turn, the student then gains from a number of different experiencesand becomes a product of the system. It is very difficult, if not impossible to identify the point at which the student transformsfrom the raw material to the customer and then to the product, and back to the raw material, and so on.

Some may argue that the product of the system is not the student , but the education [6]. Exceptions are taken by our corporatecustomers who each year examine our products (students) in hopes of hiring the best ones available. Recently, the law of supplyand demand has forced many corporations to consider a student's potential as much so or even more than their current contributionstatus.

It was mentioned earlier in this paper that when considering the raw material is a high school student in the 17 - 19 year old agerange, the value-adding process covers a broader spectrum in order to shape the final product. A thought was also mentioned thatthis may also be an area of further complexity when trying to identify the customer at this point. When a family sends their

children off to obtain a higher level of education at the university, one may have to address the issue of 'who's paying' for theproduct. In a simple quality system the purchaser of the product is the customer. With this in mind, the family could be the truecustomer of the quality education system. This includes the parents, grandparents, and siblings. This family-wide customer basecomes from the idea that each member of the family 'pays' for the education, either directly through cash and loans, or indirectlythrough changes in their spending habits and reductions in their disposable income.

The corporate customers who hire the students may argue that they are actually the ones paying for the product throughrecruitment, wages, and benefits. It is quite common to find industrial advisory committees working with university programs toadvise on the curriculum so that it best meets the needs of the industry and to ensure that student hires are able to contributedirectly to their organization's performance. Corporations also serve as a source of many research grants and research subjects.This would suggest that corporations also serve the educational system much like the student in terms of raw material inputs(research information and data, students) and the knowledge gained from the research studies filters into the class room andbecomes a part of the overall education. All of which is supported through grants and scholarship funds provided by thecorporation.

Possibly the best way to look at the educational system customer is that it is society as a whole. This would include all of theaforementioned customers and even more. Knowing that the products of the system serve all of society in many different ways,this must hold true. The students go on to fulfill roles in our local organizations and serve the community, while innovationtouches each of us in upcoming products. Knowledge and theory are found in reports, textbooks, and other creative works in ourlocal libraries and bookstores. With all of this in mind, it is relatively safe to suggest that society is the ultimate customer of theeducation system.

Performance Measurement

A quality system is not complete without some form of evaluation that provides us with data turned into information, andinformation into decisions that will consistently lead us to continuous improvement. The performance of the educational systemcan come in many areas. One can look at the such things as: grade point averages, cost per student hour, student placement,average annual salaries reports from job placement, hiring ratios of graduating seniors, refereed publications by faculty andstudents, research funding, completion rates, and even the number of students who's relatives attended the program. This leads tosuch other measures as accreditation and newly developed course approvals, as well as innovative delivery systems and ideas.

In any case, it is up to the developers of the system to consciously define the key performance indicators for their system. Thismust be done in conjunction with the design, development, and enhancement of an effective performance measurement systemthat will promote continuous improvement.

STRATEGIES FOR IMPLEMENTING TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT

Many strategies exist for the implementation of total quality. Guides are available for reengineering that have much to offer aleader of the TQM movement. Some are provided in following paragraphs [7].

Clear and Engaging Leadership

Leadership is based upon a common thread between those who lead and those who follow into the same moral and emotionalcommitments [8]. Implementing TQM is a never ending process that must be constantly and genuinely supported by theleadership of the organization. This means that in order to accomplish this effort at the respective levels of a university structure,the program chair, department head, dean, and / or president must take a proactive role in ensuring that the followers understandthe changes and are motivated to make the transformation to total quality. The move to total quality philosophies requires theleader(s) to understand and communicate to everyone before, during, and after the implementation begins.

According to Deming, the successful leader must possess Profound Knowledge. The concept of Profound Knowledge requires aclear level of understanding systems, variation, theory, and psychology [9]. While some styles of leadership may lend themselvesto implementing TQM, it is apparent that leading the transformation requires the proper mix of leadership styles and theories. Infact, there is not a single leadership style that will ensure successful implementation of TQM Philosophies, but it is critical to theeffort that the leader must be willing to use their power to the best interest of all involved [10].

Develop a Plan

It is hard to conceive a contractor ever building a project without a set of plans. So too should be the case when dealing inorganizational change, there must be a formalized plan [11]. To borrow a productivity textbook's concept of planning, it suggests

that one must 'plan the preplan with passion' [12]. When implementing total quality the concept of false starts comes to mind andit is important to understand whether or not your plan failed, or did you simply fail to plan.

Provide Direct Access to Customers

Direct access for both internal and external customers allows for timely and accurate responses to customer needs andexpectations. There has already been a long discussion about the many customers of education and their points of view. No matterthe identity of our customer, internally or externally, there must be a direct link from the customer(s) to the value adding processthrough advisory councils, surveys, student exit interviews, employer surveys, etc...

Embrace Technology

Change is enhanced through technology. In fact many times technology is the catalyst for change. With respect to a qualitymovement in education, technology is the leading component for new directions being faced today. Some of which includedistance learning, CD-ROM, virtual reality classrooms, internet, and integrated information technologies that give students andfaculty access to virtually everything in real time. Technology will play the largest role in the movement to implement totalquality, because the customer has immediate access to the system via electronic means for both information access and feedback.

Promote Interdependence

Effective cross-communications and functionality provides for actions to take place simultaneously instead of linear. Althougheach portion of the system is responsible for different subprocesses, an integrated approach for technology, information, andproblem solving will improve the implementation and continuous monitoring. This also reinforces the importance ofunderstanding internal customers and the dependency of outputs from one another which serve as the input of the next.

Involvement Promotes Acceptance

Based on the idea that participation increases ownership, commitment, and loyalty of everyone involved, quality leaders mustdevelop and support a team effort to ensure success.

Lead by Example

Remember, don't do as I say, do as I do. In order to truly lead the changes to total quality, top level persons must genuinely showtheir support and dedication to through their own actions. Don't ever expect others to do anything that you're not willing to do.Change effects everyone in the system, so this example will soften the transition.

Scope of Implementation

Remember, the scope of quality implementation should not exceed the level of control or influence of those leading theimplementation. In addition, limit the scope to those processes that need improvement. Perhaps even those processes that need themost improvement, but don't attempt something that is perceived as impossible. Concentrate on those processes that can beaccomplished and share inputs and outputs. By doing so, an environment of shared necessity is created and everyone has a stakein the situation. This is compounded by the heightened level of awareness with internal customers as output become inputs, andso on.

SUCCESS CHARACTERISTICS

According to Andrews and Stalick [13], there are six survival characteristics for reengineered systems. Once the implementationhas begun, watch to see if any of these characteristics become evident within your quality educational system:

#1 Customers Matter Most: For internal and external customers, whatever matters to them matters to you. Without customers youhave no reason of being in business. Always start improvement efforts on what your customers agree as needing improvement.

#2 Create and Keep Only What is Value Adding: Once a raw material enters into the system, then each step of the value addingprocess must truly enhance the raw material by increasing its value. In simple terms, if the step doesn't enhance the product, thendon't waste the time and effort; improve the step or remove it.

#3 Lead from the Top; Work the Detail from the Bottom: Through effective leadership, establish the goals and objectives andcreate an environment that supports the individual in their efforts.

#4 Design the Whole; Implement the Pieces: Remember the system in its entirety by taking a holistic approach while laying thefoundation for the implementation. Then, each phase of the implementation should deliver results. These results will increasemomentum and free up resources that can be used on the next phase, creating a perpetual situation.

#5 Be Disciplined and Stick to It: Once the plan is established follow through on it. Maintain a constancy of purpose and asystematic approach. Persistence, patience, performance measurement and a pursuit of perfection should be the key ingredients tothe implementation.

#6 Donít Let the Consultants Do it for You or To You: Just like dieting. If you want advice on healthy habits you should get it.However, no matter how much money you spend on the advice and counseling, it all comes down to the fact that you must do ityourself. No one can do it for you. While consultants are a valuable part of the total quality movement, they can't do it for you.

CONCLUSIONS

The rise in total quality awareness has began to force academics to consider the necessity of implementing their own continuousimprovement program. Given the fact that 69% of the top 100 contractors in the U.S. follow a quality management philosophy,construction education must not only teach the concepts behind total quality, but also embrace it within themselves. There is noone formula for success. This paper has addressed the many paradoxes that exist in the educational system. It was argued thatsociety is the real customer of education, however it was also determined that no matter who you identify as your ultimatecustomer, keep customer focus. Give them a line of communication so that expectations can be clearly communicated andfeedback on the results provided.

By taking a holistic approach to implementing total quality in construction education, one will find that it is no easy task, nor willyou find anything that is any more rewarding. Its time to prepare ourselves for changes in the way we view education as a whole,its customers, its products, its value adding processes, and ultimately its future.

REFERENCES

1. Floyd, Kevin James (1996). 'Effectiveness of Total Quality Management Principles on Company Performance among theLargest United States Contractors,' Master of Science Thesis, May, 1996, M.E. Rinker, Sr. School of BuildingConstruction, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.

2. Deming Seminar by Quality Enhancement Seminars, Inc., October, 1992, Charlotte, NC3. Ritter, Diane S. (1993). 'Total Quality Management in Higher Education,' Quality and Productivity Management, Vol.

10, Number 2, Virginia Quality and Productivity Center, Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, VirginiaTech, Blacksburg, VA, pp. 17-23.

4. Ibid.5. Sink, D. S. and Monetta, D. J. (1992). The Theory of Grand Strategy Systems: Quality and Productivity Improvement

and Large-Scale Organizational Change. ICPQR Conference Proceedings. 6. White, John A. (1993). 'TQM: It's Time, Academia!' Quality and Productivity Management, Vol. 10, Number 2, Virginia

Quality and Productivity Center, Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, pp.59-66.

7. Andrews and Stalick (1994). Business Reengineering. Prentice Hall.8. Zaleznik, Abraham (1989). 'What makes a Leader,' Success, June, pp.42-45. 9. Deming, W. Edwards, (1986), Out of the Crisis, MIT Center for Advanced Engineering Study, Cambridge, Mass.

10. Cox, Robert F. (1996). 'Theoretical Foundations of Leadership in TQM'. Associated Schools of Construction NationalProceedings, ASC National Meeting, College Station, TX.

11. Cox, Robert F. (1995). 'Utilizing the Performance Improvement Planning Process (PIPP) In Push and Pull SystemsApproaches'. Associated Schools of Construction Southeastern Regional Conference Proceedings. Atlanta.

12. Oglesby, C.H., Parker, H.W., and Howell, G.A. (1989). Productivity Improvement in Construction, 1st Ed., McGraw-Hill.

13. Andrews and Stalick (1994).