1 American Society For Engineering Education Annual Conference St. Louis, MO June 18-21, 2000

2 Using Quality Function Deployment to Meet ABET 2000 Requirements for Outcomes Assessment Prof. Phillip R. Rosenkrantz Cal Poly Pomona

3 Outcomes and Assessment Team n ABET 2000 Criteria n 1.5 year-long project n Faculty involvement n Industry involvement n Alumni involvement

4 Selection of Assessment Methodology n Strategic Planning n Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award Criteria n Total Quality Management (TQM) n Quality Function Deployment (QFD) n Customized Approach

5 Quality Function Deployment Chosen as Primary Methodology n Enthusiastically supported by the full IME faculty. n Adaptations and enhancements using other methodologies n QFD team formed (Dept, IAC, Alumni) n Met regularly for five quarters n “Modified” version of QFD was used.

6 Phase I The Voice of the Customer n The IME Department recognized constituencies or “stakeholders” that need to be considered in all curriculum, scheduling, and program related decisions. n Identified eighteen stakeholders.

7 Three Categories of Stakeholders n Those we serve; n Those who use our graduates; n Those who regulate us n Used 1, 3, 9 weighting scale

8 Most Important (9 points) Students (& Alumni) n University Administration/CSU n Manufacturing sector companies n ABET (accrediting agency) n State Government

9 Next Most Important (3 points) n Other faculty/departments n Parents of students n Service companies n Board of Professional Engineers n ASQ (Certification) n SME (Certification)

10 Least Important (1 point) n Grad schools n General public n Granting agencies n Public sector employers n Information sector companies n WASC n APICS

11 Phase II Program Objectives and Outcomes (Needs Assessment) n Department Mission Statement n Department Objectives n ABET “a-k” outcomes n SME “Competency Gaps” n “Other” sources n Result: Goals & 24 “SKAA’s” (Skill, Knowledge, Attitude, and Ability areas)

12 Phase III QFD Implementation n Five Matrices n Interative Process n Results flowed from one matrix to the next n Fast Input from many stakeholders n Provided valuable results n Quantifiable

13 Matrix 1: Stakeholder vs. SKAA n 18x24 matrix was used to evaluate the importance of each SKAA for each stakeholder. n Identified which SKAAs are the most important overall. The result is a ranking that include the importance weighting for each stakeholder.

14 Matrix 2: SKAA vs. Core Course n Core courses evaluated on current SKAA coverage. n Column totals reveal how much each individual course covers SKAA’s. n Row totals show how much each SKAA is covered in the curriculum. n Rankings of SKAA row totals reveal potential weaknesses in the curriculum.

15

16 Case Study - IME 415 Quality Control by Statistical Methods n Column total was initially 41 points. n Professionalism/Ethics & Social Responsibility (+8) n Teaming – Team projects (+8) n Employability – Six-Sigma Quality (+2) n Use Skills/Tools – Web, Charts (+3) n Reliability Engineering – Intro (+3) n Quality Standards –ISO/QS 9000 (+0) n Added 24 points to the column = 75 points

17 Matrix 3: SKAA vs. Methodology n Developed list of current and potential teaching methodologies. n Methodologies evaluated against each SKAA for “potential” effectiveness and assessment capability. n Rankings indicate methodologies with the most potential benefit in achieving and evaluating desired outcomes.

18 Matrix 4: SKAA vs. Assessment Tool n List of existing and potential assessment tools. n Presented to the faculty and modified. n Tools rated for potential effectiveness in assessing the degree to which each SKAA has been effectively taught. n Used to decide which tools should be supported at the department level.

19 Matrix 5: Assessment Tools vs. Core Courses n Core courses rated for the potential effectiveness of the tool. n Matrix gives each faculty member a more complete list of assessment options for the courses taught.

20 Phase IV Action Planning n Timetable n New Industry Survey Instruments n Revised Instructional Assessment Instrument n Exit Interview Process