Return to Small Development Projects 2010 List
Project leaders
Kate Rowland, Development and Training Manager, Manchester Metropolitan University and Jackie Bailey
Steering group
Head of service/admin (area manager), finance representative (finance advice), libraries manager (to comment) and representative from a North West University (overseeing role)
Project’s administrative home
Manchester Metropolitan University
Rationale
Manchester Metropolitan University has been going through a process of radical change over the last few years. More recently, departments and teams are taking the opportunity to look at the impact of these changes: to assess what is working well and to recognise those areas where improvement is needed. This has perhaps been supported by the University’s recent application for the Investors in People standard, and greater recognition that the “plan and do” needs to be supported by the review!
Whilst this shift towards a culture of continuous improvement is positive, the approach to continuous improvement tends to be very much senior manager led. Requests to the Organisation and Development Team are starting to take a familiar pattern, where a senior manager recognises (e.g. because of a complaint made by an academic/student, through conversations they have had with colleagues or as a result of their own experiences) that improvement is needed in a particular area, and identifies the need to support the team to bring about this change in the most effective way. The management team is therefore involved in the “pre-adoption” and “adoption” activities, and team involvement starts from the “implementation” stage (Trowler, Saunders and Knight, 2003). This is the “top down” approach to continuous improvement which is referred to throughout this proposal.
However, it is suggested that there is an alternative approach, where not only the actions but also the identification of continuous improvement needs come from the team members themselves. The work with the team therefore starts one step earlier – with the needs analysis and identification of priorities being carried out within the team. This is the “bottom up” approach to continuous improvement which is referred to throughout this proposal.
This proposal is therefore to allow two projects to run, utilising each of these approaches, and a comprehensive evaluation of both. The outcomes will inform not only the continuous improvement agenda, but also the University’s employee engagement strategy.
Aims and objectives
The overall aim of this project is to assess the value of taking a bottom up approach to continuous improvement compared with the more traditional top down methods. The following objectives have been identified:
It is hoped that this project will address the following priority themes identified by the LFHE: cross-sector working and sustainability. Firstly, the results of this project would contribute not only to the employee engagement strategy for this University but to other HEIs considering their approach and strategy. The project team would hope to share their learning across the sector and would welcome the opportunity to offer any advice to other HEIs in developing their own approaches, based on the outcomes of this project. Secondly, the project tests assumptions about whether a bottom up approach or a top down approach will lead to truly sustainable changes that become embedded within the service.
Methodology
It is proposed that 2 small projects should be carried out with one distinguishing variable: in one case, the identification of the proposed improvements will come from the senior management team where, in the second, they will come from the staff team.
For the first project, at least one senior manager will share their suggestions for system and process improvements in their area (for this part of the project, requests have already been received by MMU’s development team and one of these requests will be selected).
For the second project, continuous improvement sessions will be held with the staff group to identify the priority areas for improvements. One of these areas will be selected by the team for the project. The relevant senior manager will need to give their approval to the chosen area, but with the understanding that they will need to have a clear rationale should this not be agreed, which will be explained to the team members.
Both projects will then follow the same pattern in having intervention from the Development Team in the form of continuous improvement workshops and action plans created by the team.
The impact/outcomes of both interventions will then be assessed through both quantitative and qualitative methods on a 4 monthly basis. The views of both managers and staff will be received.
The impact/outcomes will be assessed against the following criteria:
Staff and managers
Service users
At the beginning and end of the project, service user views will also be sought. Project groups will be given basic training in unstructured interviews and encouraged to see user views on current level of service.
Limitations
Control measures will need to be put in place to try and ensure that the distinctive variable is the top down/bottom up approach. For example, both projects will need to be with a similar staff group and it is suggested that this group should be either admin services or facilities.
For the LFHE project timescales, the evaluation will be of the short term impact. However, it is anticipated that the evaluation will continue within the University beyond the 12 months.
Wherever possible, control measures will also be needed to manage the “Hawthorne effect” on both managers and staff involved in the project.
Confidentiality
For this project, it is the process and assessing the impact of each approach taken which is of interest, not the details of the project or of any of the team members and service.
Outcomes
The project will aim to increase understanding of continuous improvement methodology and specifically in engaging staff in continuous improvement needs analysis. The project aims to support managers to create an environment where continuous improvement is part of everyday life and ongoing processes.
Outputs
This project will heighten the understanding of HEIs about continuous improvement and support a culture shift from a situation where employee engagement is seen primarily as how to reward staff to employee engagement being seen as how staff can contribute to and bring about service improvements for the organisation’s benefit.
The situation we are in as a team means that, though we could resource an approach to continuous improvement, we simply do not have the resource to take this as a project with the continuous improvement needs analysis element or the comparator projects, or to do this in a way where we could then meaningfully review and make recommendations. Part of the funding will therefore enable a fuller evaluation of the project than would otherwise have been possible. We propose to use evaluation forms in each continuous improvement session, to run focus groups with selections of staff involved in the projects and with service users and to survey participants (using the BOS survey tool). The outcomes would be shared with other institutions, through LFHE publications, the LFHE/SDF conference, SDF regional meetings and contributions to other conferences, seminars and workshops.
Milestones (quarterly)
By 31 April 2010
We will have established the project plan. We will have developed the continuous improvement needs analysis sessions and identified and set dates for these and the continuous improvement development sessions.
By 31 July 2010
We will have run the continuous improvement needs analysis and follow up development sessions and will have completed the first stage of the evaluation (level 1 reaction from the continuous improvement sessions and focus groups and the first stage quantitative questionnaires to support evaluation at level 2, 3 and 4). Interim progress report to LFHE.
By 30 October 2010
Second stage of the evaluation. Initial development of the models for continuous improvement needs analysis.
By 31 January 2011
Model incorporated into guidance for managers. Final report to the LFHE and dissemination to other HEIs. Pilot areas to test the guidance identified.
Post project (University continuation)
Third stage of the evaluation. Pilots run and outcomes of the pilot incorporated.
References
Trowler, P., Saunders, M. and Knight, P. (2003) Change Thinking, Change Practices Learning and Teaching Support Network (LTSN). Retrieved 26 January 2010 from the Change Academy web-site:
http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/ourwork/universitiesandcolleges/alldisplay?type=resources&newid=ourwork/changeacademy/Change_Academy_Essential_Reading&site=york
Return to Small Development Projects 2010 List