Application of Six Sigma Methodology in an Engineering Educational Institution

7/28/2019 Application of Six Sigma Methodology in an Engineering Educational Institution

1/16

Int. J. Emerg. Sci., 2(2), 222-237, June 2012ISSN: 2222-4254

IJES

222

Application of Six Sigma Methodology in an Engineering

Educational Institution

K.G. Durga Prasad, K.Venkata Subbaiah, G.Padmavathi

Department of Mechanical Engineering, Wellfare Institute of Science, Technology &Management,Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh, India.

Department of Mechanical Engineering , Andhra University, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh, India.

Department of Electronics & Communication Engineering, Govt. Polytechnic, Amudalavalasa,Andhra Pradesh, India.

[email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

Abstract. In this paper, six sigma five phase methodology i.e., DMAIC

(Define - Measure - Analyze - Improve - Control) is adopted to establish a

novel approach with a view to improve quality in an engineering educational

institution. Critical to Quality (CTQ) flow down is established and SIPOC

(Supplier - Input- Process- Output - Customer) chart is constructed in the

Define phase of the methodology. Process capability indices are calculated in

the Measure phase. In the Analyze phase, Fish bone diagram is established to

identify various causes and Pareto diagram is constructed to arrange the

problems in the order of importance. Failure mode effect analysis is carriedout in the in the Improvement phase to anticipate the possible types of

failures. In the Control phase, Control charts help to monitor the peopleinvolved in the processes of engineering education system. A case study is

presented in the paper to demonstrate the methodology.

Keywords: Six sigma, Process capability indices, Fish bone diagram, Pareto

diagram, Failure mode effect analysis.

1. INTRODUCTION

Engineering education has an ability to turn the earth in to a paradise. It plays a vitalrole in the social and economic development and well-being of the nation [1].Presently in India, private engineering educational institutions are mushrooming

without sustaining required level of quality. In the early years of 20 th century, Indiahad just six engineering colleges. The total number of institutions impartingengineering education at the degree level was only 44 in the year 1947 [2]. But inthe last two decades of the 20th century, there has been a dramatic increase in theestablishment of number of engineering colleges in the country. Currently in India,there are more than 2,300 engineering educational institutions and the intake ofstudents has gone above 8 lakhs. Comparatively more number of colleges

established in the southern India. The growth rate of engineering institutions in therecent past in India has been phenomenal and the problems associated with this

growth are also very high [3]. This phenomenal growth in engineering education


2/16

K.G.Durga Prasad, K.Venkata Subbaiah and G.Padmavathi

223

was mainly due to policy changes to allow participation of private and voluntaryorganizations in setting up of engineering educational institutions on self financing

basis. Generally private institutions in India are viewed with skepticism andcontempt. Only few institutions like the Birla Institute of Technology and Science,

Pilani, have been maintaining standards in engineering on par with the IITs [4].Since last two decades, rapid expansion of engineering educational institutions inIndia has resulted in deterioration in quality of technical manpower coming out

from these institutions on account of poor infrastructure, admission policy andabove all the examination system adopted by these institutions. Unfortunately,

higher percentage of student failures in the university examinations, fewer amountsof placement opportunities [5] and very less number of students motivated asentrepreneurs are the major defects in the engineering educational institutions.Engineering graduates are expected to be employable and ready for the work placewhen they complete their studies. It is generally expected that graduates should beequipped with a balance of technical knowledge in addition to the relevant softskills include communication skills, creative thinking skills, the ability to cope with

changing situations, inter-personal skills, problem solving skills and so on [6]. Infact, most of the new engineering colleges are not providing quality education tosatisfy the customers of the engineering education. Recently Purple Leap, anorganization specializing in entry level talent management conducted a survey onthe employability skills in engineering students in India, which reveals that only 7%

of students were found employable while the rest lacked in technical skills. Thesurvey further stated that 80% of the students do not meet the requirements on the

problem solving skills. Particularly the biggest skill gap in engineering students ofAndhra Pradesh is in the area of problem solving, with the average score of studentsbeing less than 25% against the national average of 35%. This is one of the biggestgaps leading to students not getting enough technical jobs in the industry. Thegrowing problem of unemployment and under employment leads to a variety ofsocio-economic problems and hampers individual development and nationaldevelopment. A poor and objectless education may turn counterproductive at times.To bail out the citizens from this evil and build a strong and prosperous India, it ishigh time policy makers and implementers planned towards total quality education[7]. Most of the technical man power in industries will be drawn from variousengineering educational institutions in the country. The engineers coming out of thecolleges have to be of very high quality. The process of enhancement and sustaining

quality in engineering education requires continuous review and sustained efforts inthat direction. Therefore, there is a greater need to impart high quality engineeringeducation to produce technically skilled and creative man power in India.

It may be difficult to define quality engineering education, but one can describe

its results in terms of ability to satisfy the current and future needs of industry,mobility, and lifelong commitment to learning. A balance has to exist between

ignoring the demands of industry and society and catering to these demandsindiscriminately without considering the consequences [8]. According toU.S.National Science Foundation (NSF) task force, quality engineering education isthe development of intellectual skills and knowledge that will equip graduates tocontribute to society through productive and satisfying engineering careers as


3/16

International Journal of Emerging Sciences, 2(2), 210-221, June 2012

224

innovators, decision-makers and leaders in the global economy of the twenty-firstcentury [9]. Service sectors, particularly in the case of educational institutions, the

nature of the product, definition of customers, measurements of quality andemployee reward systems are significantly different from those of manufacturing.

While addressing quality issues in the service sector like education, the customerfocus should be emphasized. Quality begins with understanding the customer needsand ends when those needs are satisfied. The needs and expectations of the

customer become the focal point when the engineering education being transferredin to a customer service industry. Engineering education has a number of

complementary and contradictory customers. However, students serve a vital role asone of the many customers of higher education. Student can be treated as customer,product and raw material under different perspective. The customer is the person orgroup who receives the work output. That work output may be a product or service.The students in the classroom serve as the immediate internal customer of thelectures and discussions. In turn, the student then gains from a number of differentexperiences and becomes a product of the system. It is very difficult, if not

impossible to identify the point at which the student transforms from the rawmaterial to the customer and then to the product, and back to the raw material, andso on [10]. The student-centered view allows treating the students as customerswhen they are recipients of services provided by the educational institutions [11].Ahmad Ibrahim [12] described that when the engineering education is modeled as

manufacturing process, students (graduates) are viewed as products. According toEfthimia Staiou [13] in the context of an analogy with a manufacturing

organization, higher education institutions produce graduates. Students movethrough the various courses required for a degree, as raw material flows through thesuccessive stages of a manufacturing process. When they graduate, graduatescompete for jobs just as products compete for a market share. Thus, graduates maybe interpreted as the finished product and that industry future employers are thecustomers of higher educational institutions.

In this paper the students who are entered in to an engineering educationalinstitution are considered as raw materials which may be converted in to finalproducts called engineering graduates to meet the customer (industry) expectations.In order to produce quality graduates, it is required to identify key processesinvolved in the education system and then a quality approach is needed to improvethe capability of the processes so as to obtain total customer satisfaction. To ensure

quality in engineering education, the major processes involved in the educationsystem such as teaching, learning and evaluation need to be completely overhauled.To make these processes capable to satisfy the end users, a quality approach isneeded. Six - sigma is a quality management strategy, which can be used to achieve

the goal of engineering education. It provides a scientific and statistical basis forquality assessment for all processes through measurement of quality level. The

purpose of this paper is to demonstrate the application of six sigma methodology inengineering educational institution with a view to enhance quality in education.


4/16


225

2. CONCEPT OF SIX SIGMA

Six sigma can be viewed as a metric, a mindset, and a methodology [14]. It is anew, emerging, approach to quality assurance and quality management withemphasis on continuous quality improvements. The main goal of this approach isreaching level of quality and reliability that will satisfy and even exceed demandsand expectations of todays demanding customer[15]. The Six sigma concept wasoriginated in the 1980s at Motorola and its philosophy has found widespreadapplication in many manufacturing industries [16]. Six sigma is a well structured,

data driven methodology for eliminating defects, waste or quality control problemsof all kinds in manufacturing, service delivery, management and other business

activities. It is a systematic methodology for continuous process of qualityimprovement and continuous process of achieving operational excellence [17].Masoud Hekmatpanah et al. [18] concluded that six sigma is an approach to upgradethe organizations performance, improving quality and productivity. The basic goalof six sigma approach is to reduce variation within the tolerance or specificationlimits of a service performance characteristic [19]. The proper implementation ofsix sigma will improve customer satisfaction. Six sigma offering a means formeasuring improvement [20].

The name Six Sigma refers to the capability of the process to deliver unitswithin the set limits. The Greek letter or sigma, corresponding to ours, is anotation of variation in the sense of standard deviation. Standard deviation measuresthe variation or amount of spread about the process average. According to the Six

Sigma approach, for a stable process the distance from the process mean to thenearest tolerance limit should be at least six times the standard deviation of theprocess output [21]. To achieve six sigma quality, a process must produce not morethan 3.4 defects per million opportunities if the output is normally distributed. A

defect can be any type of product or service that does not conform to a standardinspection unit or satisfy the customer. In addition a defect can be an error in aproduct or service. The term opportunity is defined as a chance fornonconformance, or not meeting the required specifications.

Six sigma was focused initially in the manufacturing industry. Particularly

from the year 1995, an exponentially growing number of prestigious global firmshave launched a Six Sigma program. It has been noted that many globally leading

companies run Six Sigma programs , and it has been well known that Motorola, GE,

Allied Signal, IBM, DEC, Texas Instruments, Sony, Kodak, Nokia, and PhilipsElectronics among others have been quite successful in six sigma. In Korea, theSamsung, LG, Hyundai groups and Korea Heavy Industries & ConstructionCompany have been quite successful [22]. Due to the overwhelming success of six

sigma application, many customer-oriented service industries are now beginning toimplement six sigma to improve service quality. The degree of goodness or badness

of a service is called service quality. Service quality is now gaining strategicimportance in winning businesses and running organizations. To maintain and raiseservice standards is now an on-going activity in every organization. Jiju Antony[23] addressed various issues on the part of implementation of six sigma in service


5/16


226

industries. He mentioned that in the manufacturing industries, the measurementsystem analysis (repeatability and reproducibility study) is explicitly defined,

whereas in service industries, the measurement system analysis is often a moregeneral problem of data quality and integrity. He also stated that service processes

are subjected to more noise or uncontrollable factors compared to manufacturingprocesses. Human behavioral characteristics, such as friendliness, eagerness to help,honesty, etc. are thought to have major influence on service processes which

determine the quality of service provided to customers.

3. SIX SIGMA METHODOLOGY

Six sigma is a process improvement methodology which includes different phaseslogically linked with one another. Six sigma methodology is generally described bythe acronym DMAIC (Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve and Control) is used forcontinuous improvement of already existing products or processes [24]. One of theimportant aspects of six sigma is the involvement, training and reward of employees

at all levels of the organization. Champions at the executive levels guide theselection of projects, securing ofresources and goal setting for improvement efforts.Employees are given martial arts titles such as Master black belt, Black belt , Greenbelt, etc., reflecting their training and status in project improvement efforts [25].Prior to implement six sigma methodology in any organization, it is necessary to

establish six sigma team structure to accomplish all the phases of the methodology.

The each phase of the methodology is discussed in the following paragraphs.

3.1 Define phase

In the define phase, the goals of the improvement activity are clearly defined. Theparameters which greatly influence the goals of the enterprise in respect to quality

are called critical to quality (CTQ) parameters. In the process of defining, the goalsCTQ are identified through Voice of Customer (VOC). VOC is collected byconducting brain storming sessions among the customers. Project Charter, CTQflow down and Process mapping are the important tools used in this phase. Projectcharter is a document stating the purposes of the project. It contains the elements

such as business case, problem statement and goal statement. Business caseindicates the purpose of the project in which the goals and objectives areestablished. The next element is the problem statement which clearly expresses theproblem to execute. After establishing the problem statement the six sigma team hasto decide the target values by thoroughly observing the past data. These values arementioned in a statement called Goal statement. Process mapping is the key step inunderstanding the processes involved in an enterprise. The process map (SIPOCchart) starts with supplying raw materials and ends with the benefits received by thecustomer.


6/16


227

3.2 Measure phase

In this phase past data pertaining to CTQ s is collected. The baseline statistics suchas sample mean (), standard deviation () and process capability indices Cp andthe Cpk for each CTQ are calculated. The mean is the simple average of theobservations in a data set. The Sample mean is determined by adding allobservations in a sample and dividing the number of observations in that sample.

Standard deviation measures the variability of the observations around the mean. Itis equal to the positive square root of variance. The variance also measures thefluctuations of the observation around the mean. The larger is the value, the greateris the fluctuation. The process capability index is an easily understood aggregatemeasure of the goodness of process performance.

3.3 Analyze phase

In this phase critical analysis is carried out with the help of certain tools such asFishbone diagram (Cause and Effect diagram) and Pareto diagram. Fishbone

diagrams are used to identify and systematically list the different root causes thatcan be attributed to a problem. Thus, these diagrams help to determine which ofseveral causes has the greatest effect. The main application of these diagrams is thedispersion analysis. In dispersion analysis, each major cause is thoroughly analyzedby investigating the sub causes and their impact on quality characteristics. TheFishbone diagram helps to analyze the reasons for any variability or dispersion.Pareto diagram is useful to reduce the many causes to vital few. The Pareto diagramhelps the management to quickly identify the critical areas (those causing most ofthe problems) that deserve immediate attention.

3.4 Improvement phase

Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (FMEA) is carried out in this phase to identify thepossible types of failures. The objective of conducting FMEA is to anticipate allpossible types of failures that could occur. The FMEA tabular form includesparameters such as mode of failure, effects of failure and its severity rating (S),possible causes of failure and their intensity of occurrence (O), current prevention

methods, detection column (D), Risk Priority Number (R), recommended actionsand Responsible persons.The severity column has an entry designating the severityof the effect for the failure mode, that is, the seriousness of the impact of theparticular failure. The occurrence column has an entry designating the likelihoodthat is the failure will occur. The detection column has an entry designating thelikelihood that the detection method is accurately detect the failure. Based on thedata observations the team has to decide the entries in the above mentioned columnsin the FMEA tabular form by adopting a suitable scale. The Risk Priority Numberaids in prioritizing the failure mode with the higher number designating highest


7/16


228

priority. The Risk Priority Number is calculated by multiplying the values in thecolumns of severity rating, intensity of occurrence and detection.

3.5 Control phase

The control phase aims to institutionalize the improvement results from six sigmathrough documentation and standardization of the new procedures. It includes thesetting up of monitoring and process control systems [26]. Control charts are used tomonitor the system performance. In the control phase control charts are prepared in

respect of CTQs to sustain the quality improvement.

4. CASE STUDY

A case study has been under taken in a reputed engineering educational institutionof Southern India. The institution offers B.E. degree course in six core engineeringbranches. It is functioning under appropriate administrative structure. In order to

enhance the academic standards and credibility of the institution, the authorities ofthe institution came forward to adopt six sigma approach. The methodologydiscussed in the section 3 is carried out in this study. The six sigma team shown intable 1 has decided the target values by thoroughly observing the past data. Theteam has prepared the project charter shown in table 2.

Table 1. Six sigma team structure in engineering educational institution

Table 2. Project Charter

The SIPOC chart pertaining to the present study shown in figure 1 is preparedby critically observing the suppliers, input, various processes, output and customerfor attaining quality engineering education. The SIPOC chart for this study is shownin Figure 1.

Champion Principal

Master black belt Dean / Director

Black belt HOD

Green belt Faculty members

Team members Students

Voice of customer Customer requirement CTQ

Good education Excellent faculty, good infrastructure

facilities, good result

% SSHS, % SSCR and

% SME


8/16


229

Figure.1. SIPOC Chart

The baseline statistics such as sample mean ( ), standard deviation ( ) and

process capability indices pC and the pkC for each CTQ are calculated for the data

pertaining to past 20 years shown in table 4 and the values of the statistics are

tabulated in the table 5.Table 4. Data pertaining to CTQs

With reference to the present study in view of attaining quality engineeringeducation, the CTQs are identified and are tabulated in the Table 3.

Table 3. CTQ Flow down

The Fishbone diagram shown in Figure 2 is constructed by considering men,

material, machines, methods, measurement and environment with reference to

engineering educational institution.

Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

% SSHS 37.63 38.11 32.82 31.89 26.60 32.74 35.30 27.97 23.12 35.36

% SSCR 36.50 25.58 26.06 32.96 27.56 35.12 42.54 38.93 48.76 37.69

% SME 0.857 0.885 0.982 0.889 1.083 0.513 0.800 1.257 0.859 0.713

Year 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

% SSHS 29.19 32.23 32.97 36.44 34.10 35.99 30.42 36.78 41.11 38.58

% SSCR 42.37 43.48 30.48 40.17 26.53 30.87 41.85 25.45 28.49 38.80

% SME 0.991 1.098 1.203 0.724 1.215 0.739 0.951 0.899 1.573 1.773

S.No. CTQ Mean ( ) STD ( ) CP Cpk

1 % of SSHS 33.46 4.49 0.53 0.48

2 % of SSCR 35.01 7.18 0.31 0.24

3 % of SME 1.004 0.30 1.27 1.20

TeachingLearning

Counseling

Evaluation

Intermediatecolleges

Diploma

colleges

CBSE, ICSE

colleges

Studentsadmitted in

Engineering

colleges

GraduateEngineers Society,Industry,

Higher

Educational

Institutions


9/16


230

Figure.2. Fishbone diagram

Table 5. Baseline statistics

BUISINESS

CASE

Quality Engineering Education is very useful to student community

and institution. Maintaining the standards in the educationalinstitutions will be beneficial to student as well as institution. Higher

percentage of students qualified for higher education, higher

percentage of students got selected in campus selections and higher

percentage of students motivated as entrepreneurs will improve

reputation of the organization.

S. No. CTQ Type

1 Percentage of Students Selected for HigherStudies ( SSHS )

Benefit

2 Percentage of Students Selected in Campus

Recruitment ( SSCR )Benefit

3 Percentage of Students Motivated as

Entrepreneurs (SME)Benefit

PROBLEM

STATEMENT

In the present study, % of SSHS, % of SSCR, % of SME are 33.46,

35.01 and 1.00 respectively. These values are to be enhanced.

GOAL

STATEMENT

To improve the percentage of SSHS by 10% To improve the percentage of SSCR by 10% To improve the percentage of SME by 5%

The causes shown in Figure 2 are grouped as quality characteristics which areshown in Table 6.

Table 6. Quality characteristics

S. No. Quality Characteristics

1 Motivated Faculty (MF)


10/16


231

2 Modern Communication Facilities (MCF)

3 Industry Institution Interaction (I I I)

4 Campus Recruitment Training (CRT)

5 Better Course Plan and Curriculum (BCPC)

6 Library Modernization (LM)

7 Well discipline (WD)

8 Opportunity for Knowledge Upgradation (OKU)

Pareto diagram is constructed by considering quality characteristics and their

priority ratings. Pair-wise comparison matrix shown in table 7 is prepared and

Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) methodology [27] is employed to obtain the

priority structure of quality characteristics. The table 8 shows the priority ratings of

the quality characteristics.

Table 7. Pair-wise comparison matrix of quality characteristics

Table 8. Priority structure of quality characteristics

Quality

CharacteristicMF I I I OKU LM MCF BCPC WD CRT

Priority 0.3183 0.1865 0.1565 0.1017 0.1017 0.0396 0.0365 0.0309

Pareto diagram is constructed to identify the critical areas (those causing most

of the problems) that deserve immediate attention. The quality characteristics and

their priority values are taken on horizontal axis and percentage of occurrence is

taken on vertical axis. The Pareto diagram is shown in figure 3.

MF MCF I I I CRT BCPC LM WD OKU

MF 1 4 2 8 2 4 9 6

MCF 0.25 1 0.50 4 0.50 1 6 2

I I I 0.50 2 1 6 1 2 8 4

CRT 0.125 0.25 0.167 1 0.167 0.25 2 0.50

BCPC 0.50 2 1 6 1 2 8 4

LM 0.25 1 0.50 4 0.50 1 6 2

WD 0.111 0.167 0.125 0.50 0.125 0.167 1 0.25

OKU 0.167 0.50 0.25 2 0.25 0.50 4 1


11/16


232

Count

Percent

causesCount 0.0397

Percent 31.5 18.4 15.5 10.1 10.1 3.9 3.6 3.1

0.3183

3.9

Cum % 31.5 49.9 65.4 75.4 85.5 89.4 93.0 96.1

0.1865

100.0

0.1565 0.1017 0.1017 0.0396 0.0365 0.0309OtherVTAPFBCPCMCFLMOKUIIIMF

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

100

80

60

40

20

0

Pareto Chart of causes

Figure. 3. Pareto diagram

In the present study 1 to 10 scale is considered to establish FMEA tabular form.

The FMEA for Teaching and Learning processes are depicted in the tables 9 and 10.

Table 9. Failure Mode Effect Analysis for teaching process

Mode

of failure

Effect of

failure

S Causes of

failure

O Controls D R Recommend

ed action

Responsibili

ty

Morefailures in

examsand

Lack ofconcept inthe student

Reduction inpass % of

students andMismatchin

g betweenthe needs ofindustry andstudent

skills

6 salariesreceived not

as per norms

Unqualifiedfaculty

No proper

teaching

methodology

Lack ofinterest

No time

management

Lack of

upgradation

ofCurriculum

4

3

5

4

3

4

Periodicalinspection

by thebodies

like AICTE

Periodicalmonitoring

by the Head

of theinstitution

Constantfeedback

Data on

the % ofemployedengineers

3

2

1

3

72

54

60

24

18

72

Issuingsalaries as per

norms

Providingpropermethodology

Periodical

supervision ofthe head ofthe institution

Implementmotivating

measures

Providingnecessary

facilities for

faculty

Preparingcurriculum byinteraction

Managementand

Curriculumdesigners


12/16


233

withindustrialists

and socialists

Appointingqualified

faculty

For the severity column 1 to 10 scale represents nil effect to most severe effect.For the occurrence column, 1 represents very remote and 10 represents very high(10) and for the detection column, 1 represents almost certain (1) to detection willnot occur (10) is considered. The Risk Priority Number aids in prioritizing thefailure mode with the higher number designating highest priority. The Risk Priority

Number (R) is calculated for each cause.

Table 10. Failure Mode Effect Analysis for learning process

Mode of

failure

Effect of

failureS

Causes of

failureO Controls D R

Recommen

ded action

Responsibilit

y

Morefailures in

examsandLack ofconcept in

student

Reductionin pass %

of studentsandmismatchbetween

society &industryneeds andstudentskills

6 Lack ofinterest

Ineffectiveteaching

Lack of upgradation ofCurriculum

Absenteeism

Environment

Health andhygiene

Language

barrier

Evaluationprocedure

Infrastructure facilities

4

3

3

7

5

3

4

1

3

Internalassessment

Feedback fromstudents

Data on the %of employedengineers

Attendance

particulars

Health camps

Feedback from

teacher

Revaluation

and recounting

Inspection bythe committees

like AICTE

2

2

3

2

2

3

7

4

48

36

54

84

60

36

72

42

72

Counselingfor students

Facultydevelopmentprogrammes

Creating anopportunityforKnowledge

upgradation

Periodicalmeetings

with parentscommittee

Conducting

personalitydevelopment

classes

Examination

systemshould besound

Providingfacilities as

per norms

Teaching

Fraternity,

Authorities oftheinstitutions

andCurriculumdesigners


13/16


234

The FMEA prioritizes the possible failure modes and recommended action forcontinuous improvement. The tables 9 and 10 indicate the possible potential causes

of failures such as salaries received not as per norms, lack of up gradation of

curriculum,absenteeism, language barrier and infrastructure facilities. These causes

of failure require more attention by the teaching fraternity, management and

curriculum designers. From the Pareto diagram, five quality characteristics are

identified, which are responsible for 80% of the effect (% of failure of students). It

is essentially required to improve the quality characteristics such as Motivated

Faculty, Modern Communicational Facilities, Industrial- Institution Interaction, and

Opportunity for Knowledge Upgradation and Library Modernization for achieving

six-sigma quality in the engineering educational institution. Control charts help tomonitor the processes in the system to attain the goal of implementing six sigma

methodology. To improve the quality characteristics pertaining to engineering

education, it is required to concentrate the following factors towards the

achievement of quality education in the observed institution.

4.1 Motivated Faculty

The important attributes that motivate the faculty may be work time flexibility,

transparency in administration, mutual trust and belief, giving salaries as per norms,

providing the facilities such as individual computer, access to internet, telephoneand fax facilities, health-care facilities, staff quarters, recreational facilities etc., and

encouraging the faculty by giving awards and rewards for their efforts. These

factors may motivate the faculty to strive for excellence.

4.2 Modern Communication Facilities

Engineering educational institution requires the modern facilities in the field of

communication, such as LAN, access to internet, connection of regional libraries by

WAN, language labs, E-mail and Fax facilities. These facilities help the students

and faculty for solving complex mathematical models and for obtaining latestinformation on advanced technology.

4.3 Industry- Institution Interaction

The level of interaction of the institution with industry has to be enhanced. In order

to provide practical orientation in teaching, the institution is required to interact

with the industries on regular basis and carry out consultancy works, project works

and seminars. It may be advised to involve the industrialists in the curriculum


14/16


235

design to incorporate the abilities in the students to meet the expectations of theindustry.

4.4 Opportunity for Knowledge Upgradation

It is necessary to improve the opportunities for upgrading the knowledge of the

students and faculty. Implementation of Quality Improvement Programs (QIP),

Mutual exchange (industry- institution) programs, conducting science exhibitions,

arranging guest lectures by eminent personalities, sending the students and faculty

to various technical conferences and workshops are necessary to create the

environment of knowledge up gradation.

4.5 Library Modernization

In the present technological environment, library has to be modernized. The

modernized library called Digital Library which increases the satisfaction of the

users i.e., students and faculty for obtaining the quick, correct and abundant current

information on the relevant fields of engineering.

5. CONCLUSION

Six sigma is a powerful tool to achieve customer satisfaction by improving the

processes in any system, which may be production or service sector. The present

study demonstrates the novel application of six sigma approach for improving the

quality in an Engineering Educational institution by eliminating the failure causes.

The six sigma approach proposed in the paper assures quality in education, desired

placements in reputed companies, opportunity of higher studies, developing

prospective entrepreneurs and higher percentage of pass outs. To implement six

sigma methodology in engineering education, the first and the foremost requirement

is the quality consciousness mind in the management of the institutions and the

unconditional commitment and constant effort by every participant in the education

system are essentially required.

REFERENCES

1. Raj Kumar, R.V, Engineering Education in India - Quality concerns and Remedial

Measures, The Indian Journal of Technical Education 2007; 30(3):73-90.


15/16


236

2. Ramachandran, H and Anil Kumar, Engineering education in India, Productivity 2003;44(2): 187-194.

3. Viswanadhan, K.G, Quality problems of engineering education programmes in India,

International Journal of Management in Education 2009; 3(1):40-55.

4. Naresh Kumar, G, Role for private universities in developing higher education in India,

Current Science 2008; 95(8):1003.

5. Pal Pandi, A and Surya Rao. U, Quality Assurance in a Technical Education in India,

International Journal of Quality and Productivity Management 2006; 6(10):40-48.

6. Rosetta Ziegler, Student perceptions of soft skills in Mechanical engineering ,

Proceedings of the International Conference on Engineering Education, Coimbra,

Portugal.

7. Mariappan. V, Total Quality Education: A Model for India, Productivity 2002; 42(4):597-604.

8. Somenath Chakraborty, Quality Assurance in Engineering Education, Journal of The

Institution of Engineers (India) 2007; 88: 3-6.

9. Natarajan.R , The Role of Accreditation in Promoting Quality Assurance of Technical

Education, International Journal of Engineering Education 2000;16(2):85-96

10. Robert F. Cox, Addressing the Paradox of Implementing Total Quality Management in

Construction Education, Proceedings of theCIB W89 Beijing International Conference,

Beijing, 1996.

11.Mahapatra S.S, Quality Function Deployment in an Educational Institution,

Productivity 2002; 43(3):418- 425

12.Ahmad Ibrahim, Current Issues in Engineering Education Quality, Global Journal ofEngineering Education 1999;3(3):301-305

13. Efthimia Staiou , Total Quality Management in Engineering Education, Proceedings of

the 3rd

WSEAS/IASME International Conference on Engineering Education,

Vouliagmeni, Greece, 2006.

14. Goffnett, S.P. (2004), Understanding Six Sigma: Implications for Industry and

Education, Journal of Industrial Technology 2004; 20(4):1-10

15. Sokovic. M, Pavletic. D and Krulcic.E (2006), Six Sigma process improvements in

automotive parts production, Journal of Achievements in Materials and Manufacturing

Engineering 2006; 19(1): 96-102

16. Maha Mohammed Yusr, Abdul Rahim Othman, Sany Sanuri M. Mokhtar. (2011). "Six Sigma andInnovation Performance: A Conceptual Framework Based on the Absorptive Capacity Theory

Perspective", Int. j. emerg. sci. 1(3):307-323

17.Prima Ditahardiyani , Ratnayani , M. Angwar, The Quality Improvement of Primer

Packing process using Six sigma methodology, Jurnal Teknik Industri 2008; 10(2): 177-

184.

18.Masoud Hekmatpanah, Mohammad Sadroddin, Saeid Shahbaz, Farhad Mokhtari,Farahnaz Fadavinia , Six Sigma Process and its Impact on the Organizational

Productivity, Proceedings ofWorld Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology

2008; 33, : 375-379

19.Jiju Antony, Six Sigma for service processes, Business Process Management Journal

2006; 12(2): 234-248


16/16


237

20.Mohammad Aazadnia and Mehdi Fasanghari , Improving the Information TechnologyService Management with Six Sigma, International Journal of Computer Science and

Network Security 2008; 8(3):144-150

21. Bengt Klefsjo. B, Bergquist, B and Edgeman, R.L, Six sigma and Total Quality

Management: different day, same soup?, International Journal of Six sigma and

Competitive Advantage 2006; 2(2): 162-178.

22. Sung H. Park, Six Sigma for Quality and Productivity Promotion 2003, Asian

Productivity Organization, Tokyo, Japan

23. Jiju Antony, Six Sigma in the UK service organizations: results from pilot survey,

Managerial Auditing Journal 2004; 19(8):1006-1013

24.Yousef Amer, Lee Luong, Sang - Heon Lee and M.Azeem Ashraf , Optimizing order

fulfillment using design for six sigma and fuzzy logic, International Journal ofManagement Science and Engineering Management 2008; 3(2): 83-99

25.Monica C. Holmes, Anil Kumar and Lawrence O. Jenicke , Improving the Effectiveness

of the Academic Delivery Process Utilizing Six Sigma, Issues in Information Systems

2005; 6(1):353-359

26.Nonthaleerak, P and Hendry.L, Exploring the six sigma phenomenon using multiple

case study evidence, International Journal of Operations &Production Management

2008; 28(3):279-303

27. Venkata Subbaiah, K., Durga Prasad, K.G., Uma Bharathi, M and Somasekhara Rao, K,

Integrating Factor analysis Analytic Hierarchy Process for Library service quality,

International Journal for Quality Research 2011; 5(3):205-212.

Application of Six Sigma Methodology in an Engineering Educational Institution

Documents

Transcript of Application of Six Sigma Methodology in an Engineering Educational Institution