Application of LHE to University-Level Academic Processes

Grade Change Administrative Process (Oakland University, 2011).26

After hearing about the dysfunctional state of the grade change administrative process at Oakland LJniversity (Rochester, MI), a faculty member who teaches a “Lean principles and practices” undergraduate course obtained approval to offer an 8-week summer semester course that would use Lean to recommend improvements to the grade change process. Students in the course participated in a “Lean Workout,” an intermittent RIE that took place over weeks rather than days. The team of students received training to prepare them for the specific activities (“just in time”) that would be part of the Lean Workout (e.g., kaizen, value vs. waste, 5S, value stream mapping, A3 Report). Both process and value stream mapping created “current state” maps for the undergraduate and graduate grade change processes; researching the grade change process, interviews with process stakeholders, and observing the academic and administrative personnel process grade change forms (“going to the genba”) confirmed opportunities for improvement in both the undergraduate and graduate grade change processes, including:

■ 72% and 90% of the steps in the undergraduate and graduate grade change processes, respectively, were classified as waste

■ 100% manual processes with no process owners or process metrics

■ 600+ faculty across various academic units may request a grade change without a standardized university process, training, or feedback loop.

The students brainstormed implementation recommendations to create a “future state” process that aligned with the requirements of the constituents of the process and the university administration (“voice of customer”). The proposed process map required only five steps (down from 16 and 43 steps for the current undergraduate and graduate grade change processes, respectively). The student team presented their finalized A3 Report with Lean process recommendations to associate Provost, Registrar, senior associate Registrar, and executive director of graduate study at the end of the 8-week course. A team of university administrators assumed responsibility for implementing the recommendations, and a revised online process was beta tested and then made available to a small group of faculty members for further testing and approval. The new process, adopted by the university, proved to be faster, cheaper, and easier to deliver for all participants in the process and led to better outcomes for internal and external constituents.

Course examinations (Edinburgh Napier University, 2013).²⁷ The coordination (i.e., preparation, distribution, collection) of end-of-year exams is a critical academic process that impacts student progress and, ultimately, degree completion. The Student Administration team at Edinburgh Napier University (Edinburgh, Scotland) was responsible for coordinating more than 20,000 course examinations per academic year across three campuses, a process so large and complex that exams needed to be scheduled in the evening and on weekends (much to the dissatisfaction of students and staff). A Lean improvement activity was planned following the next round of exams to gather baseline data. The Lean activity was scheduled as an intermittent RIE to accommodate team members’ day-to-day work commitments. The Lean team participated in a series of short workshops, site visits to view the visible aspects of the process, and other meetings to develop a deep understanding of the course examinations process. The team discovered that an examination paper was handled between 13 and 30 times in the process, with each handoff a potential opportunity for error. The lead time for the printing and manual collation of the examinations and any ancillary materials (e.g., case studies) limited the time available to faculty to prepare the examinations and also resulted in the conservative overproduction of examinations to ensure enough copies during the examination period. After identifying the waste and lack of flow in the examination process, the Lean team recommended a number of improvements to the process:

■ Shift the collation of examinations to machine as part of in-house print services, and implement one-piece flow (i.e., directly print, collate, and deliver examinations for each class). This eliminated the large batch- and-queue process required by the current examination process

■ Redirect staff resources, freed up by reducing the multiple handling of examinations, to better coordinate room, day, and time scheduling for examinations

■ Report and log abnormalities in the new examination process to support root cause problem-solving for continuous improvement.

Following a pilot of the new process during the smaller “resit” (i.e., make up) exam session, the new examination process was implemented universitywide, with a number of immediate benefits:

■ Staff time saved was equivalent to approximately two full-time employees during the exam delivery period

■ 2,500 fewer students were required to travel to a less familiar campus to take their examinations

■ Printing examination materials closer to the exam periods resulted in greater accuracy in the quantity of exams and ancillary materials printed, reducing waste and expense

■ The reduced turnaround time for printing gave the faculty an additional 2 weeks to prepare and submit examination materials, improving exam relevance and quality.

Overall, the application of Lean to the examination process, a core university-level academic process, provided benefits to students, faculty, the Student Administration team, and university finance and operations.

Approval Process for Curriculum Changes (University of Strathclyde, 2013).²⁸ The Ordinances and Regulations Committee at the University of Strathclyde (Glasgow, Scotland) is responsible for ensuring proposed curriculum changes comply with established quality requirements and approved curriculum changes are accurately communicated to students. Baseline data indicated a number of problems with the approval process: 82% of submissions were returned for correction; 72% were submitted late; 36% were for retrospective curriculum changes already part of the curriculum; and over half the committee meetings did not have appropriate representation from the faculties. A two-person project team was formed with the aim of designing a consistent process - from the submission of a request to the approval and publication of the curriculum change - in order to reduce the number of process errors and subsequent delays. The team created a “current state” process map which brought problems and waste to the surface. Their proposed “future state” map and action plan recommended the implementation of a number of improvements to the approval process for curriculum changes, including:

■ Create template documents for curriculum changes

■ Develop a university-wide SharePoint site to streamline submissions

■ Provide visual management with milestones for simplified tracking of current curriculum change requests

■ Modify working group membership to include faculty management teams to support academic members.

Significant benefits were realized following the project: 100% reduction in late requests; 100% reduction in submissions returned for correction;

100% reduction of retroactive approval for changes in curriculum; and 55% reduction in staff time spent on the curriculum change approval process.

Some Final Thoughts on the Application of LHE to Academic Processes: Teaching and Curriculum

LHE holds real promise for removing waste and improving flow in teaching and curriculum processes that individually and together affect student learning and success. Table 7.8 offers some potential solutions for adding value at the level of a course, a degree program, or university-wide. Some universities have implemented one or more similar solutions, most likely in an effort to increase enrollment (i.e., value to the university) and not necessarily to remove waste and impediments to flow from the ample number of teaching and curriculum processes that students and others experience throughout their (higher) education (i.e., value expected by beneficiaries). LHE principles and practices can help an individual faculty member, or a LHE project team, recognize waste and poor flow in current teaching and curriculum processes that add no value from the perspective of the beneficiary (e.g., student, employer) using a wide range of available tools (e.g., 3C, RIE, 5S). They can then identify, prioritize,

and implement solutions (e.g., Brainstorm, PICK Chart, Action Plan) that align with Lean practices/concepts (e.g., just in time, one-piece flow, pull vs. push, load smoothing) to improve the processes from the perspective of the beneficiaries and use the university’s limited resources more effectively. LHE provides an ongoing and systematic method for continuous improvement that can be practiced by every faculty member, a departmental faculty, curriculum committee, academic administrators, and all others in a concerted effort to provide the best academic experience for each and every student.