Advising Project Dana Clark Beth Nuccio Julia Teahen Mike Tyler October 3, 2012

PROJECT SELECTION

Why Advising? Customer service surveys indicated that students are not satisfied with the current advising process (Noel-Levitz) Students who left Baker College indicated that the advising process was one reason for leaving the institution (Eduventures Retention Study) Flint campus study of advising indicated inconsistent quality of advising visits

Project Selection Selected by the Lean Six Sigma Training Group Integrated into an existing project Worked with the Directors of Advising to define the scope Narrowed the project to try and create a standardized advising process Tackled project in a more focused way using Lean Six Sigma tools

Key Stakeholders Directors of Advising Academic Advisors Students

Impact on Stakeholders Project was designed to create a consistent process for advising visits Clear expectations for Advisors were established Model for consistent advising was created Students received consistent advising services, both reactive and proactive (no longer missed opportunity to discuss current and future progress)

Lessons Learned Involvement in creation of a project selection rubric may create a clearer selection process and buy-in of selected projects More experience in identifying good Lean Six Sigma projects may be helpful. What are key characteristics of a good project? What are key characteristics that are not a good fit? Project scope defines stakeholders involvement – very useful!

Lessons Learned How inclusive should we be in team selection? Moved into an existing project… it took time to build a synergy with the team buy-in and agreement of what we are doing was valuable and took a few meetings to establish

Lessons Learned Lacked data necessary to understand the direction of the project Excpected impact was not defined or clearly articulated at the beginning of the project due to lack of data Need to start with the question: What will we measure? DMAIC vs. DMEDI - used DMAIC and due to lack of baseline data ended up closer to the DMEDI model

TEAM EFFECTIVENESS

We Rocked! Lean Six Sigma Leadership Team Academic Advising Work Team

Team Effectiveness Leadership Team members volunteered to participate in the project Academic Advising Work team was established prior to project selection

Preparation to Participate Explained purposes of the project Introduced quality improvement concepts Placed to help team achieve their goal Described purpose of tools as they were used throughout the project

Work Group Contribution All campus advising departments were represented on the work team All contributed in meetings; not all able to participate in pilot phase due to timing and other responsibilities All work group members were invested in the project and eager to participate Most of the work was completed in meetings

Work Group Effectiveness We joined an existing and high functioning team Agenda provided with goals at each meeting Reviewed past sessions at each meeting Conclusion at end of meeting with detailed responsibilities addressed Always used VOC and project scope to limit derailers - kept us on track for a manageable project

Project Scope

Charter Gate Review

Leadership Team Effectiveness Parts of the project were done individually so effectiveness was lost Team members volunteered to tackle tools based on comfort level Used Blackboard to post documents for sharing Should have established regular appointments instead of by need Lack of coordination/timing between meetings, Course Topics, and Advising Project team meetings

Leadership Team Effectiveness On the job training and use of tools was an excellent way to learn the process Four members is a good team size One team member was not as familiar with the project scope so had to learn two languages (Advising and Lean Six Sigma)

Lessons Learned Would be beneficial to orient team to Lean Six Sigma tools at the beginning versus as they were used More lead time would have been useful in facilitating the project (we were only 1/2 step ahead of work group)

ANALYSIS

Analysis and Root Causes Voice of Customer SIPOC CTQ Five Whys Fishbone Diagram FMEA - not effective

Voice of the Customer Data Students felt well- served The survey did not measure if a student received a quality advising visit Very little data exists regarding accuracy of advising decisions

Voice of Customer

SIPOC

CTQ

Advising Five Whys

Advising Fishbone

FMEA

Root Causes Fishbone and Five Whys helped change our direction to two root causes: Cause 1: Inconsistent Advising Lack of expectations Lack of training Lack of audit OUTCOME: Lead to development of checklist and training in using the checklist Cause 2: Lack of Communication and Quality Program Information Will be addressed in future phases

Lesson Learned Not sure we really found the root cause of the problem

Define Gate Review

SOLUTION DEVELOPMENT

Solution Development VOC, Process Map, and other tools used to brainstorm future state of advising appointments The Future State defined elements of a good advising appointment Created an advising checklist, as a work group, to implement consistency in advising visits within the academic office

Process Map Directors of Advising gathered input from their advisors to create process maps for each function within our project scope Class Selection Drop Withdrawal Program Inquiry Program Change

Class Selection Process Map

Drop Process Map

Withdrawal Selection Process Map

Program Inquiry Selection Process Map

Program Change Selection Process Map

Advising Checklist

Expected Benefits Expected Benefits = More consistent advising and stated advisor expectations Reviewed VOC from initial research Asked: If we did all of these things in the advising appointment, would we meet the needs of the customer?

Lessons Learned Measurements to determine impact were difficult because we didn t have baseline data Expected benefits difficult to state specifically due to lack of benchmark data Impact not clearly defined and not apparent in outcome There is still a lot of waste in each process that we did not address

SOLUTION IMPLEMENTATION

Solution Implementation A pilot was developed to: determine Usability gather VOC after new process gather Advisor feedback identify Potential challenges determine if advising appointments were more consistent? provide expectations through training

Solution Implementation Leadership team met to discuss possible implementation strategies of pilot Larger work group met to brainstorm implementation strategies of pilot Reviewed results of student survey, Director observations, advisor self-reported use of checklist, and feedback from advisors Work group met to discuss final implementation strategy by discussing data collected, feedback received, and by brainstorming further challenges

Research Methodology Pre- and Post-test pilot on four campuses with ten advisors Pre-test - Director of Advising observed advising appointments and documented activity on the checklist; students completed a survey Post-test - Training of those advisors who participated in the pre-test phase; Advisors used checklist during appointment, Director of Advising observed advising appointments and documented on the checklist, students completed a survey

Hypothesis

Measurements Gathered the data Compiled and presented to Work Group Result: Very little variation in pre- and post-test use of checklist Some suggestion that the tool was not used consistently or reliably Tools may not be discriminating enough to identify behavior at a fine enough level to determine differences that may have occurred between pre- and post-test Data from students suggest generally are satisfied one-on-one when they meet with an advisor; which is in odds with other data we have from previous research

Measure Gate Review

Force Field Analysis

Challenges of Pilot and Full Implementation Identified through brainstorming prior to pilot phase Additional challenges identified during the pilot phase through data analysis of pre- and post- test Sign in procedure for walk-in appointments was a problem on some campuses Challenges in using the checklist consistently Inconsistent documentation in Student Tracking Week Seven Advising – to use or not to use the checklist?

Analyze Gate Review

Advisor Feedback

Procedural Changes Wait time implemented to allow for time to review student records prior to meeting with student Every advisor will use the checklist for each visit – even during Week Seven Summary form for students Collection of checklist data Analysis of checklist data

Support and Buy-In All Directors participated in the Advising Work Group Team Advisors use of checklist and opportunity to provide feedback to improve the checklist Chief Academic Officer Committee and Presidents Council are needed for full implementation

Implementation Plan Revision of Checklist (completed) Approval needed to implement across all advising offices across the System in the Winter 2013 quarter (Denise Bannan, Dana Clark, & Julia Teahen) Revision of training (Dana Clark & Academic Advising Work Group) Provide in-person training of all advisors during Fall Quarter 2012 (Dana Clark & Julia Teahen) Full scale implementation in January 2013 (Academic Advising Work Group) Directors of Advising will collect the completed checklists Reevaluate data gathered in Spring 2013 (Academic Advising Work Group) Determine impact of checklist in Spring 2013 (Academic Advising Work Group

Sustainability Issues Controls have not yet been implemented for sustainability Need to determine overall effectiveness in May 2013 and then decide if checksheet process should continue Long term strategies were discussed and noted for future sustainability; to be used after data collection in May 2013

Sustainability Issues Consistency in using checklist Buy-in on Importance of Checklist Use Observation of Use Periodic survey of students to verify meeting VOC Ongoing training Demonstrate Value-Added Tool

Improve Gate Review

RESULTS, KNOWLEDGE SHARING AND APPLICATION

Results Not sure we made a difference - need to evaluate after full implementation Expectation of what a good appointment looks like was established Buy-in from Directors of Advising Pilot results shared with the Advising Work Team; some advisors received the information on results; not clear with whom and how to share the results

Lessons Learned FMEA developed was very broad. It could have been refined after the post- test pilot phase Cost/Benefit analysis not completed Force Field Analysis was helpful in generating challenges and addressing sustainability Gate Reviews were not used to fullest potential in first Phase of learning. They will be useful to oversee future projects.

Control Gate Review

Questions?