HOW A QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PRIORITY MATRIX

REVEALS CHANGE IN A UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT

 

 

 

 

 

 

By Stuart Umpleby and Aram Karapetyan

with assistance from Saadia Khilji, Amir Raminfar, Maria Romanova, Tatyana Sedach, and Lilia Timofeeva

 

 

 

 

 

 

Research Program in Social and Organizational Learning

The George Washington University

Washington, DC  20052 USA

Email:  umpleby@gwu.edu

URL: http://www.gwu.edu/~rpsol

 

 

 

 

 

 

May 16, 2003

 

 

 

 

 

 

A shorter version of this paper was presented at the annual conference of the

Alliance of Universities for Democracy, Timisoara, Romania, November 9-13, 2002

 

 

 

Table of Contents

 

Abstract 3
Introduction 3
Results of May 2002 Survey 4
Comparing the 2001 and 2002 Surveys 4
Conclusions 5
References 5
Appendix A 25
Questionnaire for Quality Improvement Priority Matrix 25
Appendix B 27
Additional Questions 27

 

Tables  

1.                  Data for the 2002 Quality Improvement Priority Matrix

2.                  SE Quadrant Sorted by Importance

3.                  SE Quadrant Sorted by Performance

4.                  Data for 2001 and 2002

5.                  Results of Supplementary Questions

Figures

1.                  2002 Quality Improvement Priority Matrix

2.                  2001-2002 Arrows: Office Equipment

3.                  2001-2002 Arrows: Activities

4.                  2001-2002 Arrows: Support

5.                  Pareto Chart of Importance Differences: Office Equipment

6.                  Pareto Chart of Importance Differences: Activities

7.                  Pareto Chart of Importance Differences: Support

8.                  Pareto Chart of Performance Differences: Office Equipment

9.                  Pareto Chart of Performance Differences: Activities

10.              Pareto Chart of Performance Differences: Support

11.              We need more secretarial support

12.              The secretaries need more training

13.              We need more teaching assistants

14.              The teaching assistants need more training

15.              The language skills of TAs should be better

6

9

10

11

24

 

8

13

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

21

22

22

23

 

 

Abstract

 

A Quality Improvement Priority Matrix is a useful method for achieving data-driven decision-making.  Regular information from employees and customers about the features of the organization that most need improvement allows managers to focus attention and resources where they can best contribute to improving employee and customer satisfaction.  In May 2001 and May 2002, the members of the Department of Management Science at The George Washington University used a Quality Improvement Priority Matrix to identify those features of the Department that they felt were high on importance but low on performance.  The changes in how the features of the Department were rated for importance and performance clearly reveal where progress was made in the intervening year and where attention next needs to be focused.  This paper reports on experiments with how best to present the data.

 

 

Introduction

 

In February 1995, a Quality Improvement Priority Matrix was described by the people from GTE Directories in their presentation. This described how they won the Baldrige Award (Carlson, 1995).  A similar matrix, called a “strategic improvement matrix,” was used by the people from Armstrong Building Products Operations in their presentation to the February 1996 Baldrige Award conference (Wellendorf, 1996).  The matrix was used in several GWU student group projects in the late 1990s.  A matrix was used by visiting scholars at GWU in December 2000 to identify how the US Department of State’s Junior Faculty Development Program might be improved (Naoumova and Umpleby, 2001).  Later in May 2001, the members of GWU Department of Management Science also used a matrix (Umpleby and Melnychenko, 2001).

 

A Quality Improvement Priority Matrix asks customers or employees to rate several features of an organization on two scales – importance and performance.  That is, how important to them is that particular feature, and how effectively is the organization currently performing on that feature.  For this exercise we asked the faculty in the Department of Management Science at GW to evaluate various features of the Department and the School of Business and Public Management. Although the Department is functioning well, the quality improvement literature claims that improvement is always possible.  If so, where is improvement most needed?  With this method one looks at the quadrant that corresponds to high importance and low performance.  What features of the organization fall into this quadrant? Those are the features where improvement will lead to the greatest increase in customer and/or employee satisfaction.

 

This is the second study of how a Quality Improvement Priority Matrix was used among faculty members in the Department of Management Science at The George Washington University.  The first questionnaire was distributed in May 2001.  The second questionnaire was distributed in May 2002.  The 2001 questionnaire contained 51 features related to the Department and five questions about the matrix itself.  These questions asked whether the members of the Department found the exercise to be useful and whether they thought it would be helpful to other departments in the University.  A large majority thought the results were useful and that similar exercises in other departments would be helpful to them as well.

 

The 2002 survey listed 52 features of the Department and included some questions seeking additional information on the features rated high on importance and low on performance in the 2001 survey.  The 2002 questionnaire contained no questions about the questionnaire itself.

 

 

Results of May 2002 Survey

 

Table 1 presents the mean ratings on importance and performance for the features in the Quality Improvement Priority Matrix that was distributed to members of the Department of Management Science at their May 2002 annual retreat.  19 questionnaires were returned.  In some cases people did not rate all features.  In these cases the mean is based on the number who replied to that feature, not 19.  Figure 1 is the Quality Improvement Priority Matrix that presents graphically the data in Table 1. 

 

The features of greatest interest are those that fall in the “southeast” quadrant, that is, those rated high on importance and low on performance.  16 of the 52 features lie in the SE quadrant.   Using Excel it is difficult to attach either numbers or names to the points in the matrix.  So, the features in the SE quadrant are listed in descending order of importance in Table 2 and increasing order of performance in Table 3.  

 

 

Comparing the 2001 and 2002 Surveys

 

We also attempted to present the matrix data collected from the two years and hence to show how opinions had changed between the two surveys.  When we plotted both 2001 and 2002 data on one matrix in order to see how the ratings had changed, we found that the matrix was hard to interpret, because the data were too crowded.  So, we divided the features of the Department into three groups – office equipment, activities, and support.  Table 4 contains the data from both 2001 and 2002.  Figures 2, 3, and 4 present arrows showing how the positions of the features on the matrix changed in one year.  The arrows were drawn by hand.

 

Figures 5, 6, and 7 present Pareto Charts of the differences in importance between the two years for the three groups of features:  office equipment, activities, and support.  Figures 8, 9, and 10 present Pareto Charts of the differences in performance between the two years for the three groups of features.

 

What we see from Figures 2 through 10 is that in general evaluations of the features of the Department have improved.  The mean of all performance scores increased from 5.25 to 5.45.  The mean of all importance scores declined from 7.85 to 7.52.  There are several reasons for the improved scores.  A new parking garage was built, so performance scores increased for both student and faculty parking while importance scores decreased.  In addition a new office and classroom building was built, increasing the space available for faculty offices, classrooms, and conference rooms.  These physical changes are reflected in higher performance scores on features such as office space, classrooms, and conference rooms.  The importance scores on these features also declined.  The data for the two years revealed one surprise.  The importance scores for faculty, department, and school websites increased noticeably, while performance declined very slightly.  Apparently faculty members are using websites more and their standards for what is a good website have risen slightly.  Hence, figures 2, 3, and 4 demonstrate that when changes are made, satisfaction improves.  Furthermore, the matrix can identify features that need increased attention.

 

 

The quality improvement priority matrix is very helpful in identifying issues needing attention.  But often additional questions need to be asked.  Table 5 shows the results of nine questions asked to clarify the results of the questionnaire the year before.   Figures 11 and 12 clarify the issue of secretarial support.  We wanted to know whether the faculty felt we needed more secretaries or better-trained secretaries.  Apparently the concern is not that the Department needs more secretaries, but rather better trained secretaries.  Figures 13, 14, and 15 clarify the issue of teaching assistants. Here the faculty said that more teaching assistants are needed, but also better trained teaching assistants. Teaching assistants with better English language skills is important, but not as important as training in general.

           

 

Conclusions

 

We believe that this brief report is useful for the Department of Management Science not only because of the results, which can be used to guide improvement efforts in the coming year but also because the report illustrates the utility of a management method for helping a group of people to focus attention where improvement efforts can be most productive.  Future studies will probably focus on several issues:

 

  • More work can be done on finding the best ways to display data in order to show changes in ratings by customers or employees.

  • It would be useful to establish a criterion for deciding when changes in ratings are statistically significant. 

  • Rather than having a one year gap between collecting ratings on features and asking follow-up questions, a survey could be given to a small sample of members of the Department in order to identify the features that need further clarification. 

  • Finally, additional work could be done on finding ways to encourage people in organizations to use such matrices to guide improvement efforts. 

 

 

References

 

Carlson, Marilyn.  “GTE Directories:  Customer Focus and Satisfaction,”  The Quest for Excellence VII, The Official Conference of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality

Award, February 6-8, 1995, Washington, DC.

 

Naoumova, Irina and Stuart Umpleby, “Two Methods Useful for Starting A Quality Improvement Program,”  Research Program in Social and Organizational Learning, The George Washington University, Washington, DC, April 15, 2001, 14 pages.

 

Umpleby, Stuart and Oleksandr Melnychenko,  “Using a Quality Improvement Priority Matrix in a University Department,” Research Program in Social and Organizational Learning, The George Washington University, Washington, DC, September, 2001.

 

Wellendorf, James A.  “Armstrong Building Products Operations:  Information and Analysis,” The Quest for Excellence VIII, The Official Conference of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award, February 5-7, 1995, Washington, DC.

 

 

Table 1.   Data for the 2002 Quality Improvement Priority Matrix

 

 

Feature

Importance

Performance

1

Computer hardware

8.95

7.20

2

Computer software

8.85

7.35

3

Office space for faculty

8.00

5.40

4

Conference room and other

space

7.40

4.25

5

Computer labs

8.80

4.85

6

Copiers

7.80

6.60

7

Fax machines

6.75

7.25

8

Office security

8.95

4.30

9

Secretarial support

7.40

4.40

10

Teaching assistants

8.55

5.55

11

Annual retreat

5.85

5.75

12

Social activities

5.16

4.39

13

Recreational activities

4.33

4.39

14

Building/ physical environment

7.50

4.00

15

Accounts payable

6.89

4.22

16

Classroom scheduling

8.05

5.35

17

Classroom facilities

8.90

5.05

18

Projection equipment

8.75

6.25

19

Course catalogue

6.85

6.80

20

Faculty websites

6.90

4.90

21

Dept. websites

7.75

5.10

22

SBPM websites

8.40

5.10

23

Campus grounds

7.45

6.60

24

Parking for faculty and staff

7.65

5.35

25

Parking for students

6.78

5.00

26

Library journal collection

8.65

6.60

27

Library book collection

8.50

6.40

28

Interlibrary loan

8.17

7.11

29

Coordination with other depts.

6.65

4.90

30

A supportive climate in the dept.

9.00

7.15

31

Dept. head protects faculty from

admin. interference

8.90

8.05

32

Transparency of APT process

8.06

6.61

33

Travel support

8.20

8.15

34

Funds to support research

8.85

5.10

35

SBPM working papers series

5.28

3.47

36

Help with writing research

proposals

5.90

3.25

37

English skills of students

8.20

5.25

38

General ability of students

8.70

6.20

39

Course evaluations

5.60

4.45

40

Faculty annual reports

4.20

4.90

41

Salaries

8.80

5.35

42

Health care benefits

8.75

6.25

43

Retirement benefits

8.80

6.35

44

Opportunities for academic work

with Dept. faculty

8.00

5.89

45

Opportunities for academic work

with other GW faculty

7.95

5.32

46

Assistance with learning IT, e.g.,

Prometheus

7.16

6.11

47

Dept. strategic plan

7.47

4.11

48

Dept. organization to implement its

strategic plan

7.11

3.84

49

Use of continuous improvement

methods in the Dept.

6.42

3.58

50

Consulting opportunities in DC

area

6.55

5.05

51

Opportunities to meet local

businessmen and govt managers

6.05

5.10

52

Promotion of contract faculty

6.58

3.63

 

Figure 1.  Quality Improvement Priority Matrix

 

Table 2.   SE Quadrant Sorted by Importance

 

 

Feature

Importance/2002

Performance/2002

8

Office security

8.95

4.30

5

Computer labs

8.80

4.85

14

Building/ physical environment

7.50

4.00

47

Dept. strategic plan

7.47

4.11

4

Conference room and other space

7.40

4.25

9

Secretarial support

7.40

4.40

48

Dept. organization to implement

its strategic plan

7.11

3.84

20

Faculty websites

6.90

4.90

15

Accounts payable

6.89

4.22

29

Coordination with other depts.

6.65

4.90

52

Promotion of contract faculty

6.58

3.63

49

Use of continuous improvement

methods in the Dept.

6.42

3.58

36

Help with writing research

proposals

5.90

3.25

39

Course evaluations

5.60

4.45

35

SBPM working papers series

5.28

3.47

12

Social activities

5.16

4.39

 

 

 Table 3.   SE Quadrant Sorted by Performance

 

Feature

Importance/2002

Performance/2002

36

Help with writing research

proposals

5.90

3.25

35

SBPM working papers series

5.28

3.47

49

Use of continuous improvement

methods in the Dept.

6.42

3.58

52

Promotion of contract faculty

6.58

3.63

48

Dept. organization to implement

its strategic plan

7.11

3.84

14

Building/ physical environment

7.50

4.00

47

Dept. strategic plan

7.47

4.11

15

Accounts payable

6.89

4.22

4

Conference room and other space

7.40

4.25

8

Office security

8.95

4.30

12

Social activities

5.16

4.39

9

Secretarial support

7.40

4.40

39

Course evaluations

5.60

4.45

5

Computer labs

8.80

4.85

20

Faculty websites

6.90

4.90

29

Coordination with other depts.

6.65

4.90

 

 Table 4.  Comparison of Data from 2001 and 2002 

 

Feature

Importance/2002

Performance/2002

Importance/2001

Performance/2001

1

Computer hardware

8.95

7.20

9.44

6.44

2

Computer software

8.85

7.35

9.47

6.00

3

Office space for faculty

 

8.00

 

5.40

 

9.00

 

4.06

4

Conference room and other space

 

7.40

 

4.25

 

7.61

 

3.18

5

Computer labs

8.80

4.85

8.94

5.06

6

Copiers

7.80

6.60

8.24

5.76

7

Fax machines

6.75

7.25

7.44

6.00

8

Office security

8.95

4.30

8.88

5.31

9

Secretarial support

7.40

4.40

7.50

4.19

10

Teaching assistants

8.55

5.55

8.50

4.75

11

Annual retreat

5.85

5.75

7.00

6.94

12

Social activities

5.16

4.39

5.19

5.27

13

Recreational activities

4.33

4.39

4.38

4.33

14

Building/ physical environment

 

7.50

 

4.00

 

8.69

 

3.75

15

Accounts payable

6.89

4.22

8.00

3.58

16

Classroom scheduling

8.05

5.35

8.20

5.47

17

Classroom facilities

8.90

5.05

9.00

4.06

18

Projection equipment

8.75

6.25

8.65

5.88

19

Course catalogue

6.85

6.80

7.13

6.38

20

Faculty websites

6.90

4.90

6.38

5.13

21

Dept. websites

7.75

5.10

7.00

5.50

22

SBPM websites

8.40

5.10

6.94

5.50

23

Campus grounds

7.45

6.60

7.20

6.00

24

Parking for faculty and staff

 

7.65

 

5.35

 

8.13

 

4.63

25

Parking for students

6.78

5.00

7.00

2.92

26

Library journal collection

 

8.65

 

6.60

 

8.59

 

5.24

27

Library book collection

 

8.50

 

6.40

 

8.56

 

5.50

28

Interlibrary loan

8.17

7.11

8.44

6.36

29

Coordination with other depts.

 

6.65

 

4.90

 

\7.27

 

4.43

30

A supportive climate in the dept.

 

9.00

 

7.15

 

8.88

 

7.76

31

Dept. head protects faculty from admin. interference

 

 

8.90

 

 

8.05

 

 

8.25

 

 

8.63

32

Transparency of APT process

 

8.06

 

6.61

 

8.93

 

6.79

33

Travel support

8.20

8.15

8.53

8.33

34

Funds to support research

 

8.85

 

5.10

 

8.63

 

5.07

35

SBPM working papers series

 

5.28

 

3.47

 

6.19

 

3.00

36

Help with writing research proposals

 

5.90

 

3.25

 

6.76

 

3.07

37

English skills of students

 

8.20

 

5.25

 

8.53

 

5.06

38

General ability of students

 

8.70

 

6.20

 

8.76

 

6.88

39

Course evaluations

5.60

4.45

7.00

5.00

40

Faculty annual reports

4.20

4.90

6.38

5.81

41

Salaries

8.80

5.35

9.44

4.28

42

Health care benefits

8.75

6.25

9.50

5.27

43

Retirement benefits

8.80

6.35

9.50

6.44

44

Opportunities for academic work with Dept. faculty

 

 

8.00

 

 

5.89

 

 

8.53

 

 

5.60

45

Opportunities for academic work with other GW faculty

 

 

7.95

 

 

5.32

 

 

8.36

 

 

5.21

46

Assistance with learning IT, e.g., Prometheus

 

 

7.16

 

 

6.11

 

 

7.75

 

 

7.27

47

Dept. strategic plan

7.47

4.11

7.31

4.44

48

Dept. organization to implement its strategic plan

 

 

7.11

 

 

3.84

 

 

7.06

 

 

3.63

49

Use of continuous improvement methods in the Dept.

 

 

6.42

 

 

3.58

 

 

5.75

 

 

3.44

50

Consulting opportunities in DC area

 

 

6.55

 

 

5.05

 

 

6.69

 

 

4.56

51

Opportunities to meet local businessmen and govt managers

 

 

6.05

 

 

5.10

 

 

6.88

 

 

4.56

52

Promotion of contract faculty

6.58

3.63

 

 

 

 

Average

7.52

5.45

7.85

5.25

 

 

STDV

1.25

1.21

1.16

1.32

 

Figure 2.  2001-2002 Office Equipment

 

 

Figure 3.  2001-2002 Activities

Text Box:  
Text Box: 31


 

 Figure 4.   2001-2002 Support

 

Figure 5.  Pareto Chart of Importance Differences: Office Equipment

 

Figure 6.   Pareto Chart of Importance Differences: Activities

 

  

Figure 7.   Pareto Chart of Importance Differences: Support

 

 

 

 Figure 8.   Pareto Chart of Performance Differences: Office Equipment

  

 

 

Figure 9Pareto Chart of Performance Differences: Activities

  

 

 

Figure 10.   Pareto Chart of Performance Differences: Support

 

 

 

Figure 11.   Secretarial Support

 

Figure 12. Training for Secretaries

 

Figure 13.  Teaching Assistants

 

Figure 14.  Training for Teaching Assistants

 

 

Figure 15.  Language Skills

 

Table 5.   Results of Supplementary Questions

 

 

Yes

No

Don't know

1.   Should the Department have a written strategic plan?

13

5

 

 

 

 

 

2.   Should there be a team to implement the strategic plan?

10

8

 

 

 

 

 

3.   Should we create several process improvement teams within the department?

8

10

 

 

 

 

 

4.   Should the members of process improvement teams receive training in process improvement methods?

3

1

 

 

 

 

 

5.   Has Accounts Payable improved in the past year?

7

5

5

 

 

 

 

6.   Do you read the working papers? 

1

17

 

 

 

 

 

7.   Do you contribute working papers to the series? 

5

14

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8.  With regard to writing research proposals

 

 

 

     where would help be most useful? 

 

 

 

__ Generating ideas for research

4

 

 

__ Finding likely funding sources

12

 

 

__ Preparing the description of the research, including research methods

7

 

 

__ Preparing the budget, institutional descriptions, vitae, attachments

9

 

 

__ Other

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

9.   What kinds of help with research proposals would you like to have?

 

 

 

__ Research assistant

11

 

 

__ Professional proposal writer

7

 

 

__ Other

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix A

 

Questionnaire for a Quality Improvement Priority Matrix

Below is a list of features of the Department of Management Science or SBPM. We would like to create a Quality Improvement Priority Matrix (2002) using these features.  So, please rate each feature on a scale from 0 to 10.  That is, on the importance scale, 0 would mean the feature is not important at all.  5 would mean the feature is moderately important.  10 would mean the feature is very, very important.  On the performance scale, 0 would mean that current performance is very, very poor.  5 would mean that current performance is neither bad nor good. 10 would mean that current performance is excellent.

Please fill out the form and give it to Stuart Umpleby today (Monday).

Results will be presented (briefly) tomorrow.

 

 

Feature

Importance

Performance

1

Computer hardware

 

 

2

Computer software

 

 

3

Office space for faculty

 

 

4

Conference room and other space

 

 

5

Computer labs

 

 

6

Copiers

 

 

7

Fax machines

 

 

8

Office security

 

 

9

Secretarial support

 

 

10

Teaching assistants

 

 

11

Annual retreat

 

 

12

Social activities

 

 

13

Recreational activities

 

 

14

Building/ physical environment

 

 

15

Accounts payable

 

 

16

Classroom scheduling

 

 

17

Classroom facilities

 

 

18

Projection equipment

 

 

19

Course catalogue

 

 

20

Faculty websites

 

 

21

Dept. websites

 

 

22

SBPM websites

 

 

23

Campus grounds

 

 

24

Parking for faculty and staff

 

 

25

Parking for students

 

 

26

Library journal collection

 

 

27

Library book collection

 

 

28

Interlibrary loan

 

 

29

Coordination with other depts.

 

 

30

A supportive climate in the dept.

 

 

31

Dept. head protects faculty from admin. interference

 

 

32

Transparency of APT process

 

 

33

Promotion of contract faculty

 

 

34

Travel support

 

 

35

Funds to support research

 

 

36

SBPM working papers series

 

 

37

Help with writing research proposals

 

 

38

English skills of students

 

 

39

General ability of students

 

 

40

Course evaluations

 

 

41

Faculty annual reports

 

 

42

Salaries

 

 

43

Health care benefits

 

 

44

Retirement benefits

 

 

45

Opportunities for academic work with Dept. faculty

 

 

46

Opportunities for academic work with other GW

faculty

 

 

47

Assistance with learning IT, e.g., Prometheus

 

 

48

Dept. strategic plan

 

 

49

Dept. organization to implement its strategic plan

 

 

50

Use of continuous improvement methods in the Dept.

 

 

51

Consulting opportunities in DC area

 

 

52

Opportunities to meet local businessmen and govt managers

 

 

 

Appendix B

 

Additional Questions

             Last year some items were ranked low in performance. These questions seek additional information on those items.

 

1.   SBPM working paper series

             a.   Do you read the working papers?    Yes      No

                        If not, why not?

 

            b.   Do you contribute working papers to the series?      Yes      No

                        If not, why not?

  

            c.   What would make the working paper series more useful to you?

  

2.   Help with writing research proposals

             a.   Where would help be most useful?  (Check all that apply.)

                        __ Generating ideas for research

                        __ Finding likely funding sources

                        __ Preparing the description of the research, including research methods

                        __ Preparing the budget, institutional descriptions, vitae, attachments

                        __ Other

 

            b.   What kinds of help would you like to have?  (Check all that apply.)

                        __ Research assistant

                        __ Professional proposal writer

                        __ Other

 

3.   Use of continuous improvement methods in the Dept.

 

            a.   Should we create several process improvement teams?                    Yes      No

            b.   If so, what processes should be worked on?

           

             c.   Should the members of process improvement teams receive training in process                            improvement methods?

 

4.   Accounts payable

             a.   Has Accounts Payable improved in the past year?   Yes      No

                        If so, in what way?

 

             b.   What can the Dept. do to improve the performance of Accounts Payable?

 

 

5.   Dept. organization to implement its strategic plan

 

            a.   Should the Dept. have a written strategic plan?                    Yes                  No

 

            b.   Should there be a team to implement the strategic plan?       Yes                  No

 

 

6.   Building/ physical environment

What could be done to improve the building/ physical environment (before moving to the new building)?

 

7.   Secretarial support

 

            a.   We need more of them.

 

 strongly           agree        slightly        neutral         slightly        disagree         strongly

 agree                                agree                                disagree                              disagree

 

            b.   They need more training/ preparation.

 

 strongly           agree        slightly        neutral         slightly        disagree         strongly

 agree                                agree                                disagree                              disagree

 

            c.   Other

 

8.   Coordination with other departments

 

            a.   In what ways is coordination with other departments not working well?

 

            b.   What are the causes of poor coordination?

 

            c.   What could be done to improve coordination?

 

9.   Opportunities to meet local businessmen and government managers

            a.   Do you attend meetings of the SBPM Alumni Association? Yes      No

         

             b.   What could the Dept. do to increase your opportunities to meet local          

                    businessmen and government managers?

 

10.   Consulting opportunities in the DC area

 

            a.   Do you currently do consulting?                   Yes                  No

 

            b.   What could the Dept. do to increase your consulting opportunities?

 

11.   Teaching assistants

            a.   We need more of them.

 

strongly            agree        slightly        neutral         slightly        disagree         strongly

agree                                 agree                                disagree                              disagree

 

            b.   They need more training/ preparation.

 

 strongly           agree        slightly        neutral         slightly        disagree         strongly

 agree                                agree                           disagree                            disagree

 

            c.   Their language skills should be better.

 

 strongly           agree        slightly        neutral         slightly        disagree         strongly

 agree                                agree                           disagree                            disagree

 

back to recent papers page

back to QIPM page