Global Lean for Higher Education

A Themed Anthology of Case Studies, Approaches, and Tools

Stephen Yorkstone, Stephen Yorkstone

• Publisher: Productivity Press
• Year: 2019
• ISBN:
  9780429680274
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Betriebswirtschaft
• Subtopic: Business allgemein

Higher education (HE) is amongst the hardest sectors in which to apply lean. Universities resist change, their organizational cultures being far from the manufacturing environment where lean was born. The way HE organizations are structured, funded, and function globally is idiosyncratic; one size is unlikely to fit all. However, the sector is also dynamic and a mature understanding of lean, as a philosophy, led by principles, suggests there are many ways HE could grow through lean.

This collection of work reflects the state-of-the-art in the global practical application of lean for higher education. It aims to demonstrate the diverse applications of lean in universities inspiring others to deeply engage with lean thinking in their own unique context and to drive successful, sustainable, lean work.

Contributors are both well-known experts in lean HE and up-and-coming practitioners. Authors live globally, in countries such as Australia, Canada, Malaysia, Poland, the UK, and the USA. They represent higher education environments from applied teaching institutions to research-focused universities from 50 years old to more than 800 years old.

The collection focuses on lean applied across universities as a whole, often addressing the administrative support or professional services side of how these institutions work. The application of lean is not limited purely to the administration of such organizations but is applied to the primary purpose of universities: teaching and research.

This volume is not focused on lean theory. Instead, it discusses how HE institutions have taken lean forward and the lessons learned that others can share and learn from. It is composed of six sections: Starting out, People, Projects, Technology, Sustaining Lean, and Culture.

The rich and wide perspectives in this book will enable the reader to understand the many ways that lean thinking is applied in higher education globally. More importantly, this book will help the reader better understand and apply lean in the context of their own work.

Section I

Starting Out

1

Establishing Process Improvement Capability in Higher Education

Rachel McAssey

Contents

Introduction

Data

What Are the Drivers for Establishing Process Improvement Capability in Higher Education?

What Is the Current Pattern of Activity of Process Improvement Initiatives in Higher Education?

Date Established

Trends in Continental Areas

Where Is Team-Based/Location in the Organisational Structure?

Size of Team

Job Titles and Language Used within Higher Education

What Methodologies Are Currently Being Used?

What Services or Activities Constitute the Remit of Process Improvement?

Key Areas of Success

What Are the Challenges and Success Factors for Establishing Process Improvement Capability?

Conclusions

Bibliography

Introduction

Higher education (HE) establishments across the globe have the shared aim of delivering high-quality teaching to undergraduate and graduate students alongside undertaking and delivering research. Comparing HE globally is complex, due to different funding mechanisms and approaches to delivering student experience. Universities may also seem unusual places to implement methodologies such as Lean from the private sector. However, the experience of many university staff suggests that learning from other sectors can be a highly successful way of enabling positive change.

Process improvement activity in HE is growing, partly in response to effectiveness and efficiency, partly in response to delivering better experiences to students but also as a response to today’s rapidly changing political and economic environment.

This chapter seeks to evidence what higher education organisations are currently doing to embed process improvement capability and to support those considering undertaking such activity or those already doing so.

Data

This chapter is a piece of primary-based research principally shaped by responses to a survey conducted in the spring and summer of 2018. It attracted 63 unique responses from higher education institutions, 30 from Europe, 17 from USA and Canada, 16 from Australasia. There were not any responses from universities based elsewhere. A series of short follow-up interviews also informed this research.

The format and structure are an extension of research into UK HE undertaken by the author and Stephen Yorkstone.^*

A level of caution should be applied when reviewing the outputs of this research; the sample size is relatively small. It is likely that there are many other universities and colleges that have levels of process improvement capability that have not responded to the survey: due to the way the survey was publicised (primarily via Lean HE networks) and/or the timing of the survey (May–August 2018).

WHAT ARE THE DRIVERS FOR ESTABLISHING PROCESS IMPROVEMENT CAPABILITY IN HIGHER EDUCATION?

The research identified several drivers for establishing process improvement capability. The primary driver was to drive effectiveness and efficiency within the institution, with student experience being the second most reported driver.

Within the UK the 2011 Diamond Report^* is reported as having been an impetus for establishing process improvement capability. Elsewhere, there are no reports of key national reports that were fundamental to the establishment of capability. However, more generally changes in funding for universities appear to drive the imperative for effectiveness and efficiency programmes and projects.

Several respondents identified other reasons for creating capability, these include: risk mitigation, IT enabled transformation and restructuring (Figure 1.1).

FIGURE 1.1
Drivers for establishing process improvement capability.

WHAT IS THE CURRENT PATTERN OF ACTIVITY OF PROCESS IMPROVEMENT INITIATIVES IN HIGHER EDUCATION?

Date Established

Of the 53 Institutions that responded to this question, dates ranged from “we’ve always done this” to 2018. With notable peaks in 2012 (7 institutions), 2014 (9 institutions) and 2017 (10 institutions) (Figure 1.2).

FIGURE 1.2
Date capability established.

Trends in Continental Areas

Australasia reported limited process improvement capability until 2013; there is a growth trend year on year up until 2017.

Europe had limited process improvement capability until 2012, there is a growth trend until 2017, with a peak in process improvement capability being established in 2017.

USA and Canada show the greatest maturity in creating process improvement capability. There was statistically valid growth from 2010, with peaks in 2012 and 2015.

WHERE IS TEAM-BASED/LOCATION IN THE ORGANISATIONAL STRUCTURE?

The most frequently identified reporting position (where there is one formal team) was the Vice-Chancellor/Principal/Executive’s Office (29%), with Planning second at (14%) and Human Resources third (10%). The responses demonstrate that there is huge variation in reporting structures for process improvement capability.

There is a correlation between offices that have been more recently created (post 2015) and the reporting structure to Vice-Chancellor/Principal/Executive’s. In follow up interviews, respondents reported that the justification for this reporting line was to demonstrate neutrality and senior buy-in.

Follow-up interviews with institutions in the UK and USA also indicated that there appears to be a movement of standalone offices/units/staff moving into larger change offices and/or project/programme management offices.

Size of Team

There is huge variation in team sizes; there is no correlation between size of team and reporting line nor is there correlation between size and date of establishment or geographical location (Table 1.1).

TABLE 1.1
Size of Process Improvement Teams/Functions

Team Size (Full Time Equivalent (FTE))	Quantity
0	2
0.25–1	11
1.01–2	13
2.01–3	15
3.01–6	10
6.01–10	4
10.01–20	7
20.01–50	1

Many teams have three or fewer staff (64%), with between 3.5 FTE (full time equivalent staff) and 6 FTE being the next common (16%).

47% of respondents identified that there had been a previous iteration/attempt to establish process improvement capability within the institution. 18% replied that there had not been any previous attempts to establish process improvement capability and 35% did not know. The data does not evidence a pattern of previous attempts to establish process improvement capability based on location or reporting line. The data evidences huge variation in the nature of the previous attempts to implement improvement methodologies: from implementing Total Quality Management, IT systems projects, Systems Thinking and Project Management approaches.

There are several ways that universities have created process improvement capability. 56% have used consultancy to create capability: of those that used consultancy 55% used non-HE consultants and 45% used consultan...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half-Title
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Foreword
• Acknowledgements
• List of Contributors
• Introduction
• Making the Most of this Book
• SECTION I Starting Out
• SECTION II People
• SECTION III Projects
• SECTION IV Technology
• SECTION V Sustaining
• SECTION VI Culture
• Index