Experiences of Teaching Quality in Higher Technical

Institutes

Dr S G DeshmukhDirector

ABV- Indian Institute of Information Technology & Management , Gwalior

ANQ Congress, 20 Oct 2010

Outline of the presentation

• Background

• About TQM course at IIT Delhi

• Features

• Observations and Insights

• Learnings and concluding remarks

Background to the course

• Curriculum designed jointly by IIT Delhi, Industry associations and industry

• Focus on applications of TQM

• Emphasis on “Learning-by-doing” through the framework of Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA).

• Offered as an elective for all disciplines at IIT Delhi• It is 3-0-2 course (meaning 3 lecture hours + 2 lab

hours per week) : In all 42 lecture hours + 28 lab hours, total of 70 Hours)

Course Design

Concept ThroughCustomer satisfaction Regular feedback, change in behavior,

acknowledgement from them

Team working and syndicate exercises [

Discussions in labs, a variety of assignments, open-ended exercises etc.

Focus on softer aspects of TQM

By sensitizing students about team work, leadership, group dynamics , difficulties in implementing TQM etc.

Continuous process evaluation and improvements

Feedback, field level improvements actually carried out

MEL420: Total Quality Management Course Goals

To enable students to• Appreciate importance of quality and its historical

evolution• Understand continual improvement, customer

satisfaction, process improvement and total organizational involvement;

• Understand both technical and philosophical issues surrounding quality management;

• Apply quantitative and qualitative tools and techniques in appropriate ways to investigate and ultimately resolve product or service quality concerns; and,

• Evaluate use of TQM initiatives, tools, and techniques

Pre-launching activities

• CII, FICCI , ASSOCHAM , NPC, BIS involved

• Visit to European universities, Industry and other IITS

• Brainstorming sessions for designing the course contents

• Maruti, Escorts, Eicher, Nucleus Software, SAIL,BHEL etc. involved

• Train-the-trainer programme for faculty

• Resource material (Video films, cases, work sheets) donated by EU

• Pilot testing & feedback

Methodologyof Teaching-Learning Process

• Lecture sessions• Hands-on lab

sessions• Case studies• Video films• Computer simulations• Guest lectures from

industry• Industry visits• Mini-projects

Quiz Minor Tests

Major Test

Mini-Project

Lab Book Review etc.

5 % 25% 35% 15 % 15 % 5 %

TQM principles applied..Involvement of all Design of course contents involved faculty, and industry

and feedback from alumni.

Customer focus Student interest and excitement kept in view while making the course contents interesting

Continuous improvement

Course contents, method of delivery, mode of interaction improved based on the feedback received form time to time from various stakeholders. Conventional use of blackboard and overhead projection to multi-media and web based tools.

Team working Lab content, mini-project and diary through team effort. Each team was given a name to reflect the character and spirit of the team.

Leadership Head of the institution actively involved getting support from industry and industry associations

Head of the department and other staff supported for making resources available

Innovations… • Stimulating assignments ( 7 QC tools, on

bad designs, poka-yoke, QFD) and case studies

• Emphasis on syndicate exercises and Open ended assignments

• Project component helps to relate real life experiences in and around

• Technology enabled

Poka yoke for : Registration process at IITD,Items such school bag, LCD projector

Outcomes of the learnings !

• Mini-Projects – Paper by students won

award (for example: Gold medal in IIIE )

– Resulted in improved procedures for hospital, dept library, layout for sections

– Improved morale !

Measurement of performance Related to Brief description Evidence

Faculty Number of papers published,case studies developed, Resource material (books/CDs) developed

Various case studies developed, Resource material in terms of ppt slides

Help in Placement of students

Assistance provided by the course in placement

Helped to place at least 20 % of students due to exposure to the courseNew companies came for campus placement

Growth % growth in enrollment for the course, Number of self-financed students enrolled, increase in course coverage

Growth in enrollment

Utilization of intellect

Number of ideas coming out of mini-project which are implemented in hostel, work –shop etc.

Layout of postgraduate office changed, web based registration process , streamlined the departmental library issue/receipt process etc.

Measurement of performance.. Feedback from students

On Methodology.. Sn Item Score with

Maximum

Of 5

1 Organization, clarity andpresentation of fundamental concepts

4.16

2 Instructor’s attitude towards teaching

4.56

3 Experiments provided new insights

4.34

4 Overall laboratory experience 4.01

5 Overall quality of teaching 4.36

On ConceptsSn Concept Score

1 Motivation 4.40

2 5-S & House Keeping 4.23

3 Internal/External customers 4.23

4 QC tools 4.20

5 PDCA 4.10

6 SQC 4.08

7 Definition of Quality 4.05

8 Group Dynamics & Leadership 4.03

9 TPM 3.90

10Difference between QC, QA, TQM 3.80

Teaching/learning• Student interaction with faculty and other

students is an essential characteristic and is facilitated in a variety of ways, including email, e-groups.

• Feedback to students on assignments and questions is constructive and provided in a timely manner.

Quality is about systemic change. Motivate students to act as change catalysts

Observations..• Definition of "customer" is a buyer of a product or service.

The student certainly fits this definition of the world "customer".

• Student is buying course and has certain expectations such as : Relevant course content, fairness, access, expertise, and a reasonable learning situation. External customers (such as in a typical manufacturing situation) have the freedom to choose their supplier. This is not true for internal customers in education. They are stuck. They must use their given service provider, because it is their only option.

• This lack of competition frequently may breed contempt for internal customers. Students rarely know what they need.

• This also means certain “commercial transaction” for which a faculty may not be mentally prepared.

• Defining quality under such circumstances becomes a difficult and challenging task, which may lead to the perception that the student is not the customer, but is the product. Students are both the customer and co-producer.

Students as a customers?

• Since student pay education costs; he should be treated in the same way as any other purchaser of goods or services

• Students do not know what combination of skills / knowledge will best equip them for the world of work; they may not appreciate the importance of a subject until they are in employment

• Students seek the easiest options and courses with soft assessments; conversely they may punish academically demanding staff through critical feedback

• Lectures are expected to entertain rather than involving participation

• Students do not pay the full cost of their education and they are not “purchasing” a qualification per se

• Students adopt a consumerist perspective and expect good grades, irrespective of the amount of effort they have invested or the quality of work produced

• Students transfer responsibility on to teachers rather than taking responsibility for their own learning. This results in a reluctance to conduct independent study and greater demands for all material to be provided for students to learn as if education can be simply passively consumed

Insights..• Student does not only consume the final

product (therefore, are customers), but also participate in its production (therefore, is co-producer or employee).

• The student may not be the product. The real product is the learning of the students and the consequent change in behavior.

• Learning as a team effort between teacher and the student.

• Jointly, they produce a product that is learning of the student. Both parties are responsible participants in that process.

Insights gained..

• Total quality is about systemic change .The "lead actor" in TQM is the process of systemic change itself.

• The teaching process - proactive learning methodology rather than reactive teaching-based methodology.

• Principles of autonomous teams and empowerment most useful to the classroom situation.

Effective TQM implementation in class requires

• Commitment demonstrated by examples not gimmicks or slogans and teacher acting as facilitator rather than controller.

• Information Technology as an enabler • Satisfaction of students as the first priority• Problem-solving approach through synergistic

teamwork and emphasis on process approach

Concluding remarks..

• Engineering students can be sensitized to ‘soft’ courses

• Outcome may not necessarily be a ‘grade’ to be earned but many other intangible rewards (such as going through the process, relating industry experiences with academics, keeping touch with faculty and enhancing quality of instructions).

• Technology as an enabler for class management• Translation of experiences to other courses as

well

Thanks due to…

• Prof V S Raju• Prof Prem Vrat• Prof Arun Kanda• Prof D K Banwet

– Dr Arshinder Kaur– Dr Vipul Jain– Dr Jitesh Thakkar– Mr Apratul Shukla – Mr M K Bhatnagar, and

ETSC Staff

and YOU for patient hearing You may contact me on :

sgdeshmukh2003@yahoo.co.in