Dr. Gloria Rogers (Vice President for Institutional Re- sources and Assessment at ..... [9] Stuart Pugh, Total Design: Integrated Methods for Success- ful Product ...
Session T4A
University-Wide Curriculum Reform: Two Processes to Aid in Decision Making Karen R. Wilkinson, Cynthia J. Finelli, Eugene Hynes, and Basem Alzahabi Kettering University (formerly GMI Engineering & Management Institute) 1700 West Third Avenue, Flint, Michigan, 48504 Abstract— Reform of engineering education can take a variety of forms. At Kettering University, a primarily undergraduate engineering institution, the Faculty Senate decided that the curriculum structure needed to be critically evaluated and possibly reformed. This decision was prompted by changing industry needs, ABET requirements, and the desire to remain competitive. The Senate appointed a task force to coordinate the evaluation of the existing curriculum structure and the consideration of a variety of alternatives. This paper is written by four of the ten members of that task force.1 Because curriculum reform is contentious and complex, the task force used systematic processes for decision making. These processes were also helpful in identifying reasons for change and developing faculty buy-in for curriculum reform. This paper will describe the reasons why these processes were needed, the circumstances under which they were applied, how the processes work, and how the results were used. The first formal decision-making process is a modified version of the widely-accepted SWOT exercise. The technique involved identifying strengths and weaknesses of various curriculum structures. It was used in large group settings to which all faculty and administrators were invited. A principle advantage of this approach is that all opinions were heard and equally weighted. The exercise influenced the decisions that the task force made in evaluating components of the curriculum structures. In a second formal decision-making process, a weighted criteria matrix was constructed to systematically evaluate the alternative curriculum structures. The matrix was developed via a series of brainstorming sessions by the task force. The task force used their personal opinions, data from the strength-weakness exercises, and the expertise of university administrators in ranking the attributes of each alternative. A principle advantage of this process is that it allowed the task force to identify positive attributes of a proposed curriculum structure and to develop a hybrid structure featuring the best characteristics of each alternative.
importance of carefully monitoring how and by whom decisions were made throughout the curriculum reform process. Curricula comprise both political alliances and pedagogical programs, and it is not easy to overhaul them. Faculty members have invested time, money, energy, and even their identities in pursuing their doctoral degrees. Understandably, they often believe that knowledge of their field is crucial for an undergraduate degree. As such, they want to impart that knowledge to their students, in the process enhancing their own access to good jobs, career prospects, and other resources. When some faculty advocate change that affects what and how other faculty teach, these others may feel threatened [1], [2], [3], [4]. Any existing curriculum is a legacy of decisions made in the past, and while some teachers of that curriculum may dislike particular aspects of it, they are unlikely to agree on their diagnoses of what is wrong, let alone on how to fix it. In an ideal world, curricula would be continuously improved by ongoing incremental changes negotiated among colleagues who trust and respect each other. This utopian ideal is far from the reality of most universities. Further, even if this ideal scenario did exist, it would still not suffice for large-scale fundamental reforms that are occasionally necessary.
Obstacles to change are found everywhere and each institution could develop its own specific list. Kettering University has a unique position and history that have implications for reforming the curriculum. From 1919 to 1982, Kettering University was General Motors Institute, the inhouse engineer-producing branch of General Motors. Even I. Introduction though Kettering University has been an independent inThis paper is about two decision-making processes used stitution since 1982 the corporate legacy is still a significant by a task force at Kettering University, a primarily under- factor. The idea of faculty governance, so central at most graduate engineering school. It describes why these pro- universities, is contested here. Some faculty members supcesses were needed, what they were intended to accom- port it, others view it as unrealistic idealism, and still othplish, and what they involved. The paper also explains the ers are apathetic as long as they are left alone to do what they see as important. Even some of those who believe that 1 Members of the Curriculum Reform Task Force, and their respective departmental affiliations, are: Basem Alzahabi, Mechanical Engi- faculty should decide curriculum issues do not trust that neering; Daryl Doyle, Science and Mathematics; Cynthia Finelli (co- the faculty can or will be permitted to do so. This corpochairperson), Electrical and Computer Engineering; Eugene Hynes, Humanities and Social Science; Roderick Johnson, Industrial and rate background includes a distrust of administrators (varManufacturing Systems Engineering; John Lorenz, Vice President iously identified as the President of the university, key acafor Academic Affairs/Provost; Richard Lundstrom, Mechanical En- demic administrators, department chairpersons, or others) gineering; James Luxon, Dean of Academic Programs and Research; Karen Wilkinson (chairperson), Humanities and Social Science; and who, allegedly, would endorse and implement only those faculty-proposed changes that they already wanted. Marty Wing, Business and Industrial Management. 0-7803-6424-4/00/$10.00 2000IEEE TA4-6
Session T4A II. Faculty-Led Curriculum Reform Although Kettering University has its own unique reasons for faculty-administration conflict and low confidence in faculty governance, such problems exist at many universities. It is therefore essential that decisions about how to proceed in reforming curricula be made very carefully. A minimum requirement is that the process of decision making not in itself add to the predictable difficulties in making changes, thereby dooming attempts to implement them. And, who makes a decision can be as important as the decision itself. A. Formation of the Curriculum Reform Task Force
agement, Humanities and Social Science, and Science and Mathematics). The selection of these six faculty members was to be a further exercise in the building of cooperation and trust between the faculty and administration. The initial four CRTF members were together to agree on one faculty member in each department who would be likely to put aside their own departmental turf-protection interests and who would be able to work effectively across usual boundaries to seek improvements for all. Their ability to disagree without being disagreeable was very important in a task force that was expected to require sustained negotiation on politically-sensitive issues. Once identified and agreed to by the first four CRTF members, these persons were approached and, if willing, were appointed to the CRTF.
At Kettering University, a Curriculum Reform Task Force (CRTF) was established with these considerations B. Early CRTF Activities in mind. As a Faculty Senate task force, CRTF would The CRTF was active over an 18 month period. Durenable the faculty, through the Senate, to control the reing this time, it had relatively high morale, worked effecform effort. This did not eliminate the cynicism of some tively to reconcile differences, and was highly motivated faculty who felt that administration would control the outto bring about positive changes in the undergraduate procome, but it did provide a vehicle for faculty participation gram. The CRTF spent several months encouraging the and power. The membership of CRTF was decided in a way that demonstrated cooperation amongst the faculty university to take various steps to prepare for curriculum and between faculty and administration. The first four reform. They developed a defining statement to accompany members appointed to CRTF included two faculty mem- the Kettering University mission, and they created a core bers (the Moderator and Moderator-Elect of the Senate) purpose to guide their own activities. The task force asked and two administrators (the Vice President for Academic departments to discuss particular issues and submit the reAffairs/Provost and the Dean of Academic Programs and sults of their discussions. Further, the CRTF held many Research). One of the two senate officers was from the meetings with students, both academic and non-academic largest engineering department on campus, and the other administrators, corporate partners2 , and department faculwas from a relatively small “support area”, the department ties. Even after these efforts, curriculum reform remained providing humanities and social science courses. The fact unpopular. The faculty was not unified about the need that both had been elected Moderator of the Senate in a for curriculum reform, appeared to disagree about its adfaculty-wide vote was evidence that each had some credi- vantages and disadvantages, and had different ideas about bility across the faculty as a whole. Moreover, the inclusion what the first steps should be. The CRTF decided soon after it was established that of both signaled the importance that the Senate placed on the curriculum reform effort and ensured continuity under a change in curriculum structure was needed to facilitate other more important reforms. The existing curriculum two successive, year-long Faculty Senate administrations. The Dean of Academic Programs and Research was structure at Kettering University is a product of the unithe administrator most deeply involved in the curricu- versity’s unique history. Students have two twelve-week lum reform efforts. The Vice President for Academic Af- academic terms per year alternated with two twelve-week fairs/Provost routinely received copies of all materials sub- co-op terms, and they require at least five years to gradmitted to or generated by CRTF, and he was kept informed uate. Since the academic program requires completion of at every stage either by the CRTF as a whole or by the 180 credits, students take 20–22 credits per term, often carDean. On occasion and for meetings he considered im- rying seven or more courses. The CRTF viewed this strucportant, the Provost exercised his right to participate in ture as the source of many problems, and they decided an routine discussions. He, along with other administrators improved one was needed. The aspects of the curriculum including the President, met with the task force when they structure that were considered initially were the length of class periods, the number of credits required for graduawere asked. Although administrative involvement was crucial, the tion, the ideal number of courses taken per term, and the CRTF was dominated by faculty members. In establish- number of terms needed to graduate. Although the new curriculum structure was to be aping it, the Faculty Senate specified that in addition to the Moderator and Moderator-Elect of the Faculty Sen- proved by the entire faculty, it was the responsibility of ate and the two administrators, the CRTF should have 2 All of the undergraduates participate in a mandatory cooperative one faculty member from each of the six academic de- education (“co-op”) program from their first freshman term. Under partments of the university – three engineering (Electri- this program, students alternate twelve-week terms on campus and cal and Computer Engineering, Industrial and Manufac- at their worksite where they are employed by a corporate partner. Thus, the co-op program at Kettering University allows students to turing Systems Engineering, and Mechanical Engineering) earn their Bachelor’s Degree in five years while accruing up to two and and three non-engineering (Business and Industrial Man- one-half years of practical work experience with the same employer. 0-7803-6424-4/00/$10.00 2000IEEE TA4-7
Session T4A CRTF to develop the proposal. To achieve faculty confidence in the proposal, it was essential that this proposal match as closely as possible the preferences of the faculty and that it be determined using as much objectivity as possible. The CRTF met with the faculty of each department where they listened to positive and negative comments about the existing curriculum and to what could be done about its weaknesses. With this input, CRTF proposed a modified structure. Perhaps stimulated by the discussions of this proposal, two members of the faculty (not CRTF members) each proposed a different structure. At separate meetings of the whole faculty, these structures were subjected to a strength-weakness analysis, and CRTF used this forum to document faculty opinion of the curriculum structures. To further study the existing curriculum structure and each of the three proposals, CRTF constructed a weighted criteria matrix whereby they systematically evaluated the proposals. This technique allowed CRTF to develop a hybrid curriculum structure possessing positive characteristics of various proposals.
2. Faculty members sitting at tables engaged in “silent brainstorming” by writing strengths and weaknesses of the proposal on Post-it notes. Only one strength or only one weakness was written on each note. The participants wrote as many strengths and weaknesses as they could in about ten minutes without conversing with others. 3. Groups of 15–20 participants each then arranged their notes together on large, previously-prepared posters. The participants clustered all strengths together and all weaknesses together. 4. The participants moved the Post-it notes around on the posters, grouping similar ideas together and writing next to the notes the category they represented. This process of categorizing strengths and weaknesses took about 20 minutes. 5. A spokesperson from each subgroup reported the major strengths and weaknesses identified in their group. Each spokesperson was allowed two minutes. 6. After the meeting the Post-it notes were separated into comprehensive lists of strengths and weaknesses. For each list, categories of similar comments were created. The exIII. Gaining Input from Large Groups: The SW act words the participants used to describe strengths or Method weaknesses were transcribed and listed in each category. The comments in each category were counted, as were the “SWOT Analysis” (also known as “WOTS UP Analytotal number of strengths and weaknesses. All of this inforsis”) is a technique used frequently in strategic planning [5], mation was printed and distributed to the university com[6], [7], [8]. Participants are asked to indicate the strengths munity. This part of the process was time-consuming but (S) and weaknesses (W) of an organization and the opwas an essential step in the method. Table I is a conportunities (O) and threats (T) facing it. The technique densed form of the comments about the existing curricuhelps people in the organization to decide what needs to lum and the first CRTF proposal. The report containing change and what must be retained as it plans for the future. actual comments about both is eight pages in length. Dr. Gloria Rogers (Vice President for Institutional Resources and Assessment at Rose-Hulman Institute of TechThe SW Method aided curriculum reform efforts in a nology) introduced the faculty at Kettering University to variety of ways. A very important benefit was that it this technique at an on-campus workshop held on February helped to demonstrate that curriculum reform was indeed 18, 1999. The members of the faculty and administration in necessary. The faculty’s first experience with using the attendance identified strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, method was in evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of and threats for the university. Participants were impressed the existing curriculum structure. At that time, opposiby the technique’s ability to involve all participants and to tion to change was strong; but the CRTF sensed that it produce a great deal of useful information in a relatively was a vocal and influential minority who was opposed to short period of time. change. By asking the whole faculty to evaluate the exFor curriculum reform purposes, the most useful part of isting curriculum, the task force was able to achieve two the SWOT approach is the identification of strengths and goals. First, most of the faculty were involved in facing weaknesses. The CRTF modified the SWOT requirements the problematic features of the curriculum. Second, CRTF by eliminating questions about opportunities and threats. was able to compile data showing that the faculty perceived This SW Method was used at four different faculty meet- that change was needed. The faculty saw more weaknesses ings in an eight month period. This method required a than strengths in the existing curriculum and they idenfacilitator for the large group who gave instructions and tified more strengths in a proposed curriculum structure announced when to move from one step to the next as well (which was presented at the same time) than they saw in as several small group facilitators who answered questions the existing curriculum. Both the faculty involvement and and ensured that each group was ready for the closing feed- the published comments helped to weaken the opposition to change. back session. The six steps used for the SW Method are as follows: When the SW Method was used to evaluate proposals 1. One proposed curriculum structure was presented. It for curriculum structure, it had other benefits. First, it was assumed that faculty members understood the existing allowed everyone to express his or her opinions of the procurriculum structure, so it was not described. But each of posals. Since over half of the total faculty attended each of the proposed alternatives was explained to the faculty by the meetings in which proposals were presented, it would the person(s) who developed it. Only one new proposal have been impossible to hear oral comments from everywas considered at any meeting. one in the meeting. Second, it gave everyone’s opinions 0-7803-6424-4/00/$10.00 2000IEEE TA4-8
Session T4A TABLE I Data from the SW Method. Existing curriculum structure Weaknesses (153 comments) Strengths (101 comments) Too many courses (45) Industry link/Co-op experience(16) Criticisms of course or program content (14) Hands-on labs, practical approach (12) Lack of integration (14) Breadth (11) Fragmented (13) Some parts of curriculum are strong (11) Student learning concerns (11) More courses = more knowledge (9) Criticisms of context for the curriculum (8) OK as is (8) Scheduling concerns (7) Rigorous program (7) Takes too long to graduate (7) Quality students and success of grads (7) Inadequate “communication” content (6) Flexibility (5) Disadvantages for below-average students (6) Teaching emphasis (5) Concerns regarding Kettering’s competitiveness (4) Miscellaneous (10) Inflexible (3) Too much redundancy (3) Unprepared graduates/students (3) Miscellaneous (9) First CRTF proposed model Weaknesses (129 comments) Strengths (133 comments) Too limiting/inflexible (28) Competitive advantage (20) Implementation onerous (12) Improved learning (19) Not enough time (11) Improved integration (12) Loss of topics, subjects, breadth, or knowledge (10) Bachelor/Masters program and Honors option (12) It’s a big change (8) Fewer courses/less stress (14) Perception (7) Simplified/uniform (10) Poorly prepared students (7) Improved scheduling (9) Loss of basics (Science/Math) (6) Opportunity for a fresh start (8) Loss of specialties/advanced courses (6) Stronger core/basics (5) Requires change in teaching (4) Fewer credits (5) Still too many credits (4) Eliminates redundancies (3) Loss of theory (3) Good for weaker students (2) Department barriers (2) Accreditation/assessment (2) Weakened core (2) Miscellaneous (12) Other losses (2) Miscellaneous (17)
equal standing. The opinions of all (young and old, tenured mental problem across the university was counted equal to and untenured, men and women, verbose and quiet) were another’s complaint about some restricted area or minor expressed and included. Third, the method had a better concern. response rate than a questionnaire distributed in faculty The benefits of this method are more significant than the mailboxes would have produced. Therefore, the comments problems. Most people accepted it as a valid process and may be more representative of faculty opinion than data participated willingly. Some cynics who believed univerfrom the average survey. Fourth, the method provided de- sity administrators would accept only one solution did not tailed information about what the faculty liked and disliked participate, but these probably would not have cooperated in each proposal. The CRTF used this information in its with any other data collection attempt. The SW Method own evaluation of the proposals and creation of its final produced the information that was needed to have an improposal. proved awareness of faculty opinion as each proposal was presented, while at the same time it gradually increased The method also has some problems. First, it is possible the faculty’s participation in and acceptance of curriculum for people to use it to advance their own agendas instead reform. of to fairly evaluate proposals. In other words, a person or group could “stuff the ballot box.” At least a minimal IV. Comparing Alternative Curriculum level of trust and honesty must prevail in order to prevent Structures: The Weighted Criteria Matrix such an occurrence. Second, there is only a small amount After soliciting feedback from faculty and administrators of face-to-face discussion using this method. People talk with each other as they gather around the posters cluster- who participated in the SW exercises, the CRTF engaged ing the Post-it notes, but this method does not allow for in a systematic evaluation of the existing curriculum strucdebate or for building on one another’s ideas. Third, some ture and each of the three proposed ones. The process was may resist this method because they see it as a way of si- based loosely on the Pugh Design Selection Methodology lencing opposition or “railroading” a particular proposal. [9], [10], [11] whereby a weighted criteria matrix was utiIt allows advocates of a proposal to have the floor while lized. The technique allowed CRTF to integrate personal opponents do not have equal time. Fourth, the method, opinions about the curriculum structure (developed over by default, gave equal weight to all identified weaknesses twelve months of intensive study), strengths and weakor strengths. Thus one person’s identification of a funda- nesses of each structure as perceived by the faculty, and TA4-9 0-7803-6424-4/00/$10.00 2000IEEE
Session T4A the expertise of university administrators. Administrative structures, to discuss them in an organized fashion, and input was solicited regarding enrollment implications, the to compare them in a fair and systematic manner. The co-op experience and the thesis requirement, financial im- evaluation process was as important as the result because plications of a new curriculum structure, student financial it allowed the task force to identify positive attributes of aid considerations, and course scheduling and assessment each proposed curriculum structure. The task force used issues. Finally, the method allowed the CRTF to combine this information to develop a hybrid structure – the Ketthe best elements in all the proposals and to create a final tering University Model – featuring the best characteristics proposed curriculum structure – the Kettering University of each proposal. This hybrid was also evaluated using the Model. weighted criteria matrix. Table II shows both the evalTo create the weighted criteria matrix, CRTF conducted uation criteria (arranged along the rows), and scores for a series of brainstorming sessions to generate a list of pos- the existing structure and the Kettering University Model sible evaluation criteria (standards by which to judge the (contained in the columns). Three positive attributes of the weighted criteria maalternative curriculum structures). From this initial list, the task force identified seven parameters that would be trix became evident throughout the procedure. First, the required of any feasible curriculum structure and described very process of systematically evaluating each of the prothese elements as design constraints. These constraints in- posed curriculum structures greatly educated the members clude: satisfying the minimum number of minutes of in- of CRTF. Second, the method helped CRTF members to, struction for state requirements, increasing the efficiency as a united group, agree on a structure to recommend to in the curriculum, reducing the number of courses – and the faculty. This provided evidence of cross faculty coopthe number of years – required to earn a degree, improving eration, and increased the level of acceptance among the learning effectiveness, and developing a curriculum which faculty. Third, the weighted criteria matrix lent credibilcould be implemented with the current faculty and facil- ity to the curriculum structure which was presented to the ities. The CRTF consented that, if successfully imple- Faculty Senate. Although individual scores in the matrix mented, each of the proposed structures would satisfy these were argued by some faculty, the systematic approach to the design of a curriculum structure further increased the design constraints. level of acceptance among the faculty. Consistent with the Pugh methodology, CRTF reconsidered the list, carefully defining and categorizing each of the V. Concluding Remarks remaining 25 evaluation criteria. These criteria were then each assigned a relative weight or importance by an iteraThe process that the CRTF had to go through has contive process. First, an initial weight of 40 was given to each firmed that it is not easy to overhaul curricula. At the start, criterion so the sum of the weights for all criteria was 1000. only a few faculty members truly believed that it was possiNext, each score was adjusted by –10, 0, or 10 to reflect ble to change curricula in both content and structure, and its relative importance with respect to the average. A finer even fewer thought that it was worth trying. Working in level of adjustment (by –5, 0, or 5) completed the iterative such a climate, the CRTF had to focus not only on proposprocess, and the sum of the final weights remained 1000. ing a new curriculum structure, but also on changing the This iterative process was time consuming (constructing attitude towards the desirability and possibility of change. the matrix took several weeks of dedicated effort) because The use of the SW Method proved to be a very critical group discussions often revealed that CRTF members had step. It demonstrated that changes were indeed needed, different assumptions. But the Pugh methodology required although many faculty members still viewed curriculum that discussion continue until consensus was reached. reform negatively. They regarded it as extra work with After consensus was reached regarding the weight of each no real benefit. By publicizing the faculty’s ideas about evaluation criterion, each proposed curriculum structure strengths and weaknesses, CRTF provided evidence against was assigned a score of 1 (poor), 3 (good), or 5 (excellent) these negative views. Everyone agreed that curriculum refor each of the 25 evaluation criteria based on how well form entails extra work, but the idea that there are no the structure satisfied the criterion. The existing struc- benefits to reforming the curriculum was challenged. ture was assigned a rank of 3 for all criteria to allow it to The development of the weighted criteria matrix was also serve as a baseline, and each of the proposed alternatives very important. The process not only helped to educate was evaluated independently in comparison with the exist- the CRTF about various proposals, but it allowed the task ing curriculum. At the conclusion of the ranking process, force to collectively recommend a hybrid proposal, thereby all four curriculum structures (the existing one, a CRTF demonstrating cooperation amongst faculty and adminisproposal, and two proposals generated independently by tration and increasing the level of faculty buy-in to curricufaculty members) had been ranked according to 25 sepa- lum reform. Further, the weighted criteria matrix (accomrate criteria. Finally, an overall performance score for each panied by clear rationale for assigning particular ranks to structure was computed by multiplying the weight and the each criterion) for the Kettering University Model, when rank for each of the 25 criteria and summing all correspond- presented to the Faculty Senate, provided concrete eviing values. dence regarding the benefits of the CRTF recommendation. The process of completing the weighted criteria matrix The CRTF never thought that change would be an easy allowed CRTF to learn about the proposed curriculum process, and they long realized that “changing the curricu0-7803-6424-4/00/$10.00 2000IEEE TA4-10
Session T4A TABLE II The Weighted Criteria Matrix. Evaluation Criteria Educational Criteria Facilitates deep learning Facilitates integration of material Facilitates co-op and academic integration Facilitates accountability Facilitates “just in time” delivery of subject matter Facilitates transition from high school to college Facilitates honors courses Facilitates remediation Facilitates bachelor’s-master’s degree in five years Facilitates alternative teaching and learning styles Facilitates maturation time for conducting thesis Institutional Criteria Simplifies course and faculty scheduling Requires acceptable degree of institutional change Is compatible with existing graduate programs Facilitates implementation Facilitates flexible time to completion Facilitates transfer credit in and out Marketing Criteria Is attractive to potential students Is attractive to future faculty Is attractive to potential/current corporate partners Is comparable with other colleges Promotes positive external perception Facilitates summer outreach programs Financial Criteria Creates the potential to reduce cost of production Is compatible with financial aid requirements Performance Score (total weight × rank)
lum is like moving a graveyard” [12].Curriculum reform efforts often fail, but they succeeded at Kettering University. Although the Kettering University Model (and the CRTF proposal for credit distribution that accompanied it) were controversial, most elements of these proposals were eventually accepted by the Faculty Senate. In a comparatively short time (18 months) the faculty moved from resistance to curriculum reform to acceptance of extensive changes. This transformation required a period of adjustment, much like other non-academic life-changing experiences. By paying careful attention to who makes decisions and how decisions were made, as well as to the content of the decisions, CRTF facilitated this adjustment process. Kettering University faculty, students, and administrators are currently undergoing another stage of this adjustment period as they face the expected and unexpected challenges of integrating curricular content in new, improved ways.
weight 55 50 50 50 45 40 40 35 35 30 25
[6]
[2] [3]
[4] [5]
Robert T. Blackburn and Janet H. Lawrence, Faculty at Work: Motivation, Expectation, Satisfaction, John Hopkins University Press, 1995. Jerry G. Gaff, New Life for the College Curriculum: Achievements and Furthering Progress in the Reform of General Education, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, California, 1991. Sandra L. Kanter, Zelda F. Gamson, and H. B. London, Revitalizing General Education in a Time of Scarcity: A Navigational Chart for Administrators and Faculty, Allyn and Bacon, Boston, Massachusetts, 1997. Joan S. Stark and Lisa R. Lattuca, Shaping the College Curriculum: Academic Plans in Action, Allyn and Bacon, Boston, Massachusetts, 1997. Christian N. Madu and Chu-Hua Kuei, Strategic Total Quality Management, Quorum Books, 1995.
0-7803-6424-4/00/$10.00 2000IEEE
Kettering University Model w×r rank 5 275 5 250 3 150 5 250 5 225 5 200 3 120 5 175 5 175 5 150 3 75
55 55 40 40 40 30
3 3 3 3 3 3
165 165 120 120 120 90
5 5 3 1 5 5
275 275 120 40 200 150
55 35 35 25 25 25
3 3 3 3 3 3
165 105 105 75 75 75
5 5 3 3 3 5
275 175 105 75 75 125
50 35 1000
3 3
150 105 3000
5 3
250 105 4290
Alan J. Rowe, Richard O. Mason, and Karl E. Dickel, Strategic Management: A Methodological Approach, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1986. [7] George A. Steiner, Strategic Planning: What Every Manager Must Know, The Free Press, 1979. [8] George A. Steiner and John B. Miner, Management Policy and Strategy, Macmillan Publishing Company, 1977. [9] Stuart Pugh, Total Design: Integrated Methods for Successful Product Engineering, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1991. [10] Karl T. Ulrich and Steven D. Eppinger, “Methodologies for product design and development”, pp. S1 – S19, 1993. [11] F. Becker and M. Joroff, “Weighted criteria matrix”, 1995, Also available at iwsp.human.cornell.edu/CREToolkit2.HTML. [12] D. N. Aspy, C. B. Aspy, and P. M. Quimby, “What doctors can teach teachers about problem based learning”, Educational Leadership, vol. 50, no. 7, pp. 22–24, 1993.
References [1]
Existing Structure rank w × r 3 165 3 150 3 150 3 150 3 135 3 120 3 120 3 105 3 105 3 90 3 75
TA4-11
