If We Don’t Do It Well, Someone Else Will:

How TQM Made a Difference at One University

Rodger Summers

The new millennium will present additional challenges for institutions of higher education in terms of providing good service to all members of the academic community. The student is the customer and this will become even more paramount as we enter the new century. Legislators across the country are demanding that higher education become more honest and efficient. The Higher Education Reauthorization Act contains legislation that will force colleges and universities to confront the issue of morality through more honest and up-front information to students and families. Colleges and universities may have to disclose information previously held as confidential under this new amendment. This will be accomplished under the rubric of offering more detailed information and, overall, giving better and high-quality service to its users.

Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI), or using the methods applied in Total Quality Management (TQM), is the way the State University of New York at Binghamton (Binghamton University) is approaching the new millennium. As a result, attitudes around campus are changing dramatically regarding the ways in which each member of the institution can impact change. Moreover, the institution is undergoing a period of redefining itself and its mission, with special emphasis on the expectations the new millennium will impose. Pennsylvania State University, Villanova University, Oregon State University, Virginia Polytechnic, and the University of North Carolina at Wilmington are cited as leading institutions in using TQM or CQI. The appendices of Total Quality Management, edited by William Bryan, cite institutions that have committed themselves to these principles.

What is, or rather, what should be, the role of the Academy in the 21st century? Not all institutions will have the same answer, especially given their respective missions. Certainly, a Christian institution can be expected to define a much different role than a public institution or some private institutions. One Christian institution has just recently permitted its students to have dances on campus, the result of a moral decision that took years to actualize. This is an example of how an institution changed to become more attractive to the growing pool of students who have many more choices when selecting an institution.

As we enter the 21st century, all institutions will have to make decisions and plans unlike those they have made in the past if they are to remain viable. As admissions offices begin the teeth-grinding chore of bringing in the class each year, competition, gimmicks, and enticements are being offered at an unprecedented rate. Institutions are going to have to think differently and, in some cases be forced to do so. A secretary at Binghamton was recently presented with a new computer with many new programs that she would have to use. It had been difficult for this individual to adapt to the rapidly changing technology up to this date, but now she would have to learn and accomplish new tasks. The staff member decided that she could not be forced into the new millennium and offered her resignation. Should the institution make what could be considered a moral judgment and let the faithful and long-term employee continue as she had in the past? Would the University want to keep an employee who could not manage new skill levels? After all, would it really matter if one person did not want to move forward while the rest of the institution moved into the 21st century? Surely there must be other tasks this employee could do without having to learn new skills.

Given the above scenario, the concept of teaming comes into play. Simply speaking, a team is a group of individuals acting in concert with each other. A team deals with a problem rather than pretending that it never surfaced (Goal/QPC and Joiner Associates, 1995, p. 7). As with many teams, there are stronger members and weaker members. Some have to be brought along when confronted with a struggle; however, the beauty of a true team is that it recognizes the strengths and weaknesses of its members. Furthermore, a true team works together to make everyone a vital contributor. The transactions expected of the above mentioned staff have an impact on others who interface with the various project components. In the end, this will change how the organization does business with its customers. On the other hand, no one wants to lose a good, solid employee with an established record of allegiance and solid work habits. A moral judgment has to be made surrounding the case involving this employee. Employees and managers alike need to understand that employees are hired for the good of the organization and not the other way around. Everyone, at some time or another, is assigned a task that he or she does not like and would rather not do even if in the eyes of others, this new task will provide better and more efficient service to the customers. In addition, if this particular department does not do it well, you can bet that there is another institution with a similar department that will, and will do so knowing that it is outpacing its competition. Higher education is a business, whether we like to admit it or not. It has all of the trappings of a business and, in the end, profits and loss are the measures it uses even though they may be clothed in different terms (e.g., enrollment targets, success rates, external support, etc.).

Binghamton University provides an example of how it is changing to meet the moral demands of the 21st century. Binghamton is a Doctoral II institution of approximately 9,046 full-time equivalent (FTE) undergraduates and 2,696 FTE graduate students. Located in the southern tier of New York State, Binghamton is only 53 years old. Binghamton has the highest graduate and retention rate of the 64 institutions in the New York State system. In fact, its graduation rates are consistently higher than the national average. The majority of the undergraduate students who attend Binghamton are over-achievers. More than 54.5% come from the first decile of their high school class. The first-year class typically will include almost 50 valedictorians and salutatorians and, as expected, excellent Scholastic Assessment Test (SAT) scores. Many of these students have applied to Ivy League institutions such as Harvard, Yale, Cornell, and others, but include Binghamton because of its reported high quality and reasonable cost. It is known as an activist campus with a large, residential program. The students identify very early with their residential areas, each of which includes a Faculty Master, Faculty Fellows, and Faculty Mentors as well as the traditional residential hall staff. The University has been consistently listed in national publications for its high quality, selectivity, and has been named as the third most efficient institution in the United States ("America’s Best Colleges," 1998).

In 1993, as a result of successive budget reductions and dwindling resources, the Division of Student Affairs was reorganized. In this new reorganization, the Vice President for Student Affairs, based on input from the staff, established "networks." The purpose of these networks was to act as on-going committees to address issues that needed attention but did not have the resources or staff to assign to these initiatives. The Vice President hosted a division-wide staff development program on TQM and invited a presenter to come to campus. The presenter was dynamic and really piqued the interest of the staff. Working with two professors in the School of Management, and a trainer at IBM, TQM for the Division of Student Affairs had begun. The Vice President asked for volunteers from all employment levels, from secretaries to top-level managers. The Vice President was also a member.

As the staff was responsive, there were enough volunteers to begin. The group was asked to select a chair, but instead, the Associate Director of Undergraduate Admissions (now the Director of the Center for Quality) and the Director of Financial Aid were chosen as co-chairs. Working with the assistance and guidance of the professors and the trainer, more than 75 of 180 members of the student affairs staff were trained in TQM. The Director of Financial Aid became absorbed in what she believed was the potential in which her own operation could benefit. This enthusiasm was passed along to the members of the network and caught fire in other student affairs offices. In offices throughout the University, TQM statements began to appear in posters (e.g., "If We Don’t Do It Well, Someone Else Will," "Make Decisions Based on Data, Not a Hunch," "TEAM," etc.), computer signs, and other means of communication. The Financial Aid Office staff created a huge Pareto chart that illustrated where bottlenecks occurred in the application process. The chart and staff members responsible for the project were photographed, and University Relations wrote a story that appeared in the University weekly paper, Inside.

Soon the University as a whole began to rethink how it did business. The President was so impressed that she awarded an Innovation Grant to the Financial Aid Office to continue its work. Every member of the Financial Aid staff was required to take part in TQM activities, and, as a result, the delivery of services dramatically improved and is verified based on data, not a hunch. One of two professors in the School of Management who worked with both the Financial Aid Office and Admissions Office was so impressed with a project that examined the number of calls the Admissions Office received, that he presented the project at a conference in Israel. Since the early days of the Division’s TQM efforts, every department was required to engage in some quality improvement effort and comment on those efforts in their annual report. The original Total Quality Management network changed its name to the Continuous Quality Improvement or CQI network. The TQM network was eliminated in 1998 because the University saw the value of CQI for all its divisions and established a Center for Quality so that all departments could benefit.

With so much discussion about the benefits of CQI, the challenge became showing the campus at large how it could improve its services. A Center for Quality opened in September 1998, and one staff person, who was a member of the original CQI network and because of his great interest, now directs the Center.

The work of this Center, in just one year, has immensely improved how people inside and outside the University feel about the campus. There is now a waiting list of other departments, some in academic affairs, which want to begin quality initiatives. Also, other institutions have requested the Director to present on the topic of quality service.

The Director and his assistant initiated their first university-wide CQI project in the fall of 1997. They made a video of their arrival onto other campuses recording the entrance leading into the admission office and the conversations they had with the receptionists, paying particular attention to signage and "show" (i.e., the physical appearance of the campus). They went through the admissions process as if they were prospective students and families and chronicled their overall impression of the process of attending admission open houses and information sessions. They filmed two other campuses and then filmed Binghamton for contrast and comparison. The results were startling. After permitting the Vice President to see the video, it was shown to a team comprised of staff from the Physical Plant, Admissions, and the Sign Shop. It was also shown to the Department of Public Safety, Traffic Services, associate deans of all of the colleges and schools, directors in the Division of Student Affairs, and a team of employees who had visited the Disney Institute. The reaction was the same from everyone who saw it. The section of the video that showed Binghamton was embarrassing. The viewer could see why visitors arrived late for group sessions. From the beginning to the end, viewers found it easy to form a negative impression of the campus from the eyes of the visitor. The Associate Vice President for Physical Facilities was particularly unimpressed with how the campus looked. The major problem revealed was that no one had bothered to look at the campus and the process of getting to a specific building through the eyes of the customer.

The problem has a happy ending. A team redesigned all of the signage for admissions open houses and information sessions from the eyes of a visitor who had never been on campus before. The Physical Plant department went on a massive campus campaign to improve the concept of "show." Flowers were planted all around campus, a banner saying "welcome" in 57 different languages was placed to greet visitors upon entering the campus. Most significantly, where it once took visitors 15 minutes or more to drive into campus and find the information session, that time has been cut down to two minutes. This was accomplished by using CQI principles in looking at the problem and formulating a solution to improve access, using data collected from visitors who came to the admissions information sessions and open houses.

The answer to the question of whether the academy can be all things to all people is, of course, no. However, if one were to ask if the academy could be better managed for all people, the answer is obviously, yes. The 21st century will demand that the Academy focus more on its customers. The word "moral" in the American College Dictionary is defined as "pertaining to or concerned with right conduct or the distinction between right or wrong" (Barnhart, 1966, p. 790). Using this definition, there should be no question that the 21st century will require a moral obligation on the part of the Academy to be more than concerned with the distinction between right and wrong. It is wrong to identify a problem and do nothing about it. Society demands that we do; potential students and families demand that we develop better processes; taxpayers in the state want their dollars well-spent and not wasted; and the legislators who appropriate funds for higher education demand that institutions become more accountable and efficient.

The demographics show that higher education is experiencing an upswing in the number of college-age, eligible students as the new century grows near. Along with this, the cost of higher education has increased. By 2014 it is anticipated that the price of a typical public university education will be around $188,000 and, even more shocking, those attending prestigious private schools can expect to pay somewhere around $411,000 ("Higher Education: How High the Price?" 1996).

In sum, the goal of the Academy in the new millennium should be to create an environment in which students become happy alumni, and it should be a place where students learn how to manage life practices. In addition to learning that they should give their best, students should learn the best practices at a time when they are permitted to make mistakes and learn. The Academy can make this happen. We have a moral obligation to do so and every administrator and staff member in the Academy needs to buy into this concept or they should leave. Efficiency and focus on customer service should be the hallmark of higher education in the 21st century, and what has happened and is continuing to happen on the campus of Binghamton University is but one small example of how other institutions might enter the new millennium with confidence and pride in what they are able to offer their customers.

Higher Education: How high the price? (1996, April 4). Philadelphia Inquirer [On-line]. Available: http://www.phillynews.com/newslibrary

Roper, L. (1998). [Review of the book Total quality management: Applying principles to student affairs]. NASPA Journal, 35, 342-345.

America's Best Colleges. (1998, August 31). U.S. News and World Report, 125 (8).

Author’s Note: If you would like to talk about this experience in relation to your campus, or if I can help you avoid any pitfalls, contact me. I cannot promise a solution for every problem or question, but I can promise you some honest feedback about what worked and what did not work at Binghamton.

Rodger Summers
Vice President for Student Affairs
Binghamton University
P.O. Box 6000
Binghamton, NY 13902-6000
(607) 777-4787
rsummers@binghamton.edu

Rodger Summers holds a bachelor's degree in Secondary Education/English from Cheyney University, a master's degree in English Literature from The University of Vermont and an Ed.D. in Higher Education from Indiana University. He is currently the Vice President for Student Affairs at Binghamton University , SUNY.