[The following article appears in _TQM_in_Higher_Education_, December 1993 issue, pp. 1-3.] PLANNING STRATEGICALLY FOR QUALITY [by] Thomas Haas Ed. note: Haas, associate professor and chief of the chemistry section at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy, was selected as an American Council on Education Fellow for 1992-93. He served his fellowship at Western Michigan U. (WMU) developing a quality improvement program for the school. This article summarizes WMU's efforts using CQI in planning. With the exception of a handful of entrepreneurial community colleges--Fox Valley (WI), Delaware County (PA)--and four-year institutions--Samford (AL), Oregon State--higher education has been a late arrival in the quality classroom. However, it's rapidly catching up on missed work. By the end of the 1992-93 academic year, well over half of the 3500 postsecondary institutions in the U.S. had either implemented or were seriously considering CQI programs, including comprehensive research institutions like Michigan, Pennsylvania, Cornell, and Wisconsin. In addition, CQI was a major theme of AAHE's annual meeting in 1993. Adapted to higher education, quality programs offer tantalizing benefits as universities are being increasingly called to account by their various constituencies: students, parents, alumni, taxpayers, legislators, boards, business and industry, employers of graduates, foundations, and private and federal granting agencies. Early efforts to transpose CQI principles from a corporate setting to an academic one have enjoyed uneven success. Quality programs may be sabotaged from a number of directions: 1. Impatience--Quality doesn't happen overnight. It's not a "quick fix" or "instant cure" but an ongoing process that requires an implementation period of at least five years. 2. Failure of top leaders to "walk the talk"--Central administrators must lead by example and be prepared to devote 15%-25% of their work week to quality initiatives. 3. Unwillingness of top administrators to relinquish authority-- CEOs and vice presidents must exercise leadership but not control. Teams must be empowered to make decisions and take responsibility. 4. Failure to adapt business principles to an academic setting-- Faculty, especially in arts and sciences, can be brutal critics of CQI. Wise leaders will focus initially not on academic departments or classroom teaching, but on support service areas with layered bureaucracies, heavy paper flow, and time-encrusted procedures. As these areas accumulate a record of success, academic departments should be encouraged (but not required) to form quality teams. Institutions may avoid antagonizing the faculty by replacing simplistic language, false analogies, and business jargon with terms like 'constituents' or 'beneficiaries' or 'those we serve' instead of 'customers,' 'outcomes' instead of 'products.' 5. Absence of a commonly understood, widely accepted, institutional mission--Quality-improvement efforts are most likely to succeed when they're tied to a deliberate process of strategic planning led by the institution's CEO. The planning process is complete and successful when everyone knows where the ship is headed, everyone holds an oar, and everyone's pulling in the same direction. INTEGRATING CQI WITH STRATEGIC PLANNING Institutions embarking on a major quality initiative would do well to follow Covey's advice by "beginning with the end in mind," that is, by articulating a statement of purpose or mission. The institution's vision must be firmly rooted in its own values-or what is sometimes called the "institutional culture." All in the organization must feel welcome to express their views and be invited to come together to create something greater than any one of them could create alone. The CEO must lead the way by convening influential groups and inviting answers to difficult and probing questions. An important role for the president during this process of self-scrutiny is to "drive out fear"--a central principle in Deming's work--by encouraging free debate about the institution's strengths and weaknesses, opportunities and threats, and desired outcomes and possible assessment measures. This "situation analysis" not only allows an institution to validate its current mission, but also to express its collective anxiety about the external forces that threaten it and to begin the slow, painful contemplation of change. From this open discussion will emerge a shared understanding of the institutional culture ultimately affecting decision-making and resource allocation. Institutions already engaged in academic program review, self-studies for accreditation purposes, learning assessment, or accountability programs would be wise to bring all of these processes under the single mantle of CQI rather than present CQI as "just one more thing we have to do." At the same time, they need to persuade the consumers of these reports --accrediting bodies, boards, government agencies, and foundations--to accept a single reporting mechanism that's developed and owned by the persons being evaluated. CQI PLANNING INITIATIVES AT WESTERN MICHIGAN Western Michigan U. is in the early stages of implementing quality programs in conjunction with strategic planning, accountability, assessment, self-study, and program-review processes already underway. The university has identified a small number of major goals to guide their development through the l990s. Its president, provost, and vice presidents see CQI as an effective response to accountability demands from both internal and external constituencies. For WMU's quality initiative, President Haenicke proposed a mid- range planning horizon of three to five years. As a first step, all major administrative and academic units were asked to prepare reports listing their accomplishments during the past year, their midrange goals, and any potential barriers to achieving those goals. Three major ad hoc committees on academics, administrative support, and tuition and fees, reporting to a central planning committee, were created and charged with developing recommendations on institutional directions and priorities, with maximum input from their constituencies. WMU's planning committee began with areas where CQI initiatives had already begun, as well as units that had shown an interest in forming teams: for example--financial aid, computing, college of business advising, health center, and admissions. WMU developed and shared campuswide, the basic tenets of their CQI initiatives. Here is WMU's statement: 1. CQI positions WMU as an institution which delivers excellent service to diverse customers. 2. CQI strengthens the institution by developing the potential of individuals and supporting their achievements. 3. CQI is an intentional process which requires strategic thinking by everyone to seek continuous improvement of services, programs, and facilities. 4. CQI is designed to make WMU more flexible and competitive with the effective use of resources compatible with the university's mission. CQI represents a major paradigm shift for American higher education. While it offers an exciting opportunity for positive change, it's also an undertaking full of risk, especially for leaders who are new to an institution and have yet to establish the confidence and trust of the university community. The rapid evolution of WMU from a small college with a narrowly defined mission to a large, comprehensive, research university serving increasingly diverse populations has created a major challenge: defining its complex mission in simple terms. In 1990, WMU endorsed a mission statement with five major components: high quality instructional programs whose outcomes can be assessed, expanded research outcomes, contributions to the economic development of the region and state, community service, and increased diversity among students, faculty, and staff. In a major international address, Haenicke endorsed these goals, stating that "accountability to the people we serve" must be the primary concern of higher education in the l990s and that WMU was about to embark upon a systematic, universitywide, strategic planning process and adopt the principles and practices of CQI, defined as "doing the right thing in the right way the first time." WMU, unlike other institutions, wasn't in a state of local crisis when it turned to CQI. The university was motivated instead by the larger, more global crisis facing American higher education, loss of faith among those we serve, and by the desire to position themselves more competitively among their peer institutions. EARLY LESSONS Although its quality improvement initiatives aren't fully operational, WMU has made a good start and has learned some valuable lessons: 1. Start in administrative areas-computing services, accounts payable and receivable, and auxiliaries. 2. Employ a "small gains" strategy. Select a few strategic areas with high likelihood of success. 3. Make participation voluntary, not mandatory, even among central administrators. 4. Lead by example. Prior to launch, each vice president should identify a problem in his/her area and address it using CQI principles, training modules, statistical tools, and methodology. In this way, top administrators get "just-in-time" training while communicating an important message to their staff: we aren't asking you to do anything we're unwilling to do ourselves. 5. Just do it. Plan carefully but don't talk the program to death. Take the plunge and learn by doing. Colleges are great places to make mistakes and learn valuable lessons. 6. Let people choose their own projects. Administrators should avoid the temptation of rushing to identify projects, which implies top-down judgments. Empower the people in the trenches to identify their own problem areas and work toward their own solutions. 7. Avoid using business buzz words that evoke a negative knee jerk response, especially in academe. 8. Maintain a low initial profile. Start small, gradually enlarging the program's public profile as its successes may justify. 9. Don't promise big cost savings or characterize the program as a budget-cutting tool even though efficiencies may result in real savings. Instead, focus on improving services. 10. Celebrate successes and reward teams rather than individuals. WMU has a timeline to insure that momentum is maintained in the coming year. Haenicke has named Barbara Liggett, the associate vice president for human resources, to lead WMU's quality effort. A Q-Council, consisting of the president, provost, vice presidents, and advisor for quality will monitor the program's progress over the next several years. A quality steering task force, composed of representatives from the pilot teams, faculty senate, and bargaining units, will receive CQI training, evaluate progress, identify resource needs, and report successes to the university community. After two years, the university will undertake a major program evaluation. WMU, like many other American colleges and universities, has turned down a new path leading to a future ripe with potential. Strategic planning enables an institution to think about what it wants to be, build on its strengths, and seize new opportunities. CQI gives it a workable paradigm, for marshaling its collective intelligence, skills, and values in the service of students and society. For more information, contact: Thomas Haas, Associate Dean, U.S. Coast Guard Academy, New London, CT 06320; Ph: 203/444-8275; Fax: 203 /444-8627. [For for information or to subscribe to TQMHE, contact: TQM in Higher Education Magna Publications, Inc. 2718 Dryden Drive Madison, Wisconsin 53704-3086 Phone: 608-246-3591 or 800-433-0499.]