QUALITY CIRCLE ASSIGNMENT

How to Improve Quality of Teaching In

Mechanical Engineering Department

Prepared by

Shanker R 2011A4PS322P

Divyanshu Jain 2011A4PS238P

Abhiram Patankar 2011B3A4493P

ME F443: Quality Control Assurance and Reliability

INTRODUCTION

Quality Circle is a voluntary, informal group of people who work on similar tasks or share an

area of responsibility and try to improve the quality of work life & environment. These are related

especially to the quality of output or services in order to improve the performance of the

organization / department and motivate and enrich the work of employees. This group carries on

continuously as a part of organization-wide control activities, self and mutual developments and

control and improvement within the workplace utilizing quality control techniques with all the

members participating. Generally six to twelve volunteers from the same work area make up a circle.

The members receive training in problem solving, statistical quality control and group processes.

Quality Circle generally recommends solutions for quality and services which may be implemented

by the management. Thus Quality Circle is not merely a suggestion system or a quality control group

but extends beyond that because its activities are more comprehensive.

HISTORY OF QUALITY CIRCLES

Quality circles were thus conceived in Japan by 1961 under the leadership of Dr. Kaoru

Ishikawa, then an engineering Professor in Japanese prestigious Tokyo University. Dr. Ishikawa was

earlier concentrating on “Book Reading Circles” helping the workers to get theoretical knowledge

about quality control. He under the sponsorship of the Japanese Union of Scientists and Engineers

(JUSE) structured the theories of behavioral scientists such as Maslow, Herzberg, Mc.Greger, to the

quality science introduced by Dr. Deming and Dr. Juran. Thus the first quality circle was registered

with JUSE during May 1962. By June, 1962, there were three circles registered with the JUSE. That

of August 1969 there were 24,000 quality circles registered with the membership of 2,80,000 and the

number was increasing by 700 to 1000 each month, By mid-1972, the Japanese estimated that the

total quality circles had reached 5,00,000 with a membership of about 5 million.

It has been seen now that the concept of quality control circles was evolved and adopted in

Japan as a result of compulsion of circumstances prevailing at the time. Much of the success of the

Japanese industry today can be ascribed to their adopting of the quality circle concept in a big way

through the efforts of the JUSE. To quote one single instance of the miraculous story of the

Japanese industry, in 1960, Japan was unable to sell a single car abroad, but by 1974, they were

exporting 2.5 million cars a year and by 1979 that figure had doubled.

Simultaneously, awareness of the impact of quality circles in improving the total

performance of any organization has been growing in the rest of the world too. Countries which are

close to Japan like Taiwan and Korea were the first to follow the Japanese example in practicing this

philosophy and reaping rich benefits. Quality circles soon spread in many other countries such as

Norway, Sweden, Brazil, Canada, France, U.K., Singapore, Korea, Taiwan, Malaysia, Argentina and

Holland. Of late, a number of countries the world over were showing keen interest in this

philosophy, and it was seen that there was a participation of delegates from USSR and China at the

International Convention on Quality Control Circles in Tokyo, 1985.

QUALITY CIRCLES IN INDIA

Quality circle activity was brought to India by the Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. (BHEL) -

Ramachandrapuram unit in Hyderabad. QC was started in its plant with five circles, in 1981. Now,

this movement in BHEL has grown to 1,629 circles as of 30 June 1990, spread over its plants at

Bhopal, Hyderabad, Hardwar, Tiruchi, and Bangalore. It is estimated that about 370 companies,

almost equally divided between public and private enterprises, are practicing QC movement.

Presently, at national level quality circles in India have gradually spread to chemical, pharmaceutical

and other 74 processing plants including even the more traditional jute and textile industries. Typical

examples of companies are BASF, Hindustan Antibiotics, Durgapur Steel Plant, Crompton Greaves,

JK Jute Mills, National Textile Corporation, Shriram Fibers, etc. There are several other companies

successfully operating QCs in India both in the public and private sectors. Air India, Indian airlines,

Apollo Hospitals in Chennai, State Road Transport Corporations of Andhra Pradesh and Kerala,

South Eastern Railways, Bank of Baroda, State Bank of India, etc. are some of the service sector

organizations joining the fraternity of quality circles implementing organizations in India. Quality

Circles in India have also been reported from certain families and rural area projects.

Growth of quality circle in India

Quality Circle Forum of India (QCFI) is recognized as the institution representing The

Quality Circle Movement in India and has represented the country in several international forums.

On 31st December 1982 the Quality Circle Forum of India was registered as a non-profit and non-

political organization. The organization has successfully implemented Quality concepts under the

TQM umbrella across several industry verticals that have experienced a phenomenal enhancement

of their work processes and productivity after implementation of Quality concept tools.

IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF EDUCATION IN

MECHANICAL DEPARTMENT

Our basic approach for addressing the issue at hand involved the following steps.

1. Defining a set of parameters for defining the quality of education in the mechanical

engineering department in BITS Pilani

2. Identifying a set of problems associated

3. Classification of selected problems

4. Selection of a few important problems

5. Defining and analyzing the selected problems (Using fishbone diagrams and Pareto charts)

6. Proposing solutions to the selected problems

STRUCTURE OF THE TEAM

The structure of a quality circle can be divided into four classes

1. Executive Committee

It consists of members from the top management who are involved with the top level

decision making body of the organization.

2. Facilitator

Facilitator acts as the mediator between the quality circle members and the top management.

The facilitator takes direction from the executive committee and co-ordinates the activities

of the circle meetings.

3. Leader

4. Members

For implementing the quality circle in BITS Pilani, the executive committee could include

the administrative authorities of BITS. The role of facilitator could be played by one of the

faculties in the Mechanical Engineering Department. The members of the quality circle are the

students in the department and one of them is selected by the group as the leader.

PARAMETERS FOR QUALITY OF TEACHING

The following parameters were considered for defining the quality of education in the

department.

1. Student-faculty interaction

This is a measure of how good the communication is between the students and the faculty

members

2. Qualification and experience of faculty

3. Curriculum design

This evaluates how up to date and relevant the curriculum is with respect to the current

scenario

4. Evaluation process

This is a measure of how good the evaluation system is in the department. This includes

factors like uniformity of components, focus on understanding etc.

5. Practical component

This is a measure of the emphasis given on practical application of the theoretical knowledge

gained in the subjects. This includes lab components, workshop projects etc.

6. Quality of research

This is defined by the standard of research activities, number of publications, patents etc.

7. Infrastructure

This includes the condition of labs, workshop and the quality of the equipment present

8. Industrial exposure

This involves the amount of industrial exposure received by the students. It can be measured

by industrial visits, internship opportunities, and industrial projects being carried out by

students

9. Research exposure

This includes the knowledge and involvement of the students in the research activities being

carried out in the department.

10. Flexibility to students

The flexibility given to the students to pursue their interests

IDENTIFICATION OF PROBLEMS

After identifying the parameters which define the quality of education, the next step was to

evaluate the department based on these parameters and identify some of the problems associated

with it. The members of the quality circle had a brainstorming session regarding this and identified a

list of ten problems. They are as follows.

i. Out of date labs and workshop

ii. Lack of industrial exposure apart from PS program

iii. Non-visibility of research in the department

iv. Minimal publications by students

v. Old curriculum, new avenues of research missed out

vi. Non-uniformity in evaluation components

vii. Less practical components, lack of good project work

viii. Clash in important electives, many electives are not offered

ix. Poor implementation of feedback by institute and students

x. Communication gap between students and faculty

The next step involved the classification of these problems, selecting a few important ones to

address and detailed analysis of the selected problems.

STRATIFICATION OF IDENTIFIED PROBLEMS

We classified the selected problems into three sections based on who should be responsible

for analyzing them and implementing the solutions. The three sections are as follows.

• Solution lies with students:

Some of the problems can be identified and addressed by the students and can be

solved with the help of some good initiative from their part. Some of the problems which

fall into this category are Research visibility, Good publications, Project work,

Communication gap with faculty and proper use of feedback system to address their

concerns.

• Solution lies with department:

Solution of some of the problems lies in the hands of the Mechanical Engineering

department. Examples are problems with Industrial exposure, Research visibility, Good

publications, Old curriculum, Evaluation uniformity, Practical components, Clash in

electives and offering electives.

• Solution lies with management:

Some problems need the attention of the top management. They are out of date

infrastructure, Clash in electives, Poor implementation of feedback etc.

SELECTION OF PROBLEMS

Our next step involved selecting a few out of all the listed problems. We took feedback from

other students in the department regarding which set of problems they found important to be

addressed and analyzed in detail. We then used their feedback to shorten the list of problems. Then

the quality circle members had a voting session to decide on the final set of problems. We selected a

total of four problems to be analyzed. The selected problems are

1. Lack of industrial exposure

2. Non-visibility of research in the department

3. Old curriculum

4. Clash in electives, many electives not offered

DEFINING THE PROBLEMS

The selected problems were then defined in a few statements so that the efforts to solve

these problems can be channeled in the right direction.

Problem 1:

Students lack in industrial exposure which leads to unawareness of modern techniques used in

industry and the working of professional organizations.

Problem 2:

Research work by the department faculty is largely not visible to the students and this has a negative

effect on the choices available to the students as well as motivation.

Problem 3:

Curriculum design is based on age old concepts and practices and lacks a modern flavor of current

technologies.

Problem 4:

Many of the electives are not offered and those which are offered are not available to the students

due to clashes in the timetable.

PROBLEM 1: INDUSTRIAL EXPOSURE

Lack of industrial exposure was an important problem identified through the selection procedure.

Students apart from the PS program do not get the opportunity for much industrial experience.

There are minimal to zero industrial visits organized by the department which is a major cause for

practical unawareness amongst the students.

Causes:

Four stakeholders were identified-

1. Students

1.1 Lack of Initiative: There is a lack of initiative from the students’ side. Students do not

come up with ideas for increasing the practical component in the learning procedure.

1.2 Lack of Interest: There is a lack of interest for these activities amongst the students.

Students are mostly busy in other extra-curricular activities which leaves no time to focus on

practical learning in the core subjects.

2. Faculty

2.1 High Workload: Teachers are caught up in administrative or other workload from the

department which leaves no time to focus on such components in their curriculum.

2.2 Less Industrial Tie-ups: Faculty has minimal contact with people in industries and hence

are unable to proceed with such initiatives even if they are willing to do so.

2.3 Focus on Theory: Teachers emphasize more on theoretical aspects of the subject in the

courses rather than developing a practical understanding.

3. Mechanical Engineering Association

Mechanical Engineering Association has not been very involved or interested in organizing

industrial activities for the students. There is a lack of initiative on one hand and a lack of

funds on the other. There are limited options when it comes to budget allocation for the

association.

4. Head of the Department

4.1 Administrative Workload

4.2 Communication Gap

Cause and Effect Diagram:

Pareto Chart:

Each member of the Quality Circle rated each cause out of 10. These ratings were used to generate a

Pareto chart for each problem.

The Pareto chart helps to identify the key cause(s) regarding a particular problem. In this case lack of

funds for MEA is identified as the most important cause.

Proposed Solutions:

• Mechanical Engineering Association can play an important role.

• A fixed amount of fund should be allocated to MEA every year to organize industrial visits

in power-plants, steel plants etc.

• Industrial case studies should be made part of the evaluation components by the faculty to

motivate students.

• A faculty should be made in-charge of industrial tie-ups to facilitate learning for the students.

0102030405060708090100

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Lack of industrial exposure

Total Cumulative %

PROBLEM 2: RESEARCH VISIBILITY

Research visibility is a major issue at hand. Students are not aware of the research work being done

by the faculty or the research centers in the department. Students working on their own research are

also working on their own without any coordination with other students who might be pursuing

some related field.

Causes:

Three stakeholders were identified-

1. Students

1.1 Communication Gap: There is a communication gap between the students and the

faculty. Students do not approach the faculty with their queries and doubts or research

proposals.

1.2 Extra-curricular Focus: Students focus more on their club, department or association

activities which leads to a lack of interest in academic research activities.

2. Faculty

2.1 Non-Maintenance of Faculty Homepage: The faculty homepage at the BITS website is

outdated and recent research activities of the faculty are not put up on the page. This makes

it difficult for the student to gauge which faculty to contact.

2.2 Selection Procedure for Projects: Faculty does not select the students for project work,

rather whichever student approaches the faculty gets an SOP under the teacher. This results

in early filling of the slots available under many teachers.

3. Research Centers

3.1 Non-Transparent Functioning: Most of the students are unaware of the research centers

in BITS such as CRIS, CREED etc. The working procedure of these centers is unknown and

the functioning is largely non-transparent.

3.2 Lack of Public Website: There is no website of these centers where students can go and

check out the latest projects and activities going on in these centers.

Cause and Effect Diagram:

Pareto Chart:

Each member of the Quality the circle rated each cause out of 10. These ratings were used to

generate a Pareto chart for each problem.

Pareto chart helped us to identify that communication gap and the functioning of the research

centers are the two main causes to the problem.

Proposed Solutions:

• Research centers should increase their visibility by opening public websites.

• Proper recruitment process should be established for these research centers by the faculty in-

charge.

• Faculty in the mechanical department should take presentations explaining their research

area and current requirements.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0

5

10

15

20

25

Communicationgap

Non-transparentfunctioning of

research centres

Lack of publicwebsite for

research centres

Inadequateselection

mechanism forprojects

Nonmaintenance offaculty website

Extra curricularfocus

Non-visisbility of Research

Total Cumulative %

PROBLEM 3: OLD CURRICULUM

One of the major problems identified regarding the department is its old curriculum. The curriculum

is more focused towards theory and not the practical applications, and in many courses the

curriculum (and the issued textbooks) is outdated and lacks practical application of the old theory in

today’s industries.

Causes:

Four stakeholders were identified-

1. Students

1.1 Lack of Experience: Students often have no knowledge regarding how outdated the

curriculum is or if the course includes application of theory in modern industries. Students

also may not be aware of the new innovations taking place in the industry that may not be a

part of the curriculum.

1.2 Lack of Feedback: Students fail to communicate with the faculty regarding the changes

required (if identified) in the curriculum.

2. Senate

The senate finalizes the change in curriculum for any course. The lack of student

representation in the senate leads to the unawareness of students regarding the procedure to

change curriculums.

3. Faculty

3.1 High Workload & Focus on Research: Often a faculty has to teach multiple subjects and

also carry out project work leading to high work load. This may hinder the faculty from

updating the curriculum regularly.

3.2 Less Industrial Interaction: The faculty may have less industrial interactions and thus end

up making the curriculum theoretical rather than practical.

4. Head of Department

4.1: Administrative Workload

4.2 Communication Gap: There is a communication gap between the students and the HOD

due lack of regular interaction. This reduces the feedback the faculty members get from the

student regarding the curriculum.

Cause and Effect Diagram:

Pareto Chart:

Each member of the Quality Circle rated each cause out of 10. These ratings were used to generate a

Pareto chart for each problem.

The Pareto chart helps to identify the key cause(s) regarding a particular problem. In this case lack of

feedback system in the senate is identified as the most important cause.

Proposed Solutions:

• Senate has an important role to play in changing the curriculum.

• Student representation is inadequate which results in improper feedback. This should be

rectified by engaging student representative from each department.

• A curriculum committee for the mechanical department should be set-up which will review

the curriculum every year and suggest changes.

• The committee should comprise of faculty as well as student representation to reduce the

communication gap.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Old curriculum

Total Cumulative %

PROBLEM 4: ELECTIVE CLASH AND UNAVAILABILITY

This is probably the major issue for every student at BITS. Most of the electives offered to the

students often clash other electives or other CDCs (dual-degree). This largely reduces the amount of

electives the students can choose from. Also many electives like aerodynamics are offered in IITs

but are not offered at BITS.

Causes:

4 stakeholders were identified-

1. Students

1.1 Lack of Experience: The students are often unaware regarding the problems faced during

registration of electives (particularly for the 1st time in 3rd year).

1.2 Lack of Communication: Students fail to communicate the problems faced during the

selection of electives to the faculty or ID.

2. Faculty

2.1 High Workload

2.2 lack of inter-departmental interaction: There are clashes between electives offered by

different departments due to lack of inter departmental interaction.

2.3 Lack of Experts on Some Subjects: Some electives are not being offered due to lack of

experts on subject. Lack of experts also leads to same faculty teaching multiple electives

leading to further clashes.

3. ID

3.1 Lack of feedback ID gets from faculty and students regarding clashes.

3.2 Improper Communication Channel: ID is not able to communicate to all the

departments at the same time to help reduce the clashes in electives and resolve the issue.

4. ARCD

4.1 Lack of coordination between ARCD and ID

Cause and Effect Diagram:

Pareto Chart:

Each member of the Quality the circle rated each cause out of 10. These ratings were used to

generate a Pareto chart for each problem.

Pareto chart helped us to identify that interdepartmental clashes and improper communication

channel across departments are the two main causes to the problem.

Proposed Solutions:

• Instruction Division should set-up a proper communication channel across the departments

to reduce inter-departmental clashes in timetable.

• Departmental electives should be made sure to not clash with each other by communicating

with Instruction Division.

• New faculty recruitments should be made according to specializations in subjects which are

not currently being offered to students.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Clash of important electives

Total cumulative %

CONCLUSION:

Quality circle meetings help in inculcating the values of team work and participative decision

making. Some important problems were identified and were discussed with intense brainstorming

sessions. Productive solutions were come up with and some of them can be implemented very

shortly with support from the department and collaboration with students.

REFERENCES:

• Mitra, Amitava. Fundamentals of quality control and improvement. John Wiley & Sons,

2012.

• Gaikwad, Vishal V., and Anita V. Gaikwad. "Quality Circle as an Effective Management

Tool: A Case Study of Indira College of Engineering and Management Library." Proceeding

of International Conference on Academic Libraries. 2009.

• http://asq.org/learn-about-quality/cause-analysis-tools/overview/pareto.html

• http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newTMC_03.htm

• http://asq.org/learn-about-quality/cause-analysis-tools/overview/fishbone.html

• http://www.qcfi.in/