[The following article appears in the February 1994 edition of _TQM_in_Higher_Education_, pages 1-3.] THE POWER OF TEAMS [by] Jean Lamkin As colleges and universities become more involved in total quality management (TQM), the letter "T" in TQM could come to mean "team" quality management. Teams are a basic building block in every successful quality effort. They can be departmental, cross-functional, special project, or any other combination of people who touch a work process. Teams are the mechanism through which continuous im- provements are made. TQM advocates at Delaware County Community College (DCCC) in Pennsylvania, the U. of Central Florida (UCF), and the U. of Missouri (UM) are convinced that quality teams work well. Their belief that teams can get an organization moving in the right direction is supported by the results of the 1992 best Practices International Quality Study (IQS). The IQS concluded that teams are most effective in the early to middle stages of an organization's implementation of quality. Teams can really get the project off the ground and increase staff buy-in. Mary Ann Heverly, director of institutional research at DCCC, recalls that by working as teams, people began to relate to the "big picture" and move beyond personal issues. TQM has been active on DCCC's campus since 1985 and is at the mid-life stage, as described by IQS. Teams are now organized spontaneously and Heverly can no longer count the number in operation. They've become the normal way to do business. At UCF, Jan Terrell, quality management director, is leading workshops to build teams. Since UCF is in the early years of implementation, as defined by IQS, the emphasis is on developing team skills. Participants need to acquire the skills and tech- niques for working in groups before they can be assigned to improve processes. At UM, Betty Roberts, director of business services, re- sponds with enthusiasm when asked about teams. She agrees with Terrell that teambuilding training is essential to build consen- sus. Roberts cautions that the training period is the time to make it clear what the expectations will be in terms of time, extra work, and commitment. Honesty Is the Best Policy Quality teams aren't like the all-too-common committees that meet on rare occasions and put little demand on members. Roberts recommends that team participants be told up front about the membership requirements. After people have agreed to join a team and begin to work on a process, their enthusiasm, sense of purpose, and mushrooming camaraderie are hard to contain. It takes a while for a team to go through the development stages of forming, storming, and norming to reach the performing level. But once they've attained that capacity, there's no limit to what can be accomplished. The projects that campus teams have tackled generally fall into one of two categories: administrative and academic. Administrative processes lend themselves quite naturally to study. Teams relish the chance to "fix the system," and bureau- cracy is always a legitimate target for improvement. Academic processes, on the other hand, touch on sensitive issues, such as instructor effectiveness or academic freedom, and are inherently more difficult to measure. Only mature, skilled teams, like the DCCC groups, should work on academic processes. Figure 1 shows the administrative processes the three institutions have studied. _______________________________________________________________ Figure 1. Administrative processes studied UCF UM DCCC Financial aid Endowments Budget process ù accounting ù investment ù banking computerizing Registration Risk & insurance mgmt Computerizing the capital inventory ù data systems ù reports ù software Degree Computer data centers Course scheduling Certification Professional Copy & duplication hiring services Fee refunds Parking lots & tickets _________________________________________________________________ TQM Saves Money One reason often cited for initiating TQM is to save money and/or avoid cost. Several of the above processes have been fully studied and the results have positively impacted the budget in each case. For example, DCCC secretaries reduced the amount of time they spent at copy machines by 96%. When a team proved that a new parking lot wasn't needed, the college avoided $200,000 in expenditures. Streamlined processes increased the collection rate for tickets by 15% and reduced staff time by 28 hours per week. By adopting a team's suggestion to deliver mail to the post office in Zip code order, DCCC's administration cut $200 a month from its bill. Installing a voice message system to respond to routine inquiries about the GED program saved the Assessment Center staff from answering 175 calls monthly. The list goes on and on. Academic Potential However impressive and attractive the administration savings and improved functions may be, the real potential for TQM appears to lie on the academic side. Better mailing systems and ticket collections don't notice- ably improve student learning. The traditional paradigm of the instructor closing the classroom door and operating in isolation from peers and with little accountability to students and admin- istration won't shift of its own accord. Selwyn Becker and six of his colleagues at the U. of Chicago have implemented weekly student critiques to get prompt feedback on whether their lectures are on target. But, more often, as Michigan Provost Gilbert Whitaker Jr., observed, "The faculty would like to change the world, but not their own world." At UCF, Terrell reports that a team is looking at student retention in introductory algebra classes. The team is reviewing the causes and effects-pre-enrollment requirements, previous grades, and class activities-that influence classroom success. DCCC faculty have broadened the research to include all math classes. DCCC has established a goal of having 60 full-time faculty involved in TQM during this academic year, in addition to the 26 people already trained during the summer term. In 1992, DCCC's executive vice president and the vice president for collegiate instruction co-sponsored an action plan for faculty "challenge grants." The grants required the recipi- ents to use TQM techniques and strategies. Grants were awarded for research in: ù improvement of instruction through scientific, data-based research, ù support of collaborative teaching, ù systematic review of college curricula and programs, and ù improvement of faculty evaluation. The action plan's primary goal was to use teaching and learning research for informed decision-making, to empower students, and to capitalize on the strength of the faculty. "Project Learn," a program at Belmont U. (TN) and Samford U. (AL) (see TQM/HE, November 1993), provided the model for DCCC English department faculty to begin working together. As they talked about "Project Learn," the faculty discovered many common- alities across the department and began to share with each other. They continue to collaborate. The faculty was surprised to discover how seriously the students considered "Project Learn" questions. The idea for a tour of the lab areas seemed trivial to the instructors, but their customers, the students, rated it as a necessary addition to the program. DCCC received a Pew Foundation grant to fund a faculty development position for three years to support TQM efforts and a classroom assessment study. DCCC is also pioneering the use of a portfolio for staff evaluation. Reasons for Resistance If teams can be so effective, why do they meet with resis- tance? Faculty at various institutions have voiced several causes. These include the reality that change is painful and threatening; senior faculty and administration's arrogance; complaints about the time, energy, and work required of team members; a lack of a clear understanding about what TQM can and cannot accomplish; reluctance to empower subordinates; and the difficulty faculty have in accepting the concept that academic work can be measured and improved through process study. Heverly, Roberts, and Terrell would like to advise beginning TQM advocates and champions on the basis of their own experienc- es. They agree that the administration has to first buy into the concept and give it support and resources. Next, the education and training process must prepare people to use TQM techniques and work as a team. If the training period can include time spent in helping the team understand their "real world" problems and doing planning, that will boost initial efforts. Participants should be told what's expected of them and what their team's charter will be before they make a full commitment. Most important, the administration should practice quality on its own processes before asking the faculty to adopt the philosophy. For more information, contact: Jean Lamkin, President, Park Institute, Ltd., P.O. Box 11094, Norfolk, VA 23517: Ph: 804/640-0415.