ONE GOOD IDEA

BY JOE TATE AND WAYNE FORAKER

FMEA to the Rescue

Applying the process behind the scenes to provide QC oversight
QUALITY PROFESSIONALS in higher

typically performed at the executive level

this FMEA-based approach within the

education have traditionally centered

in formal enterprise risk assessments, but

organization, the administrative qual-

the quality discussion around curricu-

each functional unit of an administrative

ity control unit in a service setting can

lum instruction and the central role of

department, such as our office of student

provide institutional leadership with more

faculty. Since the release of the 2006 U.S.

records, has its own set of micro-level

confident assurances of its effectiveness

Department of Education report, A Test

objectives. These department-level goals

as an adaptive control over departmental

of Leadership: Charting the Future of U.S.

support the institutions macro-level

risks.

Higher Education, however, the discus-

objectives and mission, serving as an

sion has been dramatically expanded to an

excellent starting point for identifying and

University of Phoenix Office of Student

intense dialogue about continuous quality

documenting the potential risk events to

Records, where use of this process has

improvement across the operational spec-

be accounted for in the quality control

prompted the occasional reallocation of

trum at higher learning institutions.

program.

resources from low-risk priority areas to

Every day behind the scenes, admin-

2. Apply FMEA-derived assess-

Such has been the experience for the

high-risk priority areas. The result has

istrative functions occur that are critical

ments of the likelihood, severity and

been unprecedented awareness of the risk

to a culture of continuous improvement

difficulty of detection of each docu-

sensitivity of administrative processes

in support of the learner-centric missions

mented risk event on a scale of one

within the university, and measurable

that guide the American higher education

to 10. First, analyze records of reported

improvements in the quality of outputs

landscape. Such is certainly the case for

service defects and ongoing quality con-

for processes that were subsequently

University of Phoenix, which serves a

trol review data to determine a meaningful

determined to be in need of more rigorous

global student population of approximate-

likelihood of occurrence rating for each

quality control oversight. QP

ly 200,000a statistic that underscores

risk event. Next, interview front-line man-

the need for a scalable quality control pro-

agers, senior leadership in the department,

gram at a time when resources available

and the institutions regulatory experts to

for quality management are limited.

rate the severity of impact to departmental objectives and the institutions mission

Its all in the approach

of each risk event. Finally, assess the dif-

Our team of quality control analysts for

ficulty of detection for each risk event by

the universitys office of student records

asking how difficult it would be to detect

met the immediate challenge of strate-

and prevent it if no quality control effort

gic resource allocation by assimilating

were in place (see Online Table 1, which

elements of the failure mode and effects

can be found on this columns webpage at

analysis (FMEA) and guidance on risk as-

www.qualityprogress.com).

sessment from the International Standards

3. Calculate priority scores to rank

for the Professional Practice of Internal

risk events. Multiply the likelihood,

Auditing2 into our planning process. Heres

severity and difficulty-of-detection ratings

the how and why of our approach to

together to give each risk event an overall

determining where departmental quality

priority score (akin to a risk priority num-

control oversight is most needed on an

ber produced by the FMEA). Sort the full

ongoing basis:

list by that number to produce an ordered

1. Work with front-line managers

to identify business objectives and
associated risk events. This step is

ranking of all potential risk events for the

department (see Online Table 2).
By applying and continually refining

REFERENCES
1. The U.S. Department of Education, A Test of LeadershipCharting the Future of U.S. Higher Education, 2006,
www2.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/hiedfuture/reports/
final-report.pdf.
2. The Institute of Internal Auditors, International Standards
for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing (Standards), 2013, https://na.theiia.org/standards-guidance/
mandatory-guidance/pages/standards.aspx.

JOE TATE is the quality control manager for the office of student records
at the University of Phoenix. Tate
holds an MBA from the University of
Phoenix and a master of arts degree
in English from Northern Arizona University in Flagstaff. An ASQ member,
Tate is a certified quality auditor and
is a member of the Southwest Alliance for Excellence 2014
Board of Examiners.
WAYNE FORAKER is a continuous
process improvement manager for
Scottsdale Lincoln Health Network,
and was previously senior director of
institutional quality at the University
of Phoenix. Foraker is a fellow of the
Baldrige Performance Excellence
Program, a certified Six Sigma Green
Belt and a lean Six Sigma sensei from Villanova University in
Pennsylvania. He holds board of director positions with the
Southwest Alliance for Excellence and the California Council
for Excellence.

February 2015 QP 63