UNIVERSITY OF GRONINGEN
LEAN
TAILORED
QUALITY
MANAGEMENT:
DEFINING
THE
REQUIREMENTS
OF
A
QUALITY
MANAGEMENT
SYSTEM
IN
PERSONALIZED
LEARNING
1
COLOPHON
Title: Lean Tailored Quality Management
Subtitle: Defining the requirements of a quality management system in personalized learning
Educational institute: University of Groningen
Faculty of Economics and Business
Master Technology and Operations Management
Post-office box 800, 9700 AV Groningen www.rug.nl
Author: R.H.M. Vermeulen
S1936689
r.h.m.vermeulen@rug.nl
Supervisor: Prof. Dr. I. F. A. Vis i.f.a.vis@rug.nl
Co-assessor: Dr. J. Riezebos j.riezebos@rug.nl
Location: Groningen
2
PREFACE
It would be my honour to use this preface to thank the people who helped me throughout the process. First of all my thesis supervisor, Prof. Dr. Vis, for her endless efforts, guidance and feedback. She has helped me in a very pleasant way and was able to make time for me whenever I had questions or struggles. Moreover, the given advice and corrections always were constructive and valuable, assuring a better-constructed thesis than it would have been without her help. Secondly, I would like to thank Prof. Dr. Riezebos for his commitment as co-assessor and helping me when I was stuck in the Lean literature. Thirdly, I would like to thank Mr. Kokx for giving me the opportunity to perform this research, and especially all his expertise and insights within the educational field. I wish all three of them all the best in the future and success and satisfaction in their future activities. Finally, I would like to thank my parents and friends for their motivation, inspiration and occasionally some much needed distraction.
I wish everyone many pleasure reading this thesis, Rosa Vermeulen,
3
ABSTRACT
4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction ... 6 1.1 Problem definition ... 7 1.2 Research questions ... 7 1.3 Methodology ... 7 1.3.1 Research design... 7 1.3.2 Research method ... 8 1.3.3 Methodology model ... 10 1.4 Outline ... 112. The Lean context ... 13
2.1 Why we regard Lean as a philosophy ... 13
2.2 The requirements of a quality management system according to Lean philosophy ... 13
2.2.1 Values ... 14
2.2.2 Principles ... 14
2.2.3 The principle of pull control: its methods and tools ... 14
2.2.4 The principle of waste elimination: its methods and tools ... 17
2.2.5 The principle of continuous improvement: its methods and tools ... 20
2.2.6 What are the requirements for a quality management system according to Lean philosophy? ... 21
3. Interview protocol ... 23
4. The educational context... 25
4.1 What we consider as personlized learning ... 25
4.2 The requirements for a quality management system in personalized learning according to education ... 26
4.2.1 Values ... 26
4.2.2 Principles ... 28
4.2.3 The principle of differentiation: its methods and tools ... 29
5
4.2.5 The principle of social cohesion: its methods and tools ... 34
4.2.6 What are the requirements for a quality management system in personalized learning according to education? ... 36
5. The Integration phase ... 38
5.1 The principle of differentiation... 38
5.2 The principle of coaching ... 39
5.3 The principle of social cohesion... 40
5.4 The principle of continuous improvement ... 41
5.5 In which way can the requirements from both Lean philosophy as education be integrated to define the requirements of a quality management system in personalized learning based on Lean philosophy? ... 42
6. Conclusion ... 45
6.1 Recommendations ... 46
6.2 Suggestions for further research ... 47
Bibliography ... 48
Appendix ... 52
Interview protocol 1: Quality management in classic education ... 52
Interview protocol 2: Use of software/ICT ... 54
6
1. INTRODUCTION
Schools aim to ensure that every child can develop oneself to the fullest. Therefore, the school is an important place for the development of children’s talents. (Marquenie, Opsteen, Ten Brummelhuis, & Van der Waals, 2014). To educate children as best as possible, it is argued that every pupil should receive education that suits his or hers individual talents, learning characteristics and capabilities (Van Wetering & Desain, 2014). As there is broad political and social support for the idea that every talent should have the opportunity to be developed to its full potential, the pressure on schools to provide tailored education and to put the individual pupil central is increasing (WRR, 2013). However, in most secondary schools teachers focus on the mean of the group (Marquenie et al., 2014). This classical education model of ‘mainstream education’ can be described as education for every pupil at the same time in the same space with the same desired result and led by the same person (Stevens, 2004). With today's challenges to offer education based on individual needs, the traditional education model seems insufficient to pupils not fitting in the ‘mainstream'.
In order to address these challenges, The Dutch Secondary Education Council designates in the project Student 2020 personalized learning as a promising way to provide tailored education and to utilize pupil’s talents in secondary education. (VO-raad, 2015a). Personalized learning can be defined as learning processes that are tailored to the individual, and wherein the individual pupil has influence on the design of the learning process, taking account of that which he or she may already can, knows, and wants to know (Rubens, 2013). By the implementation of personalized learning, the Swedish Kunskapsskolan is being translated to the Dutch situation. The Kunskapsskolan is a recognized education model where education is based on the personal goals, ambitions and capabilities of the individual pupil (Kunskapsskolan Education AB, n.d.).
According to Van Wetering & Desain (2014) quality of education is expressed in the delivery of pupils who are as best as possible prepared for future life, work, and learning. Quality management is a fundamental precondition within the school to actually deliver this requested 'performance'. Therefore, a quality management system that complements this new educational model is necessary to deliver personalized education successfully.
Among the various quality management concepts that have been developed, the Lean concept is one of the more wide-spread and successful attempts (Andersson, Eriksson, & Torstensson, 2006). Despite its industrial context, Lean thinking is not restricted to manufacturing and can be applied to any product, service, process or organization (Motley, 2004). As a result, Lean philosophy is increasingly being used in service operations, government agencies, healthcare and military services to improve quality performance (Motley, 2004; Verbano & Crema, 2013). Therefore, Lean thinking offers the promising opportunity for implementation in secondary education.
7
education are scarce and specifically in educational core processes. However, as the application of Lean philosophy proved successful in many governmental organizations, a Lean approach to the development of a quality management system in personalized learning seems promising. As a result, the question arises how a quality management system that meets both the requirements of the personalized learning environment as Lean philosophy can be designed.
1.1 PROBLEM DEFINITION
In light of the aforementioned issues, this research intends to define the requirements of a quality management system in personalized learning based Lean philosophy by means of literature review, multiple case study, observations and comparative analysis.
1.2 RESEARCH QUESTIONS
The stated problem definition leads to the central research question of this thesis:
What are the requirements of a quality management system in personalized learning based on Lean philosophy?
The following sub questions are addressed in order to credibly answer the central research question:
1) What are the requirements for a quality management system according to Lean philosophy?
2) What are the requirements for a quality management system in personalized learning according to education? 3) In which way can the requirements from both Lean philosophy as education be integrated to define the
requirements of a quality management system in personalized learning based on Lean philosophy?
1.3 METHODOLOGY
1.3.1 RESEARCH DESIGN
In order to effectively address the research problem and to integrate its sub questions in a coherent way, this research is divided into two successive phases: (1) the conceptualization and (2) the integration phase.
8
Subsequently, the educational context of the research problem is examined by defining the requirements of a quality management system in personalized learning according to education. This answer to sub question 2, will ultimately be presented in the Personalized Education Quality Management Framework (hereafter, PEQM).
Consequently, the aim of the integration phase is to incorporate the established LQM and PEQM framework. By integration of these two frameworks, we are able to define the requirements of a quality management system in personalized learning based on Lean philosophy. This answer to sub question 3 will be presented in the Conceptual Model of this thesis.
1.3.2 RESEARCH METHOD
In order to convincingly address the identified issues, this thesis employs a combination of four distinctive qualitative methods; literature review, case study, observations and comparative analysis. Because of this triangulated approach, the research problem is examined from different angles and the reliability of the results are increased (Verhoeven, 2011). As discussed previously, this research is divided into a conceptualization and integration phase. As the purposes of these phases differ, each of these two phases has their own distinct combination of research methods. Therefore, the explanation why and how certain methods are chosen is elaborated upon by phase.
CONCEPTUALIZATION PHASE
Literature review
In the conceptualization phase, a literature review is conducted in order to answer sub question 1. As mentioned previously, the aim of this sub question is to provide insight into the Lean context of the research problem and to define the requirements for a quality management system according to Lean philosophy. A literature review is chosen as it is a fundamental part of academic research to review existing academic literature in the particular field of interest (Croom, 2009). According to (Croom, 2009), reviewing academic literature will help to establish the authority and legitimacy of the research, and will ensure the ‘researchability’ of the topic before analysis starts. As a result, the literature review will demonstrate the relevance of the topic, and contributes to the development of LQM Framework.
9
Case study
In order to answer sub question 2, a multiple case study is conducted. The case study method is chosen as it allows the researcher to study the contemporary phenomena in depth within its real-life context (Yin, 2009). In this regard, the method of case study allows the researcher to study the phenomena of quality management in depth within its educational context. Besides, as few research is conducted into quality management in personalized education, the case study method lends itself to explorative investigation in which the relevant variables are unclear and the phenomenon not all understood (Meredith, 1998). Consequently, the case study method serves the research purposes of exploration and theory building. From the several approaches available in case study research, a multiple case study is chosen as this method augments external validity and helps to guard researcher bias (Voss, Tsikriktsis, & Frohlich, 2002). In addition, it is argued that the evidence of multiple case studies is more compelling as replication of findings convince the reader of a general phenomenon (Yin, 2009).
The context of this multiple case study is represented by the secondary schools affiliated to the Zo.Leer.Ik! cooperative. This cooperative is a partnership of 12 secondary schools who study the implementation of the Swedish Kunskapsskolan in the Dutch situation. Consequently, these schools share the educational vision of personalized learning and aim to implement this as their new education model. In order to collect case study evidence, interviews are held with multiple secondary school teachers, team leaders and school directors employed at the schools affiliated to the Zo.Leer.Ik! cooperative. Consequently, these education professionals represent the cases of this multiple case study. According to Taylor (2005), interviews are appropriate for the researcher who seeks to access the participants understanding of the world and their experiences. For that reason, interviews will give the researcher the opportunity to discuss and explore issues more deeply. As this topic of research is not all understood, interviews allow the researcher to get insight in its complexity.
In general, we have chosen to conduct interviews in the field of education as we believe that the people working in education possess knowledge and understanding of quality in personalized learning and might provide many practical insights. Specifically, as the schools affiliated to the Zo.Leer.Ik! cooperative are not all equally advanced in their implementation of personalized learning, valuable insights can be obtained from all phases in the process of this transition. Therefore, we believe that the insights, experiences and beliefs of these interviewees will provide insight into the requirements of a quality management system in personalized learning.
10
Observations
In addition to the aforementioned research methods, the qualitative method of observation is employed. In essence, observation involves “the systematic observation, recording, description, analysis and interpretation of people’s behavior” (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2009, p. 288). In this thesis, observations are used to gain a general understanding of personalized education and the process of its implementation. According to Gill & Johnson (as cited by Saunders et al., 2009) there are four categories regarding the role the observer can adopt. For this research, the researcher takes the role of the complete observer so that the purpose of the observation is not revealed and the actual situation is carefully observed.
The observations took place from the 9th till the 11th of December 2015 at The Lyceum Vos in Vlaardingen. This school, which participates in the Zo.Leer.Ik! cooperative, held a test week for the implementation of personalized learning. During the observations, the researcher observed the pupils and teachers during three school days. The insights gained from the observations are not directly used in this thesis, but provided valuable background information regarding personalized learning in general and the transition towards this new education model in particular. The greatest threat to the reliability of conclusions drawn from observations is that of observer bias (Saunders et al., 2009). Although it is not possible to avoid observer bias completely, the researcher is aware of the threat it poses to reliability and seeks to control it as much as possible.
INTEGRATION PHASE
Comparative analysis
As described earlier, the aim of the integration phase is to integrate the earlier established LQM and PEQM framework. By integration of these frameworks into the Conceptual Model, we are able to define the requirements of a quality management system in personalized learning based on Lean philosophy. To incorporate the LQM and PEQM framework properly, the results of the literature review and case study research are comparatively analyzed. According to Lijphart (1971) should the comparative method be regarded as a research strategy. The comparative method is chosen as it contributes to the discovery of relationships among variables by the conceptual manipulation of empirical data (Lijphart, 1971). In light of this thesis, we consider the established LQM and PEQM framework as the empirical data for this comparative analysis. By comparison of the requirements for a quality management system according to both Lean philosophy and education, the crucial differences and similarities found are discussed. As the answer to sub question 3 relies on the interpretation of the researcher, this chapter is argumentative of nature. Consequently, the answer to how the requirements from both Lean philosophy and education can be integrated to define the requirements of a quality management system in personalized learning based on Lean philosophy represents the discussion section of this thesis.
11
The discussed research design and its associated research methods are visualized in the below Methodology Model (Figure 1).
Figure 1: Methodology Model
1.4 OUTLINE
12
according to Lean philosophy are defined in paragraph §2.2. Chapter 3 describes the established interview protocol that is used to collect case study evidence. Consequently, chapter 4 describes the educational context of this research. Firstly, we provide a description of personalized learning in paragraph §4.2. Hereafter, the requirements of a quality management system in personalized learning according to education are defined in paragraph §4.3. Chapter 5 represents the discussion section of this thesis in which the defined requirements from both Lean philosophy and education are comparatively analyzed. Chapter 2, 4 and 5 discuss the formulated sub questions. Consequently, the final sections §2.2.6, §4.2.6 and §5.5 provide an answer to the corresponding sub question of by means of a brief conclusion. Finally, the conclusion of this thesis and the recommendations for further research are discussed in chapter 6.
13
2. THE LEAN CONTEXT
2.1 WHY WE REGARD LEAN AS A PHILOSOPHY
Although the concept of Lean has found widespread acceptance, any debate with practitioners or academics specialized in the topic quickly points to an absence of a commonly accepted definition (Shah & Ward, 2007). According to Shah & Ward (2007) this lack of clarity is evident from the multiplicity of descriptions and terms. While some view Lean as an abstract concept, like a broad philosophy, an approach or a culture, others regard Lean as something far more concrete: as a set of useful prescriptions for day-to-day operations, a method or a collection of tools and techniques (Modig & Ahlström, 2012; Slack, Chambers, & Johnston, 2010). This lack of clarity and consistency is mainly because Lean has been developed over a long time and the adaptation of the concept to other environments than the original manufacturing industry (Hopp & Spearman, 2004; Modig & Ahlström, 2012; Slack et al., 2010). However, this constantly developing concept presents a problem for practitioners and academics as it refers to different things (Modig & Ahlström, 2012).
Despite the lack of a clear definition in literature, it is of vital importance to provide a conceptualization of how we regard Lean. In this thesis, Lean is not regarded as an end but as a means to define requirements of a quality management system in personalized learning. In order to provide a conceptualization of Lean quality management, we are inspired by the book ‘This is Lean: Resolving the Efficiency Paradox’ written by Modig & Ahlström (2012). According to the writers, understanding the concept of Lean is confusing as it is defined at different levels of abstraction.
In the upcoming section, we define the requirements of a quality management system according to Lean philosophy. When seen as a philosophy, Lean becomes a way of thinking whereas tactics or processes are mechanisms to action quality management (Bhasin & Burcher, 2006). However, it is argued by Pullin (2002) that to reap the benefits of applying Lean philosophy, we need to view Lean not as an abstract, but as a holistic philosophy which includes all different levels of abstraction – a philosophy and practices, tools or processes. Therefore, we consider Lean as a holistic philosophy to action quality management.
2.2 THE REQUIREMENTS OF A QUALITY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM ACCORDING TO LEAN
PHILOSOPHY
14
according to Lean philosophy, we provide an conceptualization of a Lean quality management based on four levels of abstraction as inspired by Modig & Ahlström (2012). The collection of these four levels consequently reflect the requirements of a Lean quality management system:
Values: how the organization should behave
Principles: how an organization should think
Methods: what an organization should do
Tools: what an organization should have
2.2.1 VALUES
Starting to define the values of Lean quality management, we can ask ourselves the question: how should a Lean organization behave to deliver the requested performance to its customers? Inspired by the definition of Lean philosophy according to Shah & Ward (2003), we define the values of Lean quality management as the behavior to
create a high quality system that produces finished products at the pace of customer demand with minimum waste.
2.2.2 PRINCIPLES
We might argue that producing at the pace of customer demand, and with minimum waste are principles that can be logically derived from the stated values. These principles of ‘pull control’ and ‘waste elimination’ are often discussed in Lean literature as fundamental principles of Lean philosophy. However, it might be difficult to achieve this desired performance at once. According to Slack et al. (2010), a fundamental Lean belief is that it might be possible to achieve these goals over time. By means of continuous improvement, the production system is constantly improved until it reaches its ideal state (Karlsson & Åhlström, 1996). That is why we argue that continuous improvement, or ‘kaizen’ in Japanese, is also one of the main principles of Lean philosophy (Harris, 2006).
In our opinion, the key principles of Lean quality management that can be derived from its values are the following:
Produce finished products at the pace of customer demand: The principle of pull control
With minimum waste: The principle of waste elimination
To achieve and maintain a high quality system: The principle of continuous improvement
2.2.3 THE PRINCIPLE OF PULL CONTROL: ITS METHODS AND TOOLS
15
Customer
Customer
parts at request of customer demand, while simultaneously reducing inventory as demand-driven pull prevents from producing to stock (Andersson et al., 2006; Cachon & Terwiesch, 2013; Womack & Jones, 1996). In addition, a pull system also communicates demand information to the next upstream station, ensuring that the upstream resource is paced by demand as well (Cachon & Terwiesch, 2013).Two forms of pull systems are generally discussed in literature: the Kanban-based pull and make-to-order system. The difference between these methods is in the origin and the assignment of a flow unit to demand. In a make-to-order system, production starts from the first production phase when receiving a customer make-to-order. Thereby, each flow unit in the production process is explicitly assigned to one specific customer (Cachon & Terwiesch, 2013). In a Kanban pull system, flow units are not directly related to a specific customer order. In contrast, the movement of flow units depends on the demand of the subsequent phase in the production process. Receiving a customer order determines the demand for parts of the last production phase, and subsequently this demand is passed on to its preceding phases. The basic difference between a Kanban and make-to-order system is visualized in Figure 2 and 3. We continue with describing these two methods for pull control in detail.
Direction of Production Flow
Upstream Downstream
Pull
Figure 3: MTO system
Pull
Upstream Downstream
Figure 2: Kanban-based pull
Pull Pull Pull
16
Kanban
Kanban is the principle method for demand chain management (Andersson et al., 2006; Hopp & Spearman, 2004; Ramezani & Razmeh, 2014; Shah & Ward, 2007). Kanban is the Japanese word for card or signal and is often called the ‘invisible conveyor’ that controls the transfer of flow units between sequential production phases (Slack et al., 2010). A Kanban manufacturing system manages the demand chain in the sense that production of parts by the current phase depends on the demand of the subsequent phase, or in other words that the preceding phase must only produce the exact quantity withdrawn by its subsequent manufacturing activity (Huang & Kusiak, 1996). According to Hopp & Spearman (2004), Kanban improves quality as a manufacturing process with short queues cannot permit high levels of yield loss and rework as this will shut down the line quickly. Additionally, short queues reduce the time between the creation and detection of defects. Consequently, a Kanban manufacturing system gives pressure to deliver high quality and creates an environment in which to realize it. According Cachon & Terwiesch (2013), using the Kanban method for demand chain management is suitable for products and parts that are produced in high volume with little variety, for which a short lead time is required, and for which the costs and efforts of storing the required components are low.
The main Kanbans are two kinds, one of which is called conveyor Kanban (withdrawal Kanban) and the other production Kanban. The conveyor Kanban is used to signal a previous phase that material can be withdrawn and carried to the preceding phase, whereas the production Kanban is used to signal to a work station that it can start producing the portion withdrawn by the succeeding phase (Huang & Kusiak, 1996; Pycraft et al., 2000). These types of Kanban consequently determine the two tools which govern the use of Kanbans: the single Kanban (single card), and the dual Kanban (two card) system. In both Kanban systems, each station consists of a work center and an outbound stock point. All production and inventory are contained in standard containers, which contain exactly the same quantity of parts (Slack et al., 2010). The difference between a single and dual Kanban system is caused by an artificial distinction between parts processing and material movement (Hopp & Spearman, 2004).
17
In contrast, the dual Kanban system employs an inbound stock point (buffer for WIP) while transporting the finished parts from a preceding to its succeeding station (Huang & Kusiak, 1996). This system uses both conveyor and production cards, whereby a production card is used to authorize the production of an full container of a part at that station, while a withdrawal card is used to move a standard container of parts from the outbound stock point of the preceding station to the inbound stock point of the subsequent station (Yang, 2009). Processing parts will not start without: (1) a production card, (2) a container of appropriate incoming parts and (3) an idle work station. When all three are available, the standard container of parts is removed from the inbound stock point and parts processing starts (Hopp & Spearman, 2004). With exception of the last station, which has one outgoing conveyor card post, the dual Kanban system requires both one production-, one incoming conveyor-, and one outgoing conveyor card board for each station. These card boards are used for storing the associated production, incoming conveyor, and outgoing conveyor cards (Yang, 2009).
Make-to-order
An alternative to the method of Kanban-based pull, is the implementation of a make-to-order process (Cachon & Terwiesch, 2013). A make-to-order process (hereafter MTO) differs from Kanban in the sense that in the MTO approach no work is done until a customer demands a product and provides their individual specifications to the producer (Stump & Badurdeen, 2012). The products corresponding to these customer orders typically flow through the production process on a first-in, first-out basis (Cachon & Terwiesch, 2013). According to Cachon & Terwiesch (2013), a MTO process should be used when products or parts are produced in a low volume with high variety, when customer are willing to wait for their order, and if the efforts and costs to store flow units are high.
According to literature, there are several necessities to ensure a proper MTO system. As described by Hallgren & Olhager (2006), offering products made to individual customer specification, reduces the possibilities for advance planning. Besides, demand predictability is low as all customization takes place at the downstream part of the production process. This unpredictability is due to uncertainty regarding the levels of actual demand and product configuration demands. Despite the high degree of demand uncertainty, the task of an MTO process is to produce to customer specification and to achieve predictable, short lead times. Besides, high reliability of delivery is of vital importance to meet customer expectations. Therefore, it is argued by Hallgren & Olhager (2006) that organizations using a MTO process need to be flexible in terms of capacity and adaptability to deal with the uncertain environment and to meet customer expectations. Therefore, we are that flexibility in capacity and adaptability are necessary tools of the MTO system.
2.2.4 THE PRINCIPLE OF WASTE ELIMINATION: ITS METHODS AND TOOLS
18
consuming, it makes products unnecessarily expensive (Chen, Li, & Shady, 2010). In an industrial context, all activities in a process can be classified into three categories: (1) incidental work, (2) value-adding activities, and (3) waste (Monden, 1998). Incidental work does not add value to the product, but is a required task in the production process such as inspection (Chen et al., 2010). Although incidental work is unavoidable, it is argued that it should be analyzed and, whenever possible, reduced (Lacerda, Xambre, & Alvelos, 2015). Secondly, value-adding activities add value to the product, such as the painting or packaging of a product. Finally, non-value adding work or waste, can be defined as any activity that does not add value, and thus not required in the production process (Chen et al., 2010). As Lean philosophy places emphasis on the timeline between the customer’s order and the product’s delivery, all non-value adding activities keeping products from flowing down the value stream, should be eliminated (Lacerda et al., 2015; Ruiz-de-Arbulo-Lopez, Fortuny-Santos, & Cuatrecasas-Arbós, 2013).
The original seven wastes in an industrial context as originally identified by Ohno (1988, as cited by Lacerda et al., 2015) are (1) Overproduction; (2) Defects; (3) Inventory; (4) Motion; (5) Over processing; (6) Transportation; and (7) Waiting. According to Al-Baik & Miller (2014), applying the principle of waste elimination, can help organizations to provide higher quality products in shorter cycle time, while simultaneously reducing operational cost. As this thesis is focused on Lean quality management, we only consider the wastes that are related to quality:
Overproduction – production of more items than required for immediate use, is the greatest source of waste
according to Lean philosophy (Slack et al., 2010). As argued by Al-Baik & Miller (2014), overproduction is the root cause of many other types of waste.
Defects – are usually related to an absence of standard procedures, the failure of quality control systems, or to
human failure. Defects often result in customer complaints, and consequently lower the perceived quality of an product (Lacerda et al., 2015). Defective products need to be fixed or reworked, consequently disrupting the production flow (Al-Baik & Miller, 2014).
Over-processing - relates to spending more time, effort, and resources to produce higher quality than required
by the customer(Al-Baik & Miller, 2014). Any activity that does not add value can be considered a waste and can potentially increase the incidence of defects (Lacerda et al., 2015).
Waiting – relates to time wasted by “waiting for people, material or equipment” (Lacerda et al., 2015, p. 2).
19
These types of waste can be regarded as barriers to achieve a high quality system. As elaborated upon earlier, waste should be eliminated, or reduced as much as possible. In terms of quality management, methods are necessary to remove these identified barriers. Inspired by the barriers as described by Slack et al. (2010) the methods of quality management to eliminate waste are: (1) matching supply and demand – to eliminate overproduction; (2) minimize variability – to eliminate defects; (3) create a streamlined flow – to eliminate over processing and waiting time.
Matching supply and demand
Overproduction can be classified as a waste from inexact supply. As a high quality system is characterized by producing at the pace of demand, products delivered early (or late) have less value than products delivered exactly when needed by the customer. Therefore, the closer to instantaneously delivery, the more value it has to its user (Slack et al., 2010). To match supply and demand exactly, a pull control system should be implemented as elaborated upon earlier in this chapter.
Minimize variability
One of the biggest causes of variability is variation in the quality of products. In the worst case, this variation leads to defects and rework. If defects are not recognized, they will despair the quality expectations of customers (Ramezani & Razmeh, 2014). In order to achieve zero defects, Lean philosophy relies on defect prevention, fast detection and a strong responsibility of workers in ensuring quality (Cachon & Terwiesch, 2013). In this way, Lean quality management aims to ensure that defects are not passed on downstream (Stump & Badurdeen, 2012). To prevent defects, Lean emphasizes the use of yokes, which means ‘fail-safeing’ in Japanese. The aim of a poka-yoke is to make mistakes in assembly tasks physically impossible (Cachon & Terwiesch, 2013). The strength of the tool is that it is a simple mechanism that helps to avoid faults without need for supervision (Ramezani & Razmeh, 2014). Poka-yokes are simple, often inexpensive techniques or instruments that prevent accidental mistakes of workers that could result in a defect (Ramezani & Razmeh, 2014; Slack et al., 2010).
If, despite prevention, defects occur Lean quality management should attempt to discover and isolate the problem as quickly as possible (Cachon & Terwiesch, 2013). This can be achieved by applying the jidoka concept. In essence, the idea of jidoka is to stop to production and alert the line supervisor immediately when a defect is discovered. Jidoka is a four level process to identify the root cause of defects: (1) diagnosis; (2) stop; (3) instant stabilization or correction; and (4) check the origin of the problems (Ramezani & Razmeh, 2014). By using jidoka, defects are tackled directly at its source, instead of continuing the process and taking the risk of producing even more defectives.
Creating a streamlined flow
20
perceived quality of the customer. Therefore, these wastes should be eliminated as they retain an organization from achieving an efficient, streamlined flow. However, to eliminate non-value adding activities, their sources firstly need to be identified. Value stream mapping (hereafter, VSM) is a commonly used tool to identify waste in the value stream (Ramezani & Razmeh, 2014). It is named ‘value stream’ mapping as this tool is focused on making the distinction between value-adding and non-value adding activities (Slack et al., 2010). As described by Lacerda et al. (2015), VSM enables the visualization and understanding of the flow of material, information, and people through the value chain. As a result, it provides an overall image of the activities in the production process, and so, it enables the identification of sources of waste. In essence, VSM involves improving the ‘big picture’. As described by Slack et al. (2010), VSM is a four step technique. Firstly, the process is identified to map. Secondly, a ‘current state’ map is created. This map of the current situation involves the physical mapping of the process, and consequently the mapping of the information flow that enables the process to occur above it. Subsequently, problems are diagnosed in this current state of the process and changes are suggested by making a ‘future state’ map, representing the improved process. Finally, the last phase of VSM is to implement the proposed changes.
2.2.5 THE PRINCIPLE OF CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT: ITS METHODS AND TOOLS
We have identified the original seven sources of waste, but Lean philosophy also refers to an eight source – the waste of human intellect (Cachon & Terwiesch, 2013). Lean objectives are often communicated as ideals, such as our definition: to create a high quality system that produces finished products at the pace of customer demand with
minimum waste. While the current performance of any organization might be far removed from its formulated
ideals, a fundamental trust of Lean philosophy is that it is possible to get closer to them over time by use of ‘combined brainpower’ (Slack et al., 2010).
21
The most common continuous improvement approach is described in literature as the PDCA cycle (Plan, Do, Check and Act) (Ramezani & Razmeh, 2014). The PDCA cycle can be regarded as an iterative methodology for standardizing the process of improvement (Cachon & Terwiesch, 2013). As described by Slack et al. (2010), the Plan phase covers the examination of the problem area being studied. This involves collecting and analyzing data in order to formulate objectives for improvement. Once an improvement plan has been agreed upon, the next phase is Do. In this phase, the formulated plan is implemented in the organization. The Do phase might contain some mini- PDCA cycles, as problems rising from implementation need to be resolved. The aim of the subsequent Check phase is to evaluate whether implementation has resulted in the expected improvement. Finally, in the Act phase, the changes are standardized if proven successful. Alternatively, if it appears that the change is not successful, the lesson learned are formulated before the PDCA cycle starts again.
As argued by Lacerda et al. (2015), a commonly used tool of the PDCA cycle is value stream mapping. This tool is elaborated upon in detail earlier in this chapter. Besides, as problem solving is very data driven, many statistical
tools as control charts and fishbone diagrams are used (Cachon & Terwiesch, 2013).
2.2.6 WHAT ARE THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A QUALITY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM ACCORDING
TO LEAN PHILOSOPHY?
The goal of this chapter is to provide a conceptualization of the requirements of a quality management system according to Lean philosophy. Summarizing the Lean context, we regard Lean as a holistic philosophy which includes four different levels of abstraction: values, principles, methods and tools. By means of these levels of abstraction, Lean is used as a holistic philosophy to action quality management. Inspired by Shah & Ward (2003), the values of Lean quality management are defined as the behavior to create a high quality system that produces
finished products at the pace of customer demand with minimum waste. Consequently, the derived principles are the principle of pull control, the principle of waste elimination and the principle of continuous improvement. Each of
these principles has its own associated methods and tools which constitute the requirements for a quality management systems according to Lean philosophy.
The principle of pull control contains two common methods to ensure production at the pace of customer demand:
the Kanban-based pull and MTO system. The essential difference between these methods is in the origin and the assignment of a flow unit a customer order. Although the MTO system has no specific tools, there are two main Kanban systems; the single card, and the dual card Kanban. The difference between these systems is due to an artificial distinction between processing and material movement.
The principle of waste elimination argues that all activities that do not add value to a product should be eliminated
22
variability and creating a streamlined flow, these barriers can be removed. Firstly, to match supply and demand
exactly, it is argued that a pull control system should be implemented. Secondly, variability can be minimized by preventing defects. Defects can be prevented with the aid of the poka-yokes which makes it physically impossible to make mistakes in assembly tasks. However, if errors occur, the tool of jidoka can be used for root-cause analysis. Lastly, it is argued that the sources of waste first need to be identified before they can be eliminated. VSM is commonly used to identify waste in the value stream by means of physical mapping. The final principle, the
principle of continuous improvement enables an organization to achieve its desired performance over time. The
most common continuous improvement approach is the PDCA cycle, which is an iterative methodology for standardizing the process of improvement. Common tools of the PDCA cycle are VSM, and various statistical tools.
The requirements of a quality management according to Lean philosophy are presented in the Lean Quality Management Framework below (Figure 4).
23
3. INTERVIEW PROTOCOL
As mentioned in the methodology section, interviews are conducted to collect case study evidence. All interviewees are employed as teachers, team leader or director at one of the schools affiliated with the Zo.Leer.Ik! collective. In this regard, all employees of these 12 secondary schools can be identified as the population of this case study. Considering, the relatively short time to conduct the interviews, 14 interviews have been conducted at 7 Zo.Leer.Ik! schools. The selected schools and corresponding interviewees have been selected by use of stratified sampling. Stratified sampling is chosen as we expect that the answers might differ per school and per position of the interviewee. As we expect that the stage of implementation might influence the knowledge as well as the perceptions and opinions towards personalized education, we have chosen to select schools which are at different stages of the transition towards personalized learning. In addition, as we expect that the position of teacher, team leader or director could affect the responses of the interviewees, we have chosen to select a sample in which all positions are more or less equally represented. An overview of the selected interviewees is provided in Table 1.
Table 1: Selected interviewees
To ensure the reliability and validity of the interview data, an interview protocol is designed. Three different protocols are used to create a division between the various topics of relevance: (1) quality management in classical education, (2) use of software/ICT and (3) quality management in personalized education. These interview protocols can be found in the Appendix.
Interview protocol 1 was only suitable for interviewees employed at school which still offer education based on the classical education model. As specific knowledge on technology was needed to answer the questions of protocol 2, these questions are only discussed with people responsible for ICT. However, interview protocol 3 is discussed with al interviewees as these questions regarding quality management in personalized education are thematically linked
School Function Stage of personalized education
Caland 2, Amsterdam Director
Team leader
Pilot
Da Vinci College, Leiden Director
Team leader
Classical education
Stedelijk Lyceum Innova, Enschede Team leader
Teacher
Personalized learning completely implemented in junior classes
Kennemer College Mavo, Beverwijk Team leader
Team leader
Development phase
Heliomare, Wijk aan zee Team leader
Teacher
Implementation phase
Het Lyceum VOS, Vlaardingen Teacher
Teacher
Pilot
Mariëndael, Arnhem Teacher
Director
24
25
4. THE EDUCATIONAL CONTEXT
4.1 WHAT WE CONSIDER AS PERSONLIZED LEARNING
The educational vision behind the Kunskapsskolan is that all pupils have a different learning style and therefore should have the opportunity to learn at different paces and in various ways (Kunskapsskolan Education AB, n.d.-a) In the transition towards personalized learning, the Swedish Kunskapsskolan is being translated to the Dutch situation. Although the exact implementation varies at each visited Zo.Leer.Ik! school, it is possible to provide a general picture of personalized education based on the interview data.
As argued in each of the interviews, each pupil has an individual learning style which is determined by his interests, skills and competencies. In order to give the pupil the opportunity to determine their own learning process, secondary schools offer several options for differentiation. The most frequent methods of differentiation are differentiation on level, pace and work method. It is possible to follow courses at a higher level, move faster or slower through the curriculum and to master the curriculum in different ways. The most visible difference between the classical and personalized education model is that the timetable cannot longer be regarded as a course schedule. Courses are no longer taught for a fixed number per week, for a fixed class and by the same teacher. Although there are still fixed hours for instruction, a large part of the day consist of choice-working-hours (in Dutch: keuzewerktijd). In these hours, a pupil can choose which course he wants to work on, supervised by a teacher. For example, a pupil can see in the timetable which choice-hours are supervised by which teacher. If the pupil has questions about physics, he may choose the choice-hour assisted by a physics teacher. Subsequently, this teacher can help the pupil with his questions during that particular hour. The purpose of this partly ‘flexible scheduling’ is that pupils can spend more time on courses they consider difficult, or can immerse themselves in a course in which they excel.
During the school day, the pupil has the possibility to work in various ways. As compared to classical education, pupils are offered the space and opportunity to work individually, in pairs or in groups. In addition, pupils are offered different ways to master the curriculum. For example, pupils have the opportunity to make a movie or a presentation as an assignment.
26
opportunity to work autonomously in the learning portal, it is possible to speed up or slowdown in pace. Additionally, the pupil can choose the level of each step and theme. Per level, the objectives of each step or theme are described in detail. Consequently, the student can estimate which level suits him best. For example, the learning portal offers the opportunity to make assignments for mathematics at VWO level and other courses at his baseline level HAVO.
4.2 THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A QUALITY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM IN PERSONALIZED
LEARNING ACCORDING TO EDUCATION
In order to define the requirements of a quality management system in personalized learning according to education, we base this conceptualization on the same four levels of abstraction by Modig & Ahlström (2012) as used previously in defining the requirements of a quality management system according to Lean philosophy, namely:
Values: how the organization should behave
Principles: how an organization should think
Methods: what an organization should do
Tools: what an organization should have
4.2.1 VALUES
To define the values of quality management in personalized learning, we can ask ourselves the same question as previously: how should an organization behave to deliver the requested performance to its customers? In this perspective, the secondary school is the organization and the pupils can be regarded as the customers requiring personalized education of high quality. For a full description on the ‘customer’ in personalized learning, we like to refer to the thesis of J.M. Dam (2016).
27
Table 2: Coding of values
Code Relevant quote
Social environment “The social environment must be safe. The group of pupils must be able to deal with each other”
“You should really let each other in their value. That is very important. Mutual respect between teachers and pupils and also pupils having respect to each other”
"I find it very important that learning will not become individualistic. A school is also the place where pupils meet, where there is social cohesion and where you learn to deal with each other. I want to preserve that social aspect of a school”
“Education should still be done in some kind of groups. Precisely from 12 to 18, in which puberty is very present, it is important to develop your social skills”
Competences of the teacher
“The teacher is responsible for ensuring that the pupil can perform well. The teacher is doing that by being predictable and professional. A good teacher is of vital importance”
“As a teacher, you are a leader and a developer. We also find analysis, development and self-reflection very important”
“That means that you as a teacher should be able to communicate well” “The teacher must be a good teacher who can motivate the pupil” Education based on
pupil’s needs
“A pupil should learn the way that suits him best”
“I think that talent can only be developed if you give pupils the opportunity to be not that good in some courses, but also to excel in others”
“By personalized learning, education can be customized to the pupil in the sense that they can spend more hours on the subjects where they are less good at. Education will therefore be better suited to pupil’s needs”
“I believe that personalized learning can ensure that pupils can learn more based on their own needs” “We want to match our offerings to what the pupil wants and is capable of in the best possible way. That the student achieves his goal, but that the process to get there might be very different”
“A cry that is often used is ‘the pupil central’: that is what it is all about” Pupil’s ownership
of learning process
“If you give the pupil the opportunity to choose, they will be responsible for their own learning process” “I believe that if you make the pupil owner of their learning process, there is much to be gained. Nowadays, people often blame the school when something goes wrong, not the role of the pupil in the problem”
“You should accept that you cannot control it. You need to have confidence that it will turn out well, that the pupils will make it work, that he will take his responsibility”
“I think it is good that children become aware of their own learning process” “With personalized learning, pupils can take ownership of their learning process”
“If pupils feel their own impact in their achievements, they will automatically perform better” “Our vision is to give the pupil self-control in his learning process”
“You hope that pupils take responsibility and achieve their goals. The pupils have to accomplish this themselves”
In our opinion, these codes represent the themes that should be reflected in the definition of the values of a quality management system in personalized education. Consequently, secondary schools should behave according to these values to action quality management. Therefore, based on the codes and its associated quotes in table 2, we define the values of quality management in personalized learning as the behavior to create a high quality system that
28
4.2.2 PRINCIPLES
Having defined the values, next step is to define how secondary schools should think to ensure quality in personalized learning. As with the LQM, these principles should logically arise from its stated values. Even though the interviewees provided diverse answers to this particular question, the answers focus on a number of central issues. As described earlier, relevant quotes are coded to assign a symbolic attribute to parts of interview data. These quotes and its associated codes are grouped together in order to identify the principles of a quality management system in personalized learning according to education (Table 3).
Table 3: Coding of principles
Code Relevant quote
Differentiation “You can differentiate at pace, on learning style, on independence. Ultimately, you can differentiate in so
many ways”
“It is important that both variation at pace and in learning form is available”
“Ultimately, you want to achieve that pupils do various courses at their own level or at the highest level possible. This could mean that you may be doing math at HAVO level but Spanish at VWO level” “No ‘one size fits all’ for the whole group: more possibilities for differentiation”
Customization “It is based on customization, everyone learns in a different way. We also believe that everyone should be
addressed in a different way. We try to find what motivates the pupil, in what way he can learn best in order to excel”
“Tuning with the pupils on his diploma, his skills and long-term goals. Now he is only focused on the diploma. The programs are traditional”
“To let every child get the most out of his school career in its own unique way” Availability of
choices
“I you want pupils to feel owner of their own learning process, you have to give them freedom to choose different ways of learning”
“Firstly, a pupil must have many choices. Because if the same two courses are always offered alongside each other and those are exactly the two courses you're struggling with, you still have no good choices”
“You so should arrange the school and have the offerings in such a way that the pupil can make his own choices”
Coaching “Personal contact with the pupil is very important. Therefore, we have no mentor, but a coach. The coach
holds a conversation in such a way that the pupil sets his own objectives. A pupil must tell what he wants to learn and then the coach helps to find the right path”
“As a coach you should steer, but you should let the pupil encounter the consequences of their choices before you pull them back. Otherwise they may never learn to make choices in a responsible manner” “I believe that a teacher still can be a sharer of knowledge, but above all you are someone who supports, mentors and coaches the pupil by asking questions”
“Good coaching is of vital importance”
“Weekly coaching and small teams who are responsible for the process”
Social cohesion “I believe, especially in the lower grades, that the security of a class is very important for their well-being
and therefore their performance”
“Education should still take place in group contexts. It is a social process” “Pupils also come to school for social interaction”
“You have to maintain classes, no classes as they exist now, but social classes. Pupils should be part of a class in order to develop their social skills: to argue, to learn to deal with each other”
29
“You can differentiate in so many ways. Each child learns in a different way”
customization and availability of choices. Only with differentiation, you can offer availability in choices and without choice, education cannot be tailored to the individual pupil. Therefore, we cluster all these issues to one single principle which encompasses all the aforementioned: differentiation.
In addition, we discuss the central issue of coaching. We might argue that coaching can be logically derived from the stated values as coaching is primarily intended to assist the pupil in his own learning process. Not only as an answer to the specific question, but throughout all interviews the value of good coaching is endorsed. As argued by the interviewees, coaching is a primary condition for the success
of personalized education. As the aim of personalized learning is to provide education based on pupil’s needs, coaching is important to support the pupil in determining his own
objectives and consequently to determine how the school can facilitate in this. It is reasoned that if the coach asks the right questions, the pupil is given the opportunity to define their own objectives and to determine which help he needs.
Finally, the importance of social cohesion is often discussed. Both schools which have not yet implemented personalized learning as schools which are at an advanced stage, emphasize that the security of a class is extremely important for pupils in order to develop their social skills and to ensure their emotional well-being. One school who introduced flexible scheduling even went back to a mainly fixed schedule as it appeared that ever-changing classes were not beneficial to the well-being of their pupils.
In light of the aforementioned issues, we argue that the key principles of a quality management system in personalized learning according to education are the following:
To offer education based on pupil’s needs in his learning process: The principle differentiation
With help and assistance of competent teachers: The principle of coaching
In a safe social environment: The principle of social cohesion
4.2.3 THE PRINCIPLE OF DIFFERENTIATION: ITS METHODS AND TOOLS
30
“We do not offer VWO at this school, but this level is available in the learning portal. Consequently is it
possible for pupils to end at a higher level”
classes based on level which is usually VMBO, MAVO, HAVO, VWO or, in a lesser extent, special education. Consequently, the content of education is based on the segment in which the pupils have been placed. In personalized learning, pupils are no longer divided in this kind of segments. In personalized learning, subdivision depends mainly on level, pace and work method. Offering these options for differentiation is what a school should do to provide quality in personalized learning. Consequently, we argue that the methods to offer differentiation are flexible examination, differentiation at pace and differentiation in work method.
Flexible examination
The first method we discuss is the method of flexible examination. Although pupils are still segmented on their baseline level, it is possible to follow courses at a higher level. Besides, it is possible to finish courses in an earlier stage by advanced examination. However, as the aim of this section is to describe differentiation in level, we will continue by discussing the method of flexible examination with regard to level only. Differentiation at pace will be elaborated upon in the next section.
This method of flexible examination is facilitated by the learning portal of SENS as this online learning environment makes it possible to master core objectives at a higher level. As described earlier, pupils can choose their desired level in the learning portal. Even if a certain level is not offered by the school itself, pupils can master the content at their preferred level. Therefore, we consider the learning portal as an essential tool to facilitate flexible examination.
Taking an exam at a higher level is possible but this is a final decision as pupils do not have the possibility to take a re-examination at their baseline level. In addition, as the final exams can be taken at a higher level except for one course, the diploma still represents the baseline level of the pupil (Leerling 2020, n.d.). Consequently, some interviewees argue that the hard work of pupils is not
redeemed as long as these legal restrictions persist. As it is the aim of personalized learning to develop the pupil to its highest potential, a customized diploma might therefore be an essential
31
“In the traditional system, pace is determined by the teacher. For some of the pupils this pace is adequate, others want to go faster or slower.With the learning portal you will have better opportunities to serve these
two groups so that they becomemore motivated to experience success”
“It would be very good if you are admissible for a college or university if you completed the relevant courses at the appropriate level. Now you can take an exam at a higher
level, but afterwards it’s worthless”
“Places where students can sit alone, or just with your partner, places where
you can meet as a group, but also a lecture hall; it should all be available” Differentiation at pace
The second defined method for differentiation is differentiation at pace. In all interviews, emphasis is put on offering the possibility to accelerate in one subject and to slow down in another. It is argued that the pace of the average is not suitable for both pupils who want learn
faster as those who need more time to master a subject. According to the interviewees, the possibility to work at your own pace is an essential part of pupil’s ownership. By differentiation at pace, pupils can choose to work harder
on a course that they consider difficult or to deepen one’s knowledge on a course in which they are talented. Moreover, pupils can choose to finish a course in an earlier stage by advanced examination. An advantage of advanced examination is that the student consequently has more time to focus on other courses.
The ownership to make their own choices regarding pace has, according to many interviewees, a positive effect on motivation. In addition, it is also indicated that
differentiation at pace could increase pupil performance. Where in the past the level of the diploma was often determined by the course in which the pupil performed poorly, the pupil can now devote more time to complete this course at the desired level. A tool to facilitate in differentiation at pace is the learning portal by SENS as
pupils can work individually on the steps and themes available in this online learning environment.
Differentiation in work method
The last frequently discussed method to differentiate is work method. Work method is a broad concept that encompasses how, where and with whom pupils learn. In personalized learning, classical lessons are replaced by various approaches such as lectures, short instruction moments, choice-working-hours and practical sessions. In addition, more opportunity is given to master subjects through presentations, making a movie, or other assignments. Besides, pupils are offered the opportunity to work individually, in pairs or in groups.
However, many schools find it difficult to offer all this ‘flexibility’. There are limiting variables in terms of availability of teachers, and availability of (appropriate) spaces to accommodate this properly. Not all teachers are full-time available and most schools have a traditional layout with classrooms
32
“A group of 30 is too large. I think that 20 pupils is workable. Then you still have a lot, but probably you can help every pupil
just enough. It's not optimal, but you have to find a balance given the space
and the financial resources available”
“That's why I cannot suddenly transform the system. Not all teachers are full time available, so you already have a problem with the schedule. You also have classrooms
designed for 30 students. If you want to provide differentiation, you will need smaller and various spaces.
Teachers should also get rid of the idea of a fixed timetable. These are all steps to be taken” “From the classic and financial point of view, one teacher is intended for 30 pupils”
“The coach holds a conversation in such a way that the pupil sets its own objectives. A pupil must tell what he wants to learn, and the coach
helps to find the right path. For a coach, it is important to simply ask questions”
accommodate this differentiation. Therefore, we argue that capacity of various workplaces and capacity of teachers are tools to ensure differentiation in work method.
In addition, it is repeatedly stated that the available financial resources are not sufficient to realize all these wishes as the budget is based on one teacher per 30 students. However, offering various work methods usually means smaller groups. Moreover, many interviewees argue that it
almost impossible to serve 30 pupils during the choice-working-hours. Many teachers state that there are too many questions to divide their time evenly among all pupils. From this perspective, time and in particular the associated financial resources are necessary to facilitate personalized assistance. However, it is not the school but the Dutch government who can provide these needed financial resources.
Besides, pupils often ask the same question resulting in a teacher explaining the same issue over and over. One teacher came up with the solution to let pupils send their questions beforehand by e-mail or to write them down at arrival so that the questions can be clustered. We consider this as a good solution and that is why we like to mention it, but this solution cannot be regarded as a tool to ensure differentiation in work method.
