Case Study: Improving a University's Teaching Process
In short In this case study from Bjørn Andersen’s book, a small American university worked through a full improvement cycle (setting priorities, analyzing the problem, generating ideas and planning implementation) to redesign how one department teaches. No single tool was sophisticated; the results came from using several simple tools in sequence.
Based on: B. Andersen, Business Process Improvement Toolbox, ch. 14.
On this page
This is Andersen’s case, summarized in our own words. He notes that it is based on a real situation, with some details changed.
Context#
A small American university, with about 3,000 students and six faculties, faced low student satisfaction with teaching and declining interest in learning.
Approach#
The improvement team followed Andersen’s improvement model from start to finish, choosing a few tools for each stage:
| Stage | Tools used |
|---|---|
| Setting priorities | Survey and interviews, spider chart, performance matrix |
| Understanding the problem | Flowchart, baseline measures |
| Analyzing the problem | Cause-and-effect (fishbone) diagram, matrix diagram |
| Generating ideas | Idealization through written brainstorming, simple benchmarking |
| Implementing | Implementation plan, force-field analysis |
What the analyst did#
In this case the work was done by an improvement team rather than a single analyst.
- Setting priorities. The team surveyed about 200 students and interviewed graduates and around 20 employers by phone on eight topics, including usefulness of course content, quality of teaching, administrative procedures and relevance to work. A spider chart comparing the university with others in the state showed it lagging on four of them. A performance matrix narrowed the focus to two linked areas: students’ professional communication skills and teachers’ teaching skills. The physics department, with low ratings and a subject seen as hard to teach, became the pilot.
- Understanding the problem. A flowchart of a standard course showed the usual sequence: course plan, introductory meeting, lectures for 100–150 students plus exercises, and a final exam. Baseline measures were recorded; teaching skills were the weakest area, rated 1.7 on a five-point scale.
- Analyzing the problem. A fishbone diagram for “lack of communication ability” found three groups of causes: overly theoretical teaching, weak links between courses, and outdated organization (one professor per 120 students, purely computational exercises, and exams that encouraged “pass and forget”). A matrix diagram linked the causes to their effects.
- Generating ideas. Two days of written brainstorming around an idealized course produced five proposals: plan the course with students at the start; teach theory as discussions in groups of up to 15 instead of lectures to 100 or more; solve applied problems in groups; combine an individual theory question with a group practical task in the final exam; and invite student feedback during the course. A benchmarking visit to a university that had won a regional teaching award added more: review courses regularly for overlap, include new research, have students take turns presenting theory, and visit companies before and after the theory.
- Implementing. The plan covered three of the department’s six courses from the spring semester: new reading lists, small-group discussions, company visits, new group exercises, a new exam procedure and feedback channels. A force-field analysis identified resistance, including fear of job losses and some staff’s distrust of change, and set countermeasures: explaining the benefits to students, holding meetings that shared other universities’ experience, and changing the grading rules.
Results: Andersen reports large improvements. The communication score rose from 2.3 to 4.5 and the teaching-skills score from 1.7 to 4.4, both on a five-point scale. The department extended the approach to all its courses, and the university’s leadership set up a working group to roll it out across the university.
Lessons you can reuse#
- Let data choose the target. The survey and spider chart turned general dissatisfaction into two specific, linked problems.
- Pilot where the problem is real and visible. A department with low ratings and a hard subject gave a convincing test; success there was hard to dismiss.
- Chain simple tools. Each tool did one job and fed the next. This reflects Andersen’s central point that tools are a means, not the goal.
- Record a baseline before changing anything. Without the 1.7 starting point, the later 4.4 would mean little.
- Idealize first, then benchmark. Designing the ideal from scratch, then checking what others already do, produces both bold and proven ideas.
- Plan for resistance explicitly. A force-field analysis names the fears and assigns a countermeasure to each.
- Scale in stages. Three courses, then the department, then the whole university.
Applying it at The Workshop (a fictional bike-repair chain): a customer survey and a spider chart against local competitors could show weak turnaround and communication. One workshop acts as the pilot, a fishbone diagram explores the causes of delay, an idealized “perfect repair visit” generates ideas, and a force-field analysis prepares for mechanics’ concerns before the change spreads to all twelve sites.
Sources#
- B. Andersen. Business Process Improvement Toolbox. ASQ Quality Press, 1999, ch. 14 (case study).