Lessons from Project Management: Improvement of a Continuous Improvement Framework in Education
Continuous improvement as a concept and process has its roots in healthcare and manufacturing. Only recently has the field of education begun to employ continuous improvement more broadly. Yet, what is continuous improvement (CI) in education? Definitions vary regarding CI. According to Cecilia Temponi (2005), CI is a core value of quality management (QM), which is a people-focused system for continual improvement in performance that stresses learning and adaption in organizations. Park, Hironaka, Carver, and Nordstrum (2013) distinguish CI from “quality improvement” and “improvement science” to contend, “continuous (quality) improvement is an act of integrating quality improvement into the daily work of individuals in the system” (p. 5). They further explain that “continuous” in this vein is defined by three characteristics: 1) frequency of quality improvement work, 2) depth of integration across the organization, and 3) contextualization within the system of processes. To round matters off, the Education Development Center (2019, p.11) cites the Institute for Healthcare Improvement to explain “Continuous improvement is an applied science that emphasizes innovation, rapid and iterative cycle testing in the field, and scaling in order to generate learning about what changes produce improvements in particular contexts.”
For the purpose of this discussion, we offer the following operational definition for CI.
Continuous Improvement is a value-driven and people-centered framework aimed at continual learning and quality improvement within a system through iterative methodologies bound by time and context.
Across all definitions are certain principles such as a value for quality improvement, systems thinking, and a people-centered focus. Equally important for each definition are the knowledge, interactions, and work of stakeholders. After all, the coherence and effectiveness of individuals’ work shape the quality of systems in educational setting. Author Matthew B. Courtney reminds us however, that “at its core, continuous improvement is about constantly striving for excellence.”
There are several frameworks for CI initiatives. Among these are Lean methodology, Six Sigma, and DMAIC [Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve, Control] cycles. One popular approach for continuous improvement in education is the Deming Cycle or the PDSA Cycle (Plan-Do-Study-Act). The PDSA cycle is a systemic process for gaining learning and knowledge for the continual improvement of a product, process, or service.
The four steps of the process are:
P (plan) – developing predictions, learning questions, data requirements, logistics, completion date, sharing PDSAs
D (do) – implementing the plan (e.g., running trials, piloting, test group), gathering data, uploading artifact
S (study) – comparing predictions to observed results
A (act) – acting on the results for adopting, adapting, or abandoning
Because the PDSA cycle is not methodologically prescriptive for each of its steps, organizations take varied approaches to achieve learning and innovations for quality improvement. For example, the Education Development Center (2019) outlines seven steps for completing a PDSA cycle within a 15-, 30-, 60- or 90-day length, as well as asks users to pose three types of questions throughout the cycle—process questions to examine quality of implementation, outcome questions to examine the expected outcome(s), and balance questions to examine negative side-effects from change implementation within the existing system. Researcher Cecilia Temoni (2005) adds, “Quality and continuous improvement framework initiatives have been mainly applied to academic institutions’ administrative systems and maintenance processes, and to a lesser scale to academic programs and systems.” (p 20)
Despite variability in approach, the popular PDSA cycle as a CI framework centers on deriving value for the education organization. It also possesses a time-bound and context-sensitive nature. As such, key elements of project management may be applied to guide greater consistency for CI frameworks in general and support application across all sectors of education systems, including academic programming. The Project Management Institute defines a project as temporary efforts to create value through unique processes, products, and services. Project Management is thusly, “the use of specific knowledge, skills, tools and techniques to deliver something of value to people.” To this end, we pose several guiding questions from the body of project management. These questions stand to guide novice and experienced coordinators, teams, and stakeholders for initiating, planning, executing, monitoring and controlling, and closing the CI framework while attending to the core knowledge areas of project management. While not exhaustive, and in some cases, commutable across the noted process groups and project phases, the questions are designed to spark thinking and conversations across institutional members to inform, and is some cases to improve, current CI framework initiatives.
Initiating
Initiating is the process group for authorizing the project or a new phase of a CI project. This process aids organizations in defining the global purpose, need, and desired value of the individual project. It also helps to outline the conditions under which the project will occur in general fashion to guide planning for implementation. In essence, it reflects a general commitment to and understanding of the project and its scope of work at the both the institutional and CI project management levels. Within the PDSA cycle for CI, this process corresponds with P-plan. Because the PDSA is circular in nature, the A-act step may also inform the initiating process group.
Why is the CI project important? What value do we seek to derive from this project/initiative?
Who should be involved in the project?
What are the constraints shaping this project, with regard to time and cost?
Who are the potential stakeholders and project team members?
What contingencies or reserves might be considered, particularly regarding time and budget?
What risks might affect the project?
Planning
Planning occurs after initiating and is the process group for planning the CI project itself. This phase of project management includes processes across all industry knowledge areas. These processes are iterative and ongoing until the project is complete. Though we are not naming the knowledge areas, the guiding questions convey the content of the knowledge area by the language used. This process group best aligns with P-plan of the PDSA cycle. Planning is intended to be comprehensive, for getting goals and assessing how realistic they are for achievement within the organization’s context while defining how to measure the work performance against the value-driven goals?
What is/are the articulated value-driven goal(s) for CI? How might these be translated into observable outcomes (or deliverables) defining the success of the CI project?
What activities are needed to achieve the desired outcomes?
How might we respond to the identified constraints and risks of the CI project?
What schedules of activities are needed to ensure the CI processes are completed on time and within budget?
What are the resources (including human talents) needed to accomplish the value-driven goals? And how should they be aligned throughout implementation?
What are our plans for managing the necessary knowledge among team members for implementation?
What are the plans to communicate with and engage stakeholders throughout planning and the other CI processes?
How will we assess and measure the quality of work throughout the CI processes?
How will we gain approval of the plan from stakeholders?
Executing
Executing corresponds to the D-do of the PDSA cycle for CI. In project management, executing is the process for getting the work of the CI project done.
What are the processes for addressing changes to approved plans for the achievement of the planned outcomes?
How do we manage and address conflicts among stakeholders?
How do we select and successfully onboard and orientate CI team members and external vendors?
How do we communicate with and engage stakeholders during CI project progress?
How do we respond to identified risks?
How do we document and know to extent to which activities of the CI processes are of quality?
How will we ensure CI project team members possess the knowledge needed for plan implementation?
How do we conduct quality assurance for overall process improvement?
How and when do we collect lessons learned?
Monitoring and Controlling
The monitoring and controlling process group ensures the CI project remains on track as planned. The essence of this process group is to measure, inspect, verify, monitor, and review the work against the plan for implementation. Because the knowledge areas of project management are employed in integrative fashion across process groups, several guiding questions will appear more than once. Similarly, monitoring and controlling best correspond with the S-study and A-act of the PDSA cycle for CI. Yet, the PDSA framework is recognized as a tool for the quality management knowledge area of project management for which elements can be applied to several of the five progress groups.
How and when do we check to ensure CI activities are on target for meeting the desired outcomes within budget and the designated timeframe(s)?
When occurring, how do we ensure risks don’t derail CI activities and processes as planned?
What is the quality of the work completed in relation to the desired outcomes or deliverables?
How do we evaluate and ensure the quality (e.g., validity and reliability) of data and information used for decision making?
When changes to the plan are requested, how is assess their viability towards the CI project’s value-driven goals, outcomes, its schedule, and budget? If approved, how do we integrate them accordingly?
How do we make corrections for internal deviations in accordance with reserve planning, as needed?
How do we ensure that stakeholders are effectively engaged according to plan?
How do we document lessons learned?
How do we get the outcomes as deliverables accepted by the customer or authorizer?
Closing
Because the PDSA cycle has no end, at least in theory, the closing process of CI project management loosely aligns with A-act. Once the CI project’s deliverables have been officially accepted by the customer or project authorizer, closing may begin. For the PDSA cycle this is the space between the results for D-do and the decisions to act-A on them.
How do we transfer CI project deliverables and outcomes to the customer or project authorizer?
How should we complete the final report on CI project deliverables and outcomes?
How should we document reasons for why the CI project is terminated before completion?
How and with whom do we archive the CI project records?
How do we close out any contracts?
Temponi (2005) reminds us that CI framework initiatives are less known for their application at the academic program and system levels. The author further explains the lack of senior management’s understating of and involvement in quality management as a barrier for broader engagement in CI initiatives in education organizations. Other obstacles include a lack of coordinated teamwork, failure to adequately align skills and resources of the project team with the CI project objectives, and academic departments failure to consistently follow through on agreed project goals and plans.
The application of project management processes and mindset in CI framework initiatives can alleviate the known barriers for expanded use across education organizations and their academic systems. These guiding questions are a start for those seeking to learn from project management for improved CI framework use in educational settings.
References
Education Development Center. (2019). Building a culture of continuous improvement. https://www.edc.org/sites/default/files/uploads/EDC-Building-Culture-Continuous-Improvement.pdf
Park, S., Hironaka, S., Carver, P., and Nordstrum, L. (2013). Continuous improvement in education. Carnegie Foundation. https://www.carnegiefoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/carnegie-foundation_continuous-improvement_2013.05.pdf
Temponi, C. (2005). Continuous improvement framework: Implications for academia. Quality Assurance in Education, 13(1), 17-36. DOI 10.1108/09684880510578632
About the Author
Jacob Easley II, PhD, PMP is an educational leader and president of Xcelerated Excellence Consulting LLC @drje2
Comments