COMPARING PRIORITIES IN AN AMERICAN ACADEMIC DEPARTMENT
AND A RUSSIAN ACADEMIC DEPARTMENT
Stuart Umpleby
Department of Management
Science
The
George Washington
University
Washington, DC 20052 USA
Email:
umpleby@gwu.edu
Irina Naoumova
Department of Management
Kazan State University
Kazan, Russia
Email: nvi2000@mail.ru
January 31, 2004
Prepared for the
proceedings of the annual meeting of the
Alliance of Universities
for Democracy
Vilnius, Lithuania, October
2003
COMPARING PRIORITIES IN AN
AMERICAN ACADEMIC DEPARTMENT AND A RUSSIAN ACADEMIC DEPARTMENT
Stuart Umpleby
Department of Management
Science
The
George Washington
University
Washington, DC 20052 USA
Email:
umpleby@gwu.edu
Irina Naoumova
Department of Management
Kazan State University
Kazan, Russia
Email: nvi2000@mail.ru
This paper discusses two surveys using a Quality
Improvement Priority Matrix (QIPM). A QIPM is a method for identifying those
features of an organization or a product or service that are rated high on
importance but low on performance. The first survey collected responses from
faculty members in the Department of Management Science at The George Washington
University in Washington, DC, in May 2001. The second survey collected
responses from faculty members in the Department of Management at Kazan State
University in Kazan, Russia, in 2002. The study reveals and compares the
challenges being faced by faculty members in the two countries.
Russians rated higher on both importance and performance
the features concerned with incorporating department members in university and
college life, social and recreational activities and a supportive department
climate. More than American professors they believe it is important to
cooperate with other professors in the department, and with professors in other
departments in the university. Russians suggested adding to the list of
characteristics (for the next survey) such categories as creativeness and
initiative as the most important for quality improvement.
The individualistic
approach in America universities helps them to pay more attention to the needs
of each student, for example by offering a wide range of elective courses and
respecting the interests of individual professors and researchers. American
professors are supported with grants, research funds, travel money, etc. A high
level of research activity, publications and conference presentations
contributes to the quality of instruction. But American professors indicated
that they would like for their system to be more cooperative. Russians chose
the opposite direction more individualism in their system. Russians say they
need to give more respect to each individual’s interests and needs.
Background on the Research Method
A Quality Improvement Priority Matrix (QIPM) is
a useful method for achieving data-driven decision-making. Regular information
from employees and customers about the features of the organization that most
need improvement allows managers to focus attention and resources where they can
best contribute to improving employee and customer satisfaction. (Umpleby and
Melnychenko, 2002) The QIPM was developed as a means for arriving at priorities
for action rather than for doing comparative research. (Naoumova and Umpleby,
2002) However, we thought it would be informative to look at QIPM data from two
academic departments in two quite different countries, the United States and
Russia. The comparison reveals the challenges being faced by faculty members at
two universities, The George Washington University (GWU) and Kazan State
University (KSU). Faculty members at both universities are seeking to improve
their departments, but their priorities are somewhat different due to the
conditions at their universities.
At both GWU and KSU faculty members in the Department of
Management were given a list of features of the department. They were asked to
evaluate the importance and performance of each feature on a scale from 0 to
10. On the importance scale 0 means no importance at all and 10 means very high
importance. On the performance scale 0 means that the Department’s performance
was very poor whereas 10 means that the Department’s performance was very good.
Eighteen faculty members filled out the questionnaire at GWU. About the same
number of faculty members filled out the questionnaire at KSU. The scores for
each feature were averaged. For all the features the mean score on importance
at GWU is 7.85. At KSU the mean score for importance is 7.34. These high
numbers suggest that the features listed are considered important in both
departments. For all the features the mean score on performance at GWU is
5.21. At KSU the mean score for performance is 4.35. The lower performance
score at KSU than at GWU might mean that overall satisfaction at KSU is slightly
lower than at GWU.
The correlation between the
importance and performance scores at GWU was 0.353. The correlation between the
importance and performance scores at KSU was 0.387. The correlation between the
importance scores at GWU and KSU was 0.464. The correlation between the
performance scores at GWU and KSU was 0.124. A correlation of 1.0 would mean
that the two variables are perfectly correlated, for example, a feature rated
high on importance is also rated high on performance and a feature rated low on
importance is also rated low on performance. A correlation of 1.0 would mean
that the variables are inversely related. That is, a feature rated high on
importance is rated low on performance and a feature rated low on importance is
rated high on performance. The positive correlations between importance and
performance at both GWU and KSU indicate that importance is associated with
performance. This result implies that faculty members on both campuses feel
they are able to accomplish their goals. The fact that the importance variables
for the two departments have a higher correlation (0.464) than the performance
variables (0.124) means that there is fairly high agreement on what is important
but large differences in what each department does well. Indeed, there is
almost no correlation between the performance ratings in the two departments.
This result suggests that the two departments can learn from each other.
Rating Features of the
Two Universities
Figures 1 to 3 present
charts showing performance scores for the two departments. The features are
grouped into three categories support, office equipment, and activities. The
features are rank ordered by difference (GWU KSU). Hence, features where the
difference is greatest (GWU has a higher score than KSU) are at the top.
Features with negative differences (KSU has a higher score than GWU) are at the
bottom.
Figure 1 reveals that
faculty members at GWU feel their university performs well in providing travel
support, assistance with learning information technology (IT), and funds for
research. Faculty members at KSU say their university does well in providing a
working papers series, opportunities to meet local managers, and the library
collection.
Figures 2 shows that GWU
faculty members feel their university does well in providing classroom
projection equipment, websites, fax machines and copiers. Faculty members at
KSU feel their university does well in providing conference rooms and computer
labs.
Figures 3 shows that GWU is
thought to do well with faculty annual reports and course evaluations. KSU is
thought to do well on coordination with other departments, opportunities for
academic work with other faculty members, and the department’s strategic plan.
The three figures show that GWU is thought to do well with office equipment and
support while KSU does well in activities.
Conclusion
In addition to comparing data from two organizations,
comparisons can also be made between two time periods in one organization.
(Umpleby and Karapetyan, 2002) That is, two surveys done a year apart reveal
where progress was made in the intervening year and where further attention
needs to be focused.
Both universities are
constrained by financial resources. However, some needs are only procedural,
for example, more strategic planning and more meetings with local businessmen.
Although resources will always be less than desired, a quality improvement
priority matrix can help organizations allocate resources, including time and
attention, to the issues where improvement will contribute most to the
satisfaction of employees and customers. Faculty members at both universities
have found the QIPM to be a useful tool for identifying where attention can most
usefully be directed.
Acknowledgement
Saadia Khilji and Naveen
Hariprasad helped in processing data and preparing several complicated figures
in an earlier, longer report.
References
Naoumova, Irina and Stuart
Umpleby, “Two Methods Useful for Starting a Quality Improvement Program,” in
Russell J. Meyer and David Keplinger (eds.), Perspectives in Higher Education
Reform, Volume 11, Alliance of Universities for Democracy, Texas Review
Press, 2002, pp. 185-193.
Umpleby, Stuart and
Oleksandr Melnychenko, “Quality Improvement Matrix: A Tool to Improve Customer
Service in Academia,” in J.A. Edosomwan (ed.) Customer Satisfaction
Management Frontiers VI: Serving the 21st Century Customer,
Fairfax, VA: Quality University Press, 2002, pp. 6.1-6.12.
Umpleby, Stuart and Aram
Karapetyan, “How a Quality Improvement Priority Matrix Reveals Change in a
University Department,” in Russell J. Meyer and David Keplinger (eds.),
Perspectives in Higher Education Reform, Volume 12, Alliance of Universities
for Democracy, Texas Review Press, 2003, pp. 315-322.
Figure 1 Graph of Performance: Support
Figure 2 Graph of Performance: Office Equipment
Figure 3 Graph of Performance: Activities
Reprinted by permission of the author Stuart Umpleby
| 
