OBSERVING IMPROVEMENT

IN A UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT

By Stuart Umpleby, Saadia Khilji and SangKil Kim

Research Program in Social and Organizational Learning

The George Washington University

Washington, DC  20052 USA

Email:  umpleby@gwu.edu

March 19, 2005

Prepared for the Research Program in Social and Organizational Learning

The George Washington University

 

- 2 -

Introduction
 

This paper contains data from the third of three surveys completed by faculty members in the Department of Management Science at The George Washington University.  The earlier surveys were made in 2001 and 2002.  This survey was
conducted in May 2003.  The purpose of this paper is to experiment with various ways of displaying time series data from
a Quality Improvement Priority Matrix (QIPM).  A QIPM is a way of obtaining information for data-driven decision-making.  The data collection process requires a list of features of a product or service or an organization.  Customers or employees
then rate the features on importance and performance.  Attention is focused on the features that are rated high in importance and low in performance.  This method of “data-driven decision-making” is easy to understand and to use.  It requires no special knowledge of statistics.  Managers can use the method to obtain regular feedback about where additional effort will produce the highest return in customer and employee satisfaction. 

A Quality Improvement Priority Matrix
 

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 survey we used the same features of the Department of Management Science that we used in 2002.  Although the Department is functioning very well, the quality improvement literature claims that improvement is always possible.  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? 

 
The quality improvement priority matrix is a simple but powerful management tool.  Often in organizations resources are allocated to favored groups.  For example, a dean who is a chemist might choose to allocate more funds to the chemistry department.  Or additional resources are allocated to the group that complains the loudest.  This matrix presents
an alternative.  By gathering data from customers and employees a manager can easily find out where improvement is
most needed and where additional attention will produce the greatest returns in customer and employee satisfaction.
The matrix also explains why funds are allocated as they are and thereby tends to silence critics of the way resources are distributed.
 

- 3 -
 

Discussion of Tables and Figures 

Table 1.  GWU Importance and Performance Means 2003    

 
- 4 -
 

Figure 1
GWU Importance Vs Performance Means, 2003

 Table 2.   Sorted by Importance (lower right quadrant)

- 5 -
 

Table 3.   Sorted by Performance (lower right quadrant)

Figure 2

 Graph of Importance Means:  Office Equipment

- 6 -
 

Figure 3

Graph of Importance Means:  Activities

Figure 4

 Graph of Importance Means:  Support

- 7 -
 

Figure 5

 Graph of Performance Means:  Office Equipment

 Figure 6

 Graph of Performance Means:  Activities

- 8 -
 

Figure 7

Graph of Performance Means:  Support

Figure 8

Importance over the years

- 9 -
 

Figure 9

Performance over the years

Figure 10

Importance Differences 2001-2002: Office Equipment

  - 10 -
 

 Figure 11

Importance Differences 2001-2002: Activities

Figure 12

Importance Differences 2001-2002: Support

 - 11 -
 

 Figure 13

Performance Differences 2001-2002: Office Equipment

  Figure 14

Performance Differences 2001-2002: Activities



- 12 -


 

 Figure 15

Performance Differences 2001-2002: Support

- 13 -

 

REFERENCES

Naoumova, Irina and Stuart Umpleby, “Two Methods Useful for Starting a Quality Improvement Program,” in Russell J. Meyer and David Keplinger (eds.), Perspectives in Higher Education Reform, Volume 11, Alliance of Universities for Democracy, Texas Review Press, 2002, pp. 185-193.

Umpleby, Stuart and Oleksandr Melnychenko, “Quality Improvement Matrix:  A Tool to Improve Customer Service in Academia,”  in J.A. Edosomwan (ed.) Customer Satisfaction Management Frontiers – VI:  Serving the 21^st Century Customer, Fairfax, VA:  Quality University Press, 2002, pp. 6.1-6.12.

Umpleby, Stuart and Aram Karapetyan, “How a Quality Improvement Priority Matrix Reveals Change in a University Department,” in Russell J. Meyer and David Keplinger (eds.), Perspectives in Higher Education Reform, Volume 12, Alliance of Universities for Democracy, Texas Review Press, 2003, pp. 315-322.

 



                                                                                           - 14 -

 top