Lean Higher Education

Increasing the Value and Performance of University Processes, Second Edition

William K. Balzer

• Publisher: Productivity Press
• Year: 2020
• ISBN:
  9781351216920
• Edition: 2
• Topic: Commerce
• Subtopic: Opérations

In an environment of diminishing resources, growing enrollment, and increasing expectations of accountability, Lean Higher Education: Increasing the Value and Performance of University Processes, Second Edition provides the understanding and the tools required to return education to the consumers it was designed to serve – the students. It supplies a unifying framework for implementing and sustaining a Lean Higher Education (LHE) transformation at any institution, regardless of size or mission.

Using straightforward language, relevant examples, and step-by-step guidelines for introducing Lean interventions, this authoritative resource explains how to involve stakeholders in the delivery of quality every step of the way. The author details a flexible series of steps to help ensure stakeholders understand all critical work processes. He presents a wealth of empirical evidence that highlights successful applications of Lean concepts at major universities and provides proven methods for uncovering and eliminating activities that overburden staff yet contribute little or no added value to stakeholders.

Complete with standardized methods for correctly diagnosing workplace problems and implementing appropriate solutions, this valuable reference arms you with the understanding and the tools to effectively balance the needs of all stakeholders. By implementing the Lean practices covered in these pages, your school will be better positioned to provide higher quality education, at reduced costs, with efficient processes that instill pride, maximize value, and respect the long-term interests of your students, faculty, and staff.

This second edition contains a substantial update with expanded material and reflects the significant growth of LHE practices in colleges and universities worldwide. Because of advances in best practices, as well as some modest research-based evidence, this second edition includes many enhancements that provide particular value to LHE practitioners and higher education (HE) leaders.

Since the initial publication of Lean Higher Education in 2010, the challenges of cost and affordability, competition for students and faculty, and calls for efficiency and accountability have only continued to grow, requiring colleges and universities to pursue more radical and transformative change to ensure their success. This new edition provides a model for change based on more than 50 years of application in business and industry and almost 20 years in HE. It provides the information and evidence demanded by HE leadership to understand and embrace LHE as well as best practices processes and tools for implementing LHE in targeted areas or institution-wide. This book provides a conceptual framework for redesigning any university process, such as admitting students, paying a bill, hiring faculty, or processing a donor gift, in a way that delights the beneficiary of that process, respects the employees who support the process, and reduce the cost of the process.

A free companion guide to this book is available here:

https://cabaa139-7c62-47ae-af03-e18f51efab1c.filesusr.com/ugd/f5359d_a064ca39f666408f851ffd282eb9a0a7.pdf

The goal of this companion guide is to help you get the most out of your reading of Lean Higher Education. The guide is designed to support your deeper understanding and application of LHE whether you are reading the book (a) from cover to cover or select chapters; (b) reading it alone, as a member of a workplace reading group, or as a student in a classroom; (c) facilitating discussions of the chapters in the book; or (d) seeking guidance as you begin your own personal Lean Higher Education journey.

Chapter 1

The Case for Lean Higher Education

For most American colleges and universities, the pendulum has swung from the heyday of growth, prosperity, and public favor to new times that call for institutions to adapt themselves to current, harsher realities…. The challenges of institutional change presented by the new environment are daunting. For institutions to be successful, change must be both intentional and continuous.¹

In the current low-growth period, market competition has become increasingly fierce – a battle of life and death. In such an environment, strengthening the character of business is an absolute requirement for survival.²

The opening quote from the 2010 edition of our book remains just as relevant today as when it first appeared 20 years ago. Worldwide, higher education faces a growing number of challenges that threaten to disrupt the success – and survival – of institutions. The second quote is from Taiichi Ohno, the creator of the Toyota Production System, from which Lean has evolved and grown. Lean has been successfully applied in every business and industry sector, including higher education.³

1.1 The Need for Change in Higher Education

The case for change in higher education is compelling. Consider the following three scenarios based on actual experiences encountered by faculty, staff, and students.

1.1.1 Scenario 1: Approval of a New or Modified Course

Professor Chippen prides himself in maintaining a strong relationship with program alumni and past employers of successful graduates from the applied psychology program. He is also involved with recruiting new students to the college and scans the professional and disciplinary environment for new trends and enhancements to update his program. In response to the growing popularity of “CSI” (Crime Scene Investigation) and other police-related dramas on television, Dr. Chippen feels there would be a strong interest in revamping the existing forensic psychology course, modifying some of the course’s content and creating a second, more advanced level course for students planning to specialize in this area in graduate school. Knowing that those in the course-approval process at the university like to see if there is student interest in new or revised courses, Dr. Chippen was careful to pilot the new course twice over two semesters to demonstrate student demand for both courses.

The university uses a standardized form and process for requests to modify and create new courses, with ultimate approval by the Office of the Provost. The process allows other academic units affected by the course change to weigh in early before any decision is made. Dr. Chippen completes the course change request form, which includes six major sections with a total of 23 open-ended responses and 11 closed-ended responses (depending on the closed-ended responses, he may be asked to provide additional supporting open-ended responses). Dr. Chippen then routes this completed document with the required cover sheet (which contains a number of “check off” responses and fill-in items completed during the routing process) to his department chair. The chair routes the proposal to the department’s curriculum committee for review prior to his endorsing, and Dr. Chippen makes minor changes to the proposal in response to the committee’s questions and concerns. With the department chair’s signature, the university library reviews the course request to ensure that library holdings are adequate to support this new course. The routing form notes that the library review is a time-consuming step, so Dr. Chippen waits patiently. When the form returns with the library’s endorsement, it is next forwarded to the college curriculum committee, which reviews the request at its next bimonthly meeting. Some questions are raised, requiring some small modifications and a 2-week wait for a second review and approval. The form is then forwarded on to the college dean for her endorsement (which is based on a review and recommendation by the associate dean who oversees academic issues for the college).

Eleven copies of the signed routing document and request form are sent to the Office of the Provost, which distributes them to each of the colleges for their review. This review ensures that there is no curriculum encroachment by the proposed course (e.g., the dean of the business college could register his concern regarding curriculum infringement if the word “management” appeared in the course title or description). The deans invariably take the full 14 days they have to respond. Because the new course could have a “substantial impact” on students in other programs, 32 paper copies of the proposal are forwarded to the Office of the Provost to distribute to members of the university-wide undergraduate curriculum committee. Unfortunately, an accumulation of agenda items prevented the committee from holding a first reading of the proposal at their next meeting. Two weeks later, the undergraduate curriculum committee raised a few concerns when they met that required a written response and additional revision from Dr. Chippen (fortunately, the level of concerns did not require that the revised proposal be sent back to the beginning of the review process). At the next bimonthly meeting, the curriculum committee endorsed the proposal.

Finally, the Office of the Provost receives the fully reviewed proposal for final endorsement. Following a positive review and recommendation from the associate Provost who oversees academic issues for the university, the Provost approves the new course. Approximately 10 months after beginning the process to update offerings in forensic psychology in response to student interest and disciplinary changes, Dr. Chippen finally sees the fruit of his labors.

1.1.2 Scenario 2: Installing a Door in a Faculty Research Laboratory

Julia Teahan, Chair of the Department of Biology, is delighted that Dr. Annat has accepted her offer to join the faculty. Dr. Annat was very pleased with his employment contract and the generous startup package provided by the university. This was accomplished thanks to the chair’s strong advocacy for Dr. Annat, particularly because he was bringing 2 years of funding that remained on a large federal grant (with the likelihood of an additional 3-year renewal). Laboratory space is available, with the only accommodation required by the funding agency being the installation of an interior connecting doorway between two adjacent spaces. (This doorway minimizes exposure of his laboratory animals to uncontrollable noise and lighting conditions as well as limiting exposure to potential germs and viruses in the existing animal colony.) Given that Dr. Annat was not set to arrive (with external grant and laboratory animals) for almost 7 months, there was plenty of time to have the door installed – especially since grant funds would pay for this modest remodeling.

Dr. Teahan left her first voice mail message in February requesting assistance in having a door installed. Given the workload in the Office of Design and Construction (ODC; the staff was stretched thin due to two major building projects on campus), the call was returned 2 weeks later to inform Dr. Teahan that the call had been received and an application would be put in campus mail later that day. Dr. Teahan completed the short application, identifying where the door should be installed and which budget should be charged for the remodeling. After waiting 6 weeks, Dr. Teahan called to follow-up on her request. She learned that the office hired an outside architect to draw up plans for the door to keep the project moving because the university architect was already overextended with a backlog of current and planned construction projects. The consulting architect, already familiar with university building codes and campus standards, visited the laboratory and determined the best location for the new door. He then needed to contact the ODC for existing building plans to determine whether there were pipes or wires in the wall that required rerouting (and included as part of the bid request prepared for outside contractors).

Approximately 6 weeks later, another call from Dr. Teahan discovered that the drawings were reviewed by the university architect just last week (things have been very hectic with new projects starting now that the residence halls have been emptied), and a few small changes will be needed prior to sending the project out for bid. ODC believes that the revised drawings and remodeling specs for the Request for Proposal should be back within 2 weeks. Schedules permitting, the Business Office should advertise the project and review bids in a period of 30 days. Now Dr. Teahan is beginning to worry. Almost 5 months will have passed before a contractor is even hired. Fortunately, it is only an interior door.

At exactly the end of the 30-day period, Dr. Teahan again follows up with ODC. The good news is that the university accepted a bid for the door installation. ODC reports that it needs to finalize some paperwork and get the final contract approved by the Office of General Counsel before signing. However, they acknowledge that several residence hall projects have taken priority, given that the fall semester begins within the month. Without a final contract prepared by ODC, the construction contractor will not put it on his schedule (and order the door). Given the late timeframe, ODC is pessimistic that the door will be installed prior to the beginning of the fall semester. Dr. Teahan has the uncomfortable task of calling Professor Annat and relaying the news. Dr. Annat, upset that this simple laboratory modification – that his grant would cover – has not been completed, questions the university’s commitment to research and his new chair’s ability to get things done. Dr. Annat calls back later in the day to report that the grant agency will not allow the research to be relocated until the laboratory improvements are made, jeopardizing Dr. Annat’s ongoing studies. Dr. Annat wonders if it would be more prudent for him to delay his start at the university until the spring semester, allowing him to continue his funded research without interruption at his current institution, especially given that the Vice President (VP) for Research there is keenly interested in keeping him and the balance of the $2.5M grant.

1.1.3 Scenario 3: Thank You Notes to Donors

Alexis Matthews, VP for University Advancement, has been heavily involved in preparing the campaign groundwork for an impending $500M comprehensive campaign with the help of an outside consultant. At focus group meetings with significant donors and university friends, she is pleased that there appears to be widespread support for the campaign theme and its targeted focus on scholarships and endowed professorships. One concern, however, is that in almost every focus group held around the country, a donor mentions an example of not receiving a thank you note after making a donation. When probed by the consultant, the donors cannot provide specific details about their own experience or those about which they have heard indirectly. Given the number of times the issue has been raised, VP Matthews and the consultant agree that she should follow-up on the concern when she returns to campus.

VP Matthews shared this concern with members of the office staff, who were upset and offended to hear that there were questions about thank you acknowledgments. Their records indicate that the office sent thank you notes to all donors who made a gift, regardless of the size of the gift. “Stale” addresses might account for some individuals not receiving these notes, but this would certainly not be the case for the donors who were involved in the focus groups. VP Matthews assures the staff that she was not questioning the staff’s ability or commitment. Although she is ready to let the issue drop given what was learned, she continues to hear the same concern raised in subsequent focus groups.

VP Matthews decides to call a good friend and important donor to eliminate any nagging doubts that this is a real issue with donors. Much to her chagrin, the donor confides that she does not remember receiving thank you notes after each gift, attributing the lack of response to the heavy staff workload. Besides, she receives other thank yous throughout the year for her support to the university. This further puzzles VP Matthews, because her records do not indicate mailing additional thank you notes to donors. As she pores over this donor’s records, she notices that while the office sent a thank you note after each gift, it is unclear when the office actually sent the thank you note.

VP Matthews once again brings the concern to the attention of the staff. With some indignation, the staff reports that they send the note out as soon as possible according to the acknowledgment process that has been in place for years (and predates VP Matthews). As she inquires about the acknowledgment process, VP Matthews begins to see the problem. Acknowledgments to key donors at the university have their own “special process,” independent of the standard acknowledgment process in place. Immediately after depositing the check or credit card payment, a special handling process sets aside the names of these key donors. When enough of them had accumulated, the associate VP for advancement received a printout of these g...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Contents
• Preface to the Second Edition
• Preface to the First Edition
• Acknowledgments
• Author
• Introduction to the Second Edition
• 1 The Case for Lean Higher Education
• 2 Lean Higher Education in Practice: An Overview and Case Study
• 3 Evidence Supporting the Successful Application of LHE
• 4 Preparing for the Successful Adoption and Implementation of LHE
• 5 Preparing for the Rapid Improvement Event
• 6 Conducting, Implementing, and Sustaining the Rapid Improvement Event
• 7 Lean Academic Processes
• 8 Making the Case for LHE: Gaining the Support of Senior Leaders
• 9 Realizing the Promise of LHE
• Appendix A
• Index