Transcript Ascertaining the Impact of the Business

Ascertaining the Impact of the Business-Oriented
Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award
(MBNQA) Model on Educational Institutions:
From the Voices of Educational Leaders
Ned D. Young, Ph.D.
Sinclair Community College
Dayton, OH 45402
[email protected]
Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award
(MBNQA)
• Established 1987 by the National Institute for
Standards and Technology (NIST)
• Historically based in Quality Management
• Developed to aid American manufacturers
in competition with foreign companies
• Provides a systemic framework for organizational
management
• Education institutions eligible to apply: 1999
The Baldrige Framework
Organizational Profile:
Environment, Relationships and Challenges
2
5
Strategic
Planning
Faculty and
Staff Focus
7
1
Organizational
Performance
Results
Leadership
3
Student,
Stakeholder
and Market Focus
6
Process
Management
4
Information and Analysis
Objectives of the Study
• Determine educational institutions involved with
MBNQA
• Determine which institutions have been awarded
their state’s highest level Baldrige-based award
• Analyze the perspectives of key institutional
leaders relative to the impact of the Baldrige
framework on selected learning systems
• Determine areas of the learning systems that have
been impacted (positively and negatively)
Prominent Actors in Quality Management
• Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award
• North Central Association of Colleges and
Schools (NCA)
– Academic Quality Initiative Program (AQIP)
• Baldrige in Education Initiative (BiE IN)
– National Alliance of Business (NAB)
– American Productivity & Quality Center (APQC)
• State and Local Baldrige-based Award Programs
Institutional Selection Criteria
• State quality award winner
• Highest level state award
• Multiple educational types
• Comparative organizational levels
• Varying lengths of engagement
Institutions Selected
• K1 - large K-12 district in the Southeast
• K2 - large K-8 district in the Midwest
• C1 - community college in the Northwest
• C2 - community & vocational technical college in
the central U.S.
• U1 - state regional university in the central U.S.
• U2 – state engineering and science university in
the central U.S.
Sources of Data
• 22 interviews with educational leaders
–
–
–
–
President/Superintendent
Trustee member
Quality coordinator responsible for application
Head of faculty governance group
• State quality award application and
ancillary documentation
Areas of Questioning
• Category 6 – Process Management
– 6.1 Educational Design and Delivery
– 6.3 Support Processes
• Category 7 – Organizational Process Results
– 7.1 Student Learning Results
– 7.2 Student and Stakeholder Focused Results
– 7.4 Faculty and Staff Results
• Miscellaneous Questions
– Interviewee’s role relative to Baldrige and quality
– How Baldrige affected an institution’s external view
– Communicating the Baldrige to institutional members
Conclusions
• In use by numerous educational systems
–
–
–
–
–
–
150 institutions (29 states) garnered 174 awards
28 awards were designated as the state’s highest
83 primary/secondary districts
15 technical schools
23 two-year colleges
29 universities
• Totals rising over time
– 2000 – 51 awards
– All years prior to 1997 total of 38 awards
Conclusions (continued)
• A system for continuous improvement (all
informant categories)
• An organization built on the principle of satisfying
stakeholder requirements (all informant
categories)
• Management by fact aids accountability and
decision making (all but faculty)
• Relationship with Plan-Do-Study-Act cycle
(quality leaders)
Relationship to PDSA cycle
Identify Stakeholder Need
Develop Strategic
Goals and Objectives
* Performance Outcomes
Corrective Action
* Measures
* Necessary Changes
* Tactical Plans
ACT
Assessment of Goals
and Objectives
STUDY
PLAN
DO
* Data for Decision Making
* Benchmarking
Implement Goals
and Objectives
* Learner Centered
Conclusions (continued)
• Potential for three-level enculturation
– Level I - administrative management & control
– Level II - instrument for faculty member selfassessment and reflection
– Level III – instrument for student’s own
learning systems
Conclusions (continued)
• Focus of leadership differs between
education and business
– In business, leadership has a direct impact on
organizational results (i.e. administrative
leaders impact performance)
– In education, leadership directly impacts
student results but the leader, in question, may
very well be the faculty member, not the
administrative leader
The Baldrige Framework
Organizational Profile:
Environment, Relationships and Challenges
2
5
Strategic
Planning
Faculty and
Staff Focus
7
1
Organizational
Performance
Results
Leadership
3
Student,
Stakeholder
and Market Focus
6
Process
Management
4
Information and Analysis
Recommendations for further research
• Testing the model within the classroom
• Increased sample population
• Communication and the business model
Ned D. Young, Ph.D.
Professor, Management
Sinclair Community College
444 W. Third Street
Dayton, OH 45402
(937) 512-2759
[email protected]