What is CQI?
CQI Strategic Plan
Milestones/History of CQI at MSU
Process Management & Improvement (PM&I) Methodology
Steering Committee
CQI Teams
E-Mail Us!

What is CQI?

CQI, by its very nomenclature, seeks to improve processes such that customer needs and expectations will be met - indeed, exceeded. Who are our customers? In higher education, students typically come to mind, and rightfully so. However, the person in the next office, or the person calling you on the telephone about the status of a needed report, or the secretary who phones another secretary to set up a meeting between their respective supervisors ARE ALL CUSTOMERS AS WELL!

Everything we do here at the University falls under the auspices of one or another process. A faculty member who develops course content, prepares a lecture or writes a scholarly paper is executing tasks that fall within one or more process areas. For a specific example, consider the Academic Advisor who assists a student with selecting courses and then refers the student to the Career Development office for a specific workshop germane to his/her interests or needs. In this example, the Academic Advisor is completing tasks that fall within the process area of "retention".

What does all of this mean? For starters, it means that we have an identified process area of "retention", with two sub-processes: Academic Advising and Career Development. Once processes such as these are identified, they can then be examined and improved.  Hereâs where things get interesting! When a particular process is examined by a cross-functional Team, (we call them Process Management & Improvement Teams, or PM&I for short), opportunities for improving the process can be identified and subsequently implemented. The uniqueness of CQI, however, is that the process will not only be studied and improved by a Team once; it will be improved, studied again, improved further, etc. in an endless cycle. No one can object to the notion that all processes can be improved. CQI provides a means to this end.

Back to top

CQI Strategic Plan

The need for a CQI Strategic Plan is paramount. The very essence of quality demands planning. The CQI Strategic Plan will be an evolving document, prepared by the CQI Steering Committee (with a wide range of constituent input) during the 1997-98 academic year. It will consist of the following components:

Back to top

CQI Milestones/History

The following is a chronological listing of the key events in MSUâs brief CQI history:

Process Management & Improvement (PM&I) Methodology

Back to top

CQI Steering Committee

A cross-Divisional University CQI Steering Committee was appointed in October 1997. It is the responsibility of this group is to:

1. Coordinate the implementation of the MSU quality system;
2. Facilitate the creation of the MSU Strategic CQI Plan;
3. Monitor progress, provide advise and counsel to Process Owners;
4. Support CQI implementation; and,
5. Resolve issues that arise among Institutional Process Owners and the Divisions of the University.

Representatives from the following areas comprise the CQI Steering Committee:

6 Institutional Process Owners (IPOâs) for the highest level processes at the University

1 IPO for "Instruction and Scholarly Research"
1 IPO for "Serving Students"
1 IPO for "Serving the Employee Community"
1 IPO for "Serving the External Community"
1 IPO for "Servicing the Infrastructure"
1 IPO for "Administration"

4 Vice-Presidentâs Representatives (1 from each of the Vice-Presidents)
1 College/School Deanâs Representative
1 Graduate Dean Representative
1 Dean of Students Representative
1 Union Representative
1 Executive Director, Budget, Planning and Information Technology
1 Director of CQI

Current CQI Steering Committee Membership
CQI Steering Committee Meeting Minutes
Back to top

Institutional Process Owner (IPO) for "Instruction and Scholarly Research" ö Joseph Attanasio, Professor, Communication Science and Disorders
IPO for "Serving Students" - Herbert Harrison, Director, Academic Success Center
IPO for "Serving the Employee Community" - Richard Davis, Assistant V.P. of Human Resources
IPO for "Serving the External Community" - Phyllis Miller, Director of Communications
IPO for "Servicing the Infrastructure" - Kiki Williams, Director of Physical Plant
IPO for "Administration" - Nancy Carver, Director, Auxilliary Enterprises
VP for Academic Affairs Representative - John Specchio, Professor, Department of Human Ecology
VP for Business and Finance Representative- Doug Cooper, Architecture and   Engineering Services
VP for Student Development and Campus Life Representative - Denise DeBlasio, Registrar
VP for Institutional Advancement Representative - (vacant)
College/School Deanâs Representative - Alan Oppenheim, Acting Dean, School of Business
Graduate Deanâs Representative - Warren Heiss, Professor, Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders
Dean of Students - Helen Matusow-Ayres
American Federation of Teachers Representative ö John O'Brien
Vice President, Budget, Planning and Information Technology - Harry Schuckel (Chair)
Director of CQI - Timothy Carey

Back to top

Check this page each month for the minutes of the CQI Steering Committee! Meetings are slated to begin in November or December, 1997.

Back to top

CQI TEAMS
MSU's CQI Team Motto: "CQI Teams never die; they just keep improving!" 

What Does our Motto Mean? The charge given to all CQI Teams is to improve their process continuously. Hence, after studying a process, identifying improvement opportunities and implementing the improvements to the process, a Team then collects more information on the now refined process. The entire cycle begins again! The following Team's initial reports are available for viewing:

Deletes for Non-Payment/Non-Confirmation
Space Reservations
Academic Furlough/Suspension/Dismissal

Back to top 

"Deletes" for Non-Payment/Non-Confirmation   
A Process Management and Improvement (PM&I) Team  
(Report Filed: January 1997) 

Executive Summary
In June 1996, the Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI) Steering Committee created a Process Management and Improvement Team to manage and improve the process utilized by the University for canceling the registration of students who fail to pay their tuition and fees by a specified date. This process is known as "'Deletes' for non-payment/non-confirmation".

The six-member Team was comprised of staff from Departments that played a role in the "Deletes" process. These included: Bursar, Registrar, Financial Aid and Residence Life. EOF was also included due to the significant number of students thought to be adversely affected by the "Deletes" process.

During the months of June and July, the Team held weekly meetings with the following sequential goals as their major agenda items:

1. To document and flowchart the "Deletes" process so as to understand all of its aspects and nuances in order to: a) formalize management and control, and; b) uncover improvement opportunities.

2. To collect historical data on the "Deletes" process in order to establish baseline data for future performance measurements.

3. To make recommendations for improvement based upon the flowcharting and historical data collection attained in numbers 1 and 2 above.

On August 7, 1996, the "Deletes" team submitted a preliminary report to the CQI Steering Committee. That report included documentation of the process as it currently existed, a summary of historical quantitative and qualitative data, and, the Team's recommendations for improving the "Deletes" process. The specific recommendations were as follows:

* Financial Aid award letters should contain language which specifically explains that not only must the award letter be returned, but also a subsequent bill, which will be sent under separate cover. Additionally, students with financial aid packages who do not confirm their bill by the initial due date should be sent warning letters which are unique and specific to financial aid recipients.

* Students without a financial aid package should be sent warning letters which detail multiple options for payment including: Tuition Management System (TMS) and a credit card authorization "tear-off" which can be faxed to the Bursar.

* Advisors in the special-admit programs should be provided with lists of students (replete with telephone numbers) in their programs who are in danger of having their schedules deleted. A final report was submitted to the CQI Steering Committee on January 29, 1997. In addition to the three sections contained in the preliminary report, the final report contained the following two sections:

1. A Summary of the Results of Adopted Recommendations. As our report indicates, the Team's efforts and the subsequent adoption of recommendations by the Steering Committee drastically improved the University's most recent Fall and Spring student billing cycles. Specifically, the number of deleted students was reduced as follows:
 

* A 17% decrease (642 versus 773 deleted students) in the Fall '96 cycle as

compared to Fall '95.

The ramifications of the significant reductions detailed above include:
 

a. A decrease in the number of students - particularly those students who receive Financial Aid -  who experienced the frustration of having their schedules deleted unnecessarily.

2. Future Directions

The quality movement is founded on data-based - not intuitive - decision making, and the collective sense of the Team is that monitoring of the "Deletes" process must occur routinely if continuous quality improvement is to be expected. Hence, although the Team is delighted with the early data returns, semestral meetings of the Team will continue in order to continuously monitor the data, as well as to consider additional improvement opportunities.
 

Space Reservations
A Process Management and Improvement (PM&I) Team
(Report filed January 1997) 

Executive Summary

As part of the Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI) initiative of the Division of Student Development and Campus Life, a process management and improvement team

for space reservation improvements was created. In May of 1996, a special training session was held for the four selected improvement teams and members of the CQI steering committee. After the training, our team was charged with the task of identifying opportunities for improvement in the space reservation process at Montclair State University.

The five-member team consisted of Louis Anderson, process owner, Marsha Campbell-Young, Conference Services, Grace McCormack, Academic Scheduling, Connie Spencer, Residence Life, and Joe Mulvaney, Athletics.

During the next several months, the committee met regularly to diagram and produce Process Description Documents to record how the process existed prior to any improvement.

The committee's review of space reservations focused on the area known as non-academic and special events scheduling. Academic scheduling is a separate process and not included in the process we reviewed. The process of space reservations consists of a process and four sub-processes. The process is labeled Space Reservation Process. The four sub-processes are labeled:

1) Conference Coordination and Management Sub-Process
2) Student Center Space Reservation Sub-Process
3) Non-Student Center Space Reservation Sub-Process
4) Contracting Sub-Process

The process of space reservations and its sub-processes begins with the client requesting space and possibly services for events held at MSU. The completion of the process ends with a contract signed by MSU and the authorized representative of the requesting organization.

The areas of improvement reviewed by the committee included determining a reasonable timetable in which clients would be advised of the availability of University facilities as well as the required timetable for completion of a fully executed facility contract. These issues have been a concern to clients in the past.

The committee focused on the timeframe in which a contract was executed. It was clear to the committee that it was necessary to reduce the length of time required to execute a contract.

Clients external to the University require a contract for the use of facilities at Montclair State University. The contract approval process is reviewed by four to five offices; depending on the type to facilities requested. The process at its worst took as long as five months to execute a contract. The last six contracts under the unchanged process took 1) 20 business days, 2) 84 business days, 3) 35 business days, 4) 60 business days, 5) 48 business days and 6) 37 business days.

Each of the approval officers were asked through a letter and verbally to inform the campus scheduling officer of the length of time required for their office to approve a contract.In the process of requesting this information, officers were advised of the intent to reduce the time required for the approval process. They were also informed that a new tracking sheet would accompany each contract.

We found support for reducing the respective time requirements of each office. Additionally, transmitting contracts electronically to the campus attorney has helped that office respond more quickly in the review and modification of contracts. Through the cooperative spirit of all involved departments, clients can now expect to receive a fully executed contract within a three to four week period. This is a significant reduction from the previous erratic timeframe.

As a result of this CQI Process Management Improvement Team, the participants in campus space reservations had the opportunity to work cooperatively to improve campus-wide scheduling of facilities. The group identified more complete information on campus facility availability and a faster

turn around time for executed contracts as areas which could increase client satisfaction.

The new process of executing contracts started in December of 1996. In the first month we executed three contracts under the new process. We anticipated the turn around time of the contracts to be within fifteen (15) to twenty (20) business days. Under the new contracting system, each of the new contracts were executed in eight (8) business days.

The ultimate goal of this effort was to establish a process for providing rapid responses to client inquiries, and delivery of an executed contract within a mutually acceptable timeframe.

The team is pleased with the early results.

Submitted by:
Louis Anderson, Process Owner
Marsha Campbell-Young
Grace McCormack
Connie Spencer
Joe Mulvaney  

Back to top

Academic Furlough, Suspension, and Dismissal
A Process Management and Improvement (PM&I) Team
(Report Filed January 1997) 

Executive Summary

In June 1996, the Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI) Steering Committee created a Process Management and Improvement Team to manage and improve the process utilized by the University for taking appropriate action on students who fail to meet MSU minimum retention standards.

The 5-member team was comprised of staff from departments that played a role in the "furlough, suspension, dismissal" process. These included: Academic Monitoring (Academic Advising), Registrar, Bursar, and Residence Life.

During June and July, the Team met regularly, with the following goals as their major agenda items:

1. To document and flowchart the "furlough, suspension, dismissal" process so as to understand all of its aspects and nuances in order to: a) formalize management and control, and b) discover improvement opportunities.

2. To collect historical data and statistics on the "furlough, suspension, dismissal" process in order to establish trends and comparisons for future academic action.

3. To make recommendations for improvement based upon the flowcharting and historical data collection attained in numbers 1 and 2 above.

On August 7, 1996, the "furlough, suspension, dismissal" team submitted a preliminary report to the CQI Steering Committee. That report included documentation of the process as it currently existed, a summary of historical quantitative and qualitative data, and the Teamâs recommendations for improving the "furlough, suspension, dismissal" process:

*Academic "holds" should be placed on those students who have been furloughed, suspended, or dismissed and their Fall semester schedules deleted before the date the Bursarâs Office mails the bills.

* Because of the narrow window of opportunity to execute the "furlough, suspension, dismissal" process between the Fall and Spring semester, generate reports as usual, notify students of their furlough, suspension, or dismissal status, but take no action. Students would be allowed to continue in classes for the Spring semester, even though they are below minimum retention.

A final report was submitted to the CQI Steering Committee on January 29, 1997. The final report contained two additional sections:

1. Academic Furlough, Suspension and Dismissal Process Improvements

a) Regarding accurate billing:

1) Students are not misled into thinking that they are legitimately registered for Fall courses when in fact they are on furlough, suspension, dismissal, the notice of which used to be sent at a later date than the bills.

2) Seats in courses open up for students who are entitled to register during the next registration window.

3) Monies are not accepted from students who are ultimately placed on furlough, suspension, dismissal, thus saving the bookkeeping involvement of refunding monies either directly to students or to their Financial Aid providers.

b) Regarding furloughed, suspended, dismissed studentsâ return to MSU after the Fall semester:

1) Sixty-eight (68) percent of furloughed, suspended, dismissed students returned to MSU for the Spring semester 

2) Positive feedback from students regarding their opportunity to return to good academic standing.

3) Accountability system established for furloughed, suspended, dismissed students for seeing their advisors.

2. Future Directions

The team identified two areas for future explorations concerning the "furlough, suspension, dismissal" process: 1) Examine and discuss the schedule for the Furlough, Suspension, Dismissal Process as it is executed after the Spring semester; and 2) Procure information/explore the monitoring of provisionally matriculated students at MSU.

Submitted by:

Herb Harrison, Process Owner
Diane Cooper, Academic Monitor
Emily Mudryk
Maureen Gallagher
Ann Profita
 
January 1997

Back to top 

To send your questions and comments, via e-mail, click here

Back to Montclair State University's Main Page