Twice in the last forty years we have seen the devestation of "Detroit Syndrome." In the 1960 - 1970 era we saw Detroit based automotive companies checking out their peers in Detroit and ignoring the European and Asian producers who were making higher quality and more efficient automobiles. Chrysler had to have a bail out and GM and FORD had to adopt the quality methods that were invented in American but adopted by the Japanese. Fast forward to the first decade of the 21st century and we again see the Detroit automakers assuring themselves that they were doing well by comparing themselves to each other, while the Europeans invested in hybrid electric and diesel hybrid vehicle technology. The same is happening in the higher education environment. While U.S. colleges and universities are looking inward and telling each other that they are still the world's leaders, the world is catching up and passing us by. As today's edition of moneycental on MSN notes, higher education is in for radical reordering. But the establishment is going to fight to maintain the status quo and the entitlements that go with it. Just remember that in most states, the current higher education system is being propped up by federal stimulus money. This artificial infusion of federal aid is keeping public higher education systems from facing the consequences of their choices. The nation can significantly improve the quality of instruction and reduce the cost of delivering higher education, but we are going to have to be willing to innovate.

While I may not agree with every measure used by Forbes Magazine in their new ranking process, I have to say "good for them" for making an effort to develop a ranking system that measures what counts. For years U.S. News and World Reports has been ranking higher education institutions based fundamentally on selected input measures. The largest value in the U.S. News Ranking comes from a peer ranking process that is badly flawed. Some inputs, such as the percentage of alumni making donations, are curious. Other important inputs, such as the diversity of the faculty and students are completely absent. Little attention is given to the widespread practice of using graduate students to teach general studies courses. Forbes has made a serious effort at studying the results of the college experience, including the voice of the customer - the students. The Forbes model attempts to examine the debt load that students carry coming out of college and their success in finding work in their field. The biggest criticism I have about the Forbes system is that it is limited to only 600 institutions, so far. It would have been interesting to see the rankings if the regional universities in Wisconsin had been included, other than the UW-Milwaukee. It is not possible to really come up with a plausible ranking system for many reasons. First, there is disagreement about what should be measured based on disagreement about what is important relative to college. Second, there are very real differences between institutions that primarily serve traditional age students and those that are primarily serving adult students. Public institutions are tied to state political systems for funding and are impacted by state politics that influence social issues relevent to a college or university. Private institutions often serve and educational purpose that is linked to a religious mission that create challenges in evaluation. Nevertheless, Forbes is recognizing that quality is strongly determined by the processes and results of a system, and not just by the inputs.

Many, many years ago, I authored an article in the National Productivity Review on the use of auditing as a means to identify opportunities for improvements in organizations. The article described the basic elements of an effective audit program and included some reflections on effective and ineffective auditors by contrasting the behaviors of two popular television police officers, Sgt Joe Firday of Dragnet and Deputy Barney Fife of Mayberry. This article used the phrase "Barney Fife Syndrome" to describe the problem that occurs when an auditor does not audit against the requirements, but instead conducts the audit using his own unique interpretation of how the system should be functioning. Like Barney Fife, the auditor assumes exagerated importance and if given one bullet, is sure to discharge it in some direction. The peer review process in higher education is subject to Barney Fife Syndrome just as much as the quality audit function in industry. An individual gets 50 miles away from his or her campus and in a position of authority on a peer review and begins to make all sorts of outlandish assertions. Instead of listening and observing, the Barney Fife character lectures and lambasts others for not meeting his or her interpretation of the standards. In order for peer review to have credibility, the standards against which review teams conduct assessments must be clearly defined. Vague requirements that are subject to different interpretations leave the door open for Barney Fife and undermine the credibility of the peer review process. If accrediting agencies hope to have any credibility in terms of addressing quality issues in higher education, they need to write clear requirements that are not subject to interpretation, and they need to provide training and certification for the individuals who lead assessment teams..

It is always great to touch base with peers to see if others are seeing the world the same way you do. Being at the NCCI and NACUBO conference here in Boston has been a strong confirmation of several of the blogs I've been entering over the past several months. Here is the pulse on the nation. 1. Stimulus funds have temporarily proped up higher education and without the stimulus funds, most public insitutions would have been even worse off than they are now. Everyone with any sense knows they are living on borrowed time and must make significant budget cuts over the next 18 months. 2. Most institutions (even the biggest) have enacted internal processes to eliminate academic programs and toss non-essential programs overboard. 3. Bankrupcy appears to be the only way out for some state higher education systems. It will enable states to push the "reset" button and eliminate all existing contracts. So what does this mean for the continuous improvement movement? Well, continuous improvement is one of the vehicles for reducing costs. At one point in my career in the private sector, my title changed from TQM manager to Cost Reduction Manager because I had the ability to get groups together to make tough decisions. That is exactly what leaders in higher ed need to do over the next 18 months. Use the consensus-building skills of your CQI and OD staff to hammer out the plan for making cuts. These same skills are essential for planning how to reorganize after down-sizing, as well.

I was honored to have the opportunity to publish an article recently in Quality Progress Magazine, and to speak at the World Conference on Quality and Improvement in Minneapolis on the topic of organizational gardening. The gardening metaphor provides some great insight into quality management in any organizational setting, including higher education. To have a healthy garden we know that we cannot just keep planting more and more. Sometimes we have to do some pruning.

Accountability is a serious issue in higher education.  Unfortunately the serious nature of this topic is diminished by the amusing misconceptions batted around in the popular media. Take today's USA TODAY for example. "States Linking College Funding to Graduation Rates," the front page headline reads. The reporter, Mary Beth Marklein, quotes Julie Bell of the National Conference of State Legislatures, stating "We as legislatures have been giving higher education a pass on accountability." Bell is quoted further: "With tuition going up . . . there's a whole new thinking about productivity." Oh really?

The following is an extract from the article, "Quality Issues in Higher Education," published in the April 2009 issue of ASQ's Journal of Quality and Participation, Volume 32, Number 1, pp 4 - 5.

"There is much discussion these days about quality in higher education throughout all quarters of the higher education community and outside the community, as well.  Government officials, employers, accrediting agencies, university administrators, institutional researchers, faculty, and faculty development specialists all have something to share concerning this topic.

To engage in meaningful conversation, we must first recognize what we mean when referring to quality.  It is common for people to speak at cross-purposes on this subject when they are using different frameworks for defining quality.  Broadly speaking, there are five popular ways to frame the issue of quality in higher education (and most other settings), as follows.