4th INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON LEAN SIX SIGMA FOR HIGHER EDUCATION, May 25–26, 2017

A Continuous Improvement Journey in the Higher Education Sector:

A Case Study of a University in Ireland

Dr. Seamus O’Reilly

Email: [email protected]

Mr. Joe Healy

Email: [email protected]

Mr. Tom Murphy

Email: [email protected]

Dr. Ronan O’Dubhghaill

Email: [email protected]
University College Cork, Ireland

Abstract

Purpose: The paper’s purpose is to contribute to a developing literature in relation to

Continuous Improvement (CI), incorporating Lean Six Sigma (LSS) in Higher Education
Institutions (HEIs). This paper follows on from a previous study which focused on the initial
steps taken by an Irish university on its CI journey by discussing the next steps, detailing the
findings from these.

Design Methodology/Approach: A participative research approach is adopted. This is the

second stage in a longitudinal study designed to support on-going evaluation and learning
during the CI journey. The data sources include relevant documentation and observations
supported with secondary data from literature.

Findings: Having a blend of external expertise as well as in-house developed expertise is a

critical mix, supporting the need for improvement specialists consistent with previous research.
In addition, the ability of the HEI to respond to the enthusiasm nurtured through training is key.
Along with ongoing Senior Management commitment, active leadership at unit level was also
found to be key.

Research Limitations: This paper is based on an ongoing, longitudinal, empirical study of a

single case study in Ireland and the researchers’ experience as practitioners.

Originality/Value: This paper tracks the development of CI in a HEI in a longitudinal manner

and adds to the developing nature of the literature in this area.

Keywords: Continuous Improvement, Lean Six Sigma, Readiness Factors, Higher Education.

Paper Type: Conference

7 

 
 4th INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON LEAN SIX SIGMA FOR HIGHER EDUCATION, May 25–26, 2017

1. Introduction
The changing landscape in Higher Education has prompted an interest in transformative change
initiatives that go beyond a quality management paradigm. This paper seeks to learn from the
experience of a university that has taken the first tentative steps towards building a continuous
improvement capability based on a Lean Six Sigma approach. This university endeavours to
respond to a range of changes including, but not limited to, the following: changing student
profile and changing expectations of students; public budgetary constraints and the increasing
importance of non-exchequer funding, globalisation and international competition; research,
innovation and technological change; employment prospects and broader societal needs.

While is increasing evidence of the potential LSS in the Higher Education Sector (Balzer, et
al., 2016), there is need learn from strategies and practice within the universities themselves.
This paper focuses on the deployment of Lean Six Sigma in a university environment. In doing
so we share the motivation for the introduction of a Lean continuous improvement initiative,
the early lessons learned and evolution to a LSS approach and the key factors that influenced
the trajectory and deliverables.

The paper is structured as follows. A brief literature review and methodology description
precedes the case study description. A brief background to the case study is presented. The
origins and deployment of the continuous improvement initiative are described. Analysis and
discussion follow. The main conclusions are presented and future research plans are outlined.

2. Literature Review
In recent years, educational institutions have turned their intention to improving performance
(Hess and Siciliano, 2007) and increasingly seek to incorporate private service sector
improvement approaches into operations (Gordon and Fischer, 2011), including Lean Six
Sigma (LSS). Increased interest in the potential of LSS in the HEI environment is evident in
pioneering work by Emiliani (2004; 2005), Waterbury and Holm (2011) and Hines and
Lethbridge (2008) and more recently through cases studies, evaluations and reviews (Antony
et al., 2012; Waterbury, 2015; Balzer, et al., 2016; Bateman et al., 2014). While early work in
pioneering institutions reflect the experimental nature of the such initiatives, more recent work
has endeavoured to identify key characteristics of the HEI environment that impact on
deployment of LSS and identify key challenges faced by HEIs (Radnor and Bucci 2011;
Thirkell and Ashman, 2014; Antony et al., 2012; Waterbury, 2015).

Challenges in the HEI sector abound and Antony et al., (2012) identified seven Critical Success
Factors (CSFs) for the successful deployment of LSS in the HEI sector: (i) uncompromising
top management support and commitment; (ii) effective communication at all levels vertically
and horizontally; (iii) strategic and visionary leadership; (iv) developing Organisational
readiness; (v) resources and skills to facilitate implementation; (vi) project selection and
prioritisation; and (vii) organisational culture. In addressing these challenges Antony (2014)
put forward a useful set of readiness factors that can both assist institutions prepare for LSS
deployment and support ongoing evaluation of such deployment. These key readiness factors
are considered as pre-requisite to the successful implementation, deployment and sustainability
of LSS in HEIs, they are: (i) leadership and vision; (ii) management commitment and resources;
(iii) linking Lean Six Sigma to University strategy; (iv) customer focus; and (v) selecting the
right people.

8 

 
 4th INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON LEAN SIX SIGMA FOR HIGHER EDUCATION, May 25–26, 2017

This study employs these readiness factors as an organising framework to explore the
application of LSS in a university environment, identify key factors supporting this and
elucidate learning from key activities with a focus on the integral components of a successful
implementation strategy.

3. Methodology
Using Six Sigma (LSS) implementation literature as an organising framework, this paper
explores initial steps in a CI journey taken by an Irish university. Because this study is
exploratory in nature, and is trying to answer ‘How’ or ‘Why’ questions, a qualitative research
approach was chosen (Marshall & Rossman (1989, p.78), Yin (1994)). A case study research
strategy was adopted and involved participative research (Chakraborty and Leyer (2013) Patton
(2002)). The researchers include the CI champion, a LSS Master Black Belt in the HEI that is
the subject of the case study, an academic with an interest in continuous improvement and a
researcher conducting his PhD in this field. The researchers had access to all relevant
documentation (Yin, p. 6, 1994) on the CI programme, including: (i) Strategy documents,
including drafts; (ii) Minutes of University Management Team (UMT) meetings; (iii) Steering
group minutes and working documents; (iv) communications with the University community
(including presentations, web site, brochures); and (v) training materials. Thematic analysis
(Miles et al., 2014) was deemed the most appropriate form of analysis: thematic analysis
involves discovering, interpreting and reporting patterns and clusters of meaning within the
data, working systematically through texts, with the researcher identifying topics that are
progressively integrated into higher-order key themes, the importance of which lies in their
ability to address the overall research question (Ritchie et al., 2014, pp. 270 – 271). Thematic
analysis is the approach that is deemed most suitable to data analysis in this case as we seek to
explain and describe Lean Six Sigma in previously under researched areas (Ritchie et al., 2014,
pp. 270 – 271) which is certainly the case in this study.

4. Case Study
The case study site is an Irish University with over 20,000 students and over 2,700 staff. The
University enjoys an international reputation and includes faculty across humanities, business,
law, medicine, science and engineering disciplines

4.1. CI Programme - Origins

The origins of the university-wide Continuous Improvement (CI) programme lie in strategic
planning for the 2013-17 cycle. Within this plan a ‘Lean’ project aims to:

“Introduce and apply structured Lean practices to the key enabling processes of the
University to ensure optimum efficiency, effectiveness, agility and responsiveness to
internal and external needs. Prioritise the application of ‘Lean’ to the programme
approval, financial management, intellectual property and contracts processes.”

This focus on CI in the university strategic planning process emerged from senior management
interest and suggestions that arose during the consultation process, mainly from staff that had
experience of Lean in previous employment elsewhere. The main motivation was to become
more responsive, to simplify processes and reduce bureaucracy.

9 

 
 4th INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON LEAN SIX SIGMA FOR HIGHER EDUCATION, May 25–26, 2017

4.2 Deployment
Given that the CI initiative arose through the strategic planning process the University
Management Team (UMT) agreed a plan (establish a steering group, a communications
programme and training programme) and considered regular progress reports from the steer
group. The steering group was assembled by a CI Champion, a member of UMT with a
particular interest in CI and lean six sigma experience from previous employment in the private
sector. In assembling the group he sought to ensure representation from across the institution
and also encouraged staff with experience and interest in CI, including those had gained
experience in previous employment in the private sector. The steering group‘s terms of
reference (as listed below) were presented to, and approved by, UMT in Q4, 2014.

Steering Group terms of reference:

• Influence project selection to ensure alignment with the priorities of the University’s
strategic plan and with local needs.
• Provide support and advice for staff who are participating in training.
• Facilitate cross-office Continuous Improvement engagement.
• Provide support for key projects and provide guidance to IT regarding processes that are
appropriate for automation.
• Report regularly to UMT.
• Set realistic goals to support the advancement of Continuous Improvement in the
University.
• PR related to Continuous Improvement across the University.

Over an 18 month period the steering group, with administrative assistance from HR,
coordinated the roll-out of White, Yellow and Green Belt training, developed a roadmap and
produced a web site to promote this initiative. The CI Champion also led university-wide
communication sessions (i.e. Staff Briefing Sessions).

From the outset there was a strong emphasis on training, with White Belt (WB) and Yellow
Belt (YB) training building awareness of CI concepts and Green Belt (GB) training building
capability. This work was contracted to an external training provider. A number of key
learnings were gained from the initial roll-out (2015). Firstly, a greater number of staff engaged
with WB and YB training than expected, 46 and 112 respectively, over the first 18 months.
This was a positive response to the communication sessions and resulted in a larger cohort of
trained staff than originally expected. Secondly, while the GB training provided was well
received trainees they required greater support to complete the associated Green Belt projects.
In particular greater alignment between the training programme and the projects was required
in addition to more active project sponsorship and mentoring.

In response the steering group paused training at WB and YB levels and focused on building
capability to support CI projects and wider activity through GB Training and the employment
of an expert (Lean Six Sigma (LSS) Black Belt) on a part-time basis. This LSS expert provided
project mentoring to support a cohort of Green Belt trainees. This resulted in the delivery of
projects with clear benefits that addressed specified problems. Table 1 summarises some of
these projects completed in the Faculty of Medicine for illustrative purposes.

10 

 
 4th INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON LEAN SIX SIGMA FOR HIGHER EDUCATION, May 25–26, 2017

Table 1. Examples of Green Belt Projects Completed

 

Project Name  Problem to be addressed  Benefits 

Digital Nursing  “The process involved for  • Process time from start to finish 
Archive Recording  booking and in using the  improved from 27 days to 9 days with 
Process  DNA recording system is  100% accuracy. 
  very time consuming,   
unclear, cumbersome and 
prone to mistakes.”  
 
Processing minor  “Currently the length of time  Better:  
changes within the  taken to effect minor  • Staff have clear guidelines and a 
College of Medicine  curriculum change is too  defined support structure throughout 
and Health   long and inconsistent. At one  the process reducing frustration and the 
  meeting during academic  need for resubmission. 
year 2014/2015 16 minor  • Development of an app style, online 
changes took an average of  meeting management system to 
7.4 weeks with a range of 23  support the LEANer process. The app 
weeks”  reduces version control issues and 
allows committee members access to 
all documentation, on all devices via 
user‐friendly system.  
Faster:  
• Average approval time improved from 
7.4 weeks (with a range of up to 23) to 
3.8 weeks (with a range of up to 5). 
Wider Impact 
• All Schools within the Faculty have 
access to the support structure and 
documents for the approval of changes. 
• The online meeting management 
system has allowed the Faculty to hold 
paperless meetings, with the system 
rolling out to School level. 
 
Review of the  The existing process is a  • More timely allocation of placement 
existing process of  manual system which takes  schedules to students 
allocating clinical  over 8 weeks to complete  • Reduces risk of loss of information 
rotations to third,  and has a defect rate of 25%  • More student information captured in 
fourth and final    one system 
medical students    • Streamline the work of three members 
  of staff in the School 
Registration  The cycle time for  • 100% of students registered by end 
Process of the MSc  completion of registrations  Month 1 
in Obstetrics and  is taking too long at 6  • 100% student access to Blackboard, 
Gynaecology  months.  Library and University systems  
    • Complete and accurate class list on 
DMIS 
• Lead time for completion of 
registrations reduced from 6 months to 
1 month  
 
CPD Application  70.5% defect rate in  • Standardised application form 
Process within  applications received.  Cycle  introduced 
School  time for processing  • Online verification of professional 
applications 21.9 working  status 
days  • Faster cycle time 
  • Wider impact: Working at an 
interdisciplinary level between Faculty 
and Graduate Studies Office. 
11 

 
 4th INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON LEAN SIX SIGMA FOR HIGHER EDUCATION, May 25–26, 2017

The learning gained from this exercise informed future training programme design with the
LSS expert working with the training provider to customise training to the university’s needs.
In particular DMAIC was introduced as an overall framework, this sharpened problem
statements and analysis throughout project work. Thus the earlier lean approach was changed
to a LSS approach. Furthermore a case study relevant to the university was designed and the
used throughout the training. This illustrated the use of DMAIC. An A3 design, based on
DMAIC, was also customised for use in the Green Belt projects and to support ongoing
improvement project activity. Exhibit 1 summarises the enhancement to training programmes.

In addition, the LSS expert worked with the steering group to produce the roadmap referred to
above. This focused on attention on specific areas and incorporated training into the overall
strategy. Hence Green Belt project pursued were very much linked to the unit level plans. In
total 31 GB projects had been completed by the end of 2016. In addition, 14 staff pursing GB
training and working in projects. These staff have benefited from a programme that is overseen
by the LSS expert and delivered by the external training provider. This programme starts with
recruitment of suitable trainees, includes an induction session led by the LSS expert in
conjunction with HR and the external provider and project mentoring provided by the LSS
expert.

Recruitment of staff for GB training and subsequent induction was based on agreed attributes
of a GB qualified staff member. These attributes reflected qualities such as initiative, leadership
skills, a methodical approach and a passion for engagement and improvement. They provided
a guideline for Unit Directors when identifying staff for GB training. Thus expectations were
set for all concerned and GB projects and expertise developed were considered integral to unit
planning and operations.

5. The Key Lessons Learned to Date

Much has been learned from initiative taken to date. In particular the blend of expertise
required, including the availability of LSS expertise in-house during the initial stages, as well
as the role of building capacity through training. The need to integrate GB training and projects
into the plans and operations at operational level were key. Likewise the capacity to respond
to interest stimulated through YB and YB is key to the overall success of the initiative. Thus
while it is of fundamental importance that CI is considered part of strategic planning (in this
case a CI initiative included in strategic plan) and is adequately resourced (in this case senior
management commitment and resources were evident), active leadership at unit level was
found to be the key to ‘success’. This needs to be evident through a cascading plan that includes
CI projects and supports these through sponsorship and mentoring. For example, as the GB
12 

 
 4th INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON LEAN SIX SIGMA FOR HIGHER EDUCATION, May 25–26, 2017

training progressed the need for coaching and mentoring of the GBs became very clear. In
addition to the part-time LSS expert provided from central resources the Director of the IT unit
appointed a staff member to coordinate activity and hold projects meetings across the unit. The
manager of Systems Admin recruited a part time Master Black Belt to lead and facilitate four
projects over a 6-month period. The ultimate aim of this is to show the potential benefit of
using the DMAIC problem solving methodology and the Lean toolset in bigger projects.

Of course ongoing senior management commitment is required, in this case it is likely that this
is based on progress at unit level. For example the steering group, now working in the next
phase of development, seek a full-time LSS expert (Black Belt level) supported by central
resources. The inclusion of the CI programme in the university 5-year strategy and subsequent
effort to align projects to the strategy framed the entire endeavour supporting Antony’s (2014)
emphasis on leadership, alignment with strategy and commitment of resources. The role of
expertise, from many quarters, is a recurring theme. The findings support the need for
improvement specialists consistent with previous research that had outlined the importance of
staff trained and experienced in various roles, including Project Sponsors, Project Champions,
Master Black Belts, Black Belts, Green Belts and Yellow Belts (Wu and Lin, 2009) and
ultimately the importance of selecting the right people (Antony, 2014).

6. Conclusion
This case study reports on the initial steps taken by an Irish university embarking on a CI
journey. Key findings in this case point to the Anthony (2014) Readiness Factors as an
evaluative framework. For example, the importance of both strategic vision and senior
management are evident and as this case illustrates need to cascade down to unit level plans
and operations. Selecting the right people emerge as one of the key characteristics of this case,
for example the approach taken to assemble the steering group, the introduction of LSS expert
on a part-time basis and the recruitment of GB training cohorts. The introduction of LSS, rather
than ‘Lean only’ approach was a key turning point in this initiative, particularly in terms of the
use of DMAIC and a customised A3. .

The findings from the study identify three key practical implications for Lean Six Sigma in the
University sector, namely (i) the key role of experienced LSS experts who understand/adapt to
the university environment; (ii) management commitment and resourcing through a cascading
deployment plan; and (iii) the role of a methodical LSS approach (i.e. concepts and tools and
techniques This experience supports the fundamental importance of the three key components
of Lean Six Sigma as evidenced in the literature: (i) projects focused on strategic objectives,
(ii) improvement specialists, and (ii) structured method (Shah, et al., 2008; Wu & Lin, 2009;
Timans, et al., 2012).

References
Antony, J. (2014), “Readiness factors for the LSS journey in the higher education sector”,
International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 63 Issue 2, pp. 257-
264.

Antony, J., Krishan, N., Cullen, D. and Kumar, M. (2012), “LSS for Higher Education
Institutions (HEI’s): Challenges, barriers, success factors, tools/techniques”, International
Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 61 No. 8, pp. 940 – 948.

13 

 
 4th INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON LEAN SIX SIGMA FOR HIGHER EDUCATION, May 25–26, 2017

Balzer, W. K., Francis, D. E., Krehbiel, T. C. and Nicholas Shea, (2016),"A review and
perspective on Lean in higher education", Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 24 Iss. 4 pp.
442 – 462.

Bateman, N., Hines, P., & Davidson, P. (2014). Wider applications for Lean: An examination
of the fundamental principles within public sector organisations. International Journal of
Productivity and Performance Management, 63(5), 550-568.

Chakraborty, A. and Leyer, M. (2013), “Developing a Six Sigma framework: perspectives from
financial service companies”, The International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management,
Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 256-279.

Emiliani, M. (2004). Improving business school courses by applying Lean principles and
practices. Quality Assurance in Education, 12(4), 175-187.

Emiliani, M.L. (2005), “Using kaizen to improve graduate business school degree programs”,
Quality Assurance in Education, vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 37.

Gordon, G. and Fischer, M. (2011), “Accounting Strategy to Improve Public Higher Education
Management”, Journal of Accounting & Finance, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 11-25.

Hess, P.W. and Siciliano, J. (2007), “A research-based approach to continuous improvement

in business education”, Organization Management Journal, Vol. 4 No.2, pp. 135-147.

Hines, P. and Lethbridge, S. (2008) New development: Creating a Lean University, Public
Money and Management, Vol. 28, No. 1, pp 53-56.

Marshall, C., & Rossman, G., (1989), Designing Qualitative Research, Beverly Hills: Sage
Publications.

Miles, M. B., Huberman, M. and Saldana (2014), Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods
Sourcebook, 3rd Edition, Sage Publication.

Patton, M. Q. (2002), Qualitative Research and Evaluative Methods, 3rd ed., Sage Publications,
CA. US.

Radnor, Z., Walley, P., Stephens, A. and Bucci, G. (2006), Evaluation of the Lean Approach
to Business Management and its use in the Public Sector, Scottish Executive Social Research,
Edinburgh.

Radnor, Z. and Bucci, G. (2011), Analysis of Lean implementation in UK business schools

and Universities, ABS Lean in Business Schools, pp. 2-74.

Ritchie, J., Lewis, J., McNaughton Nicholls, C., & Ormston, R. (2013). Qualitative research
practice: a guide for social science students and researchers. Sage Publications.

Shah, R., Chandrasekaran, A. and Linderman, K. (2008), “In pursuit of implementation

patterns: the context of Lean and Six Sigma”, International Journal of Production Research,
Vol. 46 No. 23, pp. 66-79.
14 

 
 4th INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON LEAN SIX SIGMA FOR HIGHER EDUCATION, May 25–26, 2017

Thirkell, E. and Ashman, I. (2014), “Lean towards Learning: connecting Lean Thinking and
human resource management in UK higher education”, International Journal of Human
Resource Management, Vol. 25 No. 21, pp.2957-2977.

Timans, W., Antony, J., Ahaus, K. and Van Solingen, R. (2012), “Implementation of LSS
in small- and medium-sized manufacturing enterprises in the Netherlands”, The Journal of
the Operational Research Society, Vol. 63 No. 3, pp. 339-353.

Waterbury, T. and Holm, M. (2011) Educational Lean for Higher Education: Theory and
Practice, lulu.com.

Waterbury, T. (2015) ‘Learning from the pioneers’, International Journal of Quality &
Reliability Management, 32(9), pp. 934–950.

Wu, C. and Lin, C. (2009), Case study of knowledge creation facilitated by Six Sigma, The
International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 26, No. 9, pp. 911-932.

Yin, R.K. (1994), Case Study Research - Design and Methods, Newbury Park, Sage
Publications.

15