Prepared by
Shanker R
2011A4PS322P
Divyanshu Jain
2011A4PS238P
Abhiram Patankar
2011B3A4493P
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.
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 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 nonpolitical 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.
5. Defining and analyzing the selected problems (Using fishbone diagrams and Pareto charts)
6. Proposing solutions to the selected problems
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.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
vii.
viii.
ix.
x.
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
Many of the electives are not offered and those which are offered are not available to the students
due to clashes in the timetable.
Causes:
Four stakeholders were identified1. 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
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.
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
Total
Cumulative %
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:
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.
Causes:
Three stakeholders were identified1. 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.
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.
Non-visisbility of Research
100
25
90
80
20
70
60
15
50
40
10
30
20
10
0
0
Communication Non-transparent Lack of public
Inadequate
gap
functioning of
website for
selection
research centres research centres mechanism for
projects
Total
Non
Extra curricular
maintenance of
focus
faculty website
Cumulative %
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:
Proper recruitment process should be established for these research centers by the faculty incharge.
Faculty in the mechanical department should take presentations explaining their research
area and current requirements.
Causes:
Four stakeholders were identified1. 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.
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.
Old curriculum
30
100
90
25
80
70
20
60
15
50
40
10
30
20
10
Total
Cumulative %
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:
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.
Causes:
4 stakeholders were identified1. 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
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.
100
90
25
80
70
20
60
15
50
40
10
30
20
10
0
Total
cumulative %
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.
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/