ME F443: Quality Control Assurance and Reliability

QUALITY CIRCLE
ASSIGNMENT
How to Improve Quality of Teaching
In Mechanical Engineering
Department

Prepared by
Shanker R

2011A4PS322P

Divyanshu Jain

2011A4PS238P

Abhiram Patankar

2011B3A4493P

INTRODUCTION
Quality Circle is a voluntary, informal group of people who work on
similar tasks or share an area of responsibility and try to improve the
quality of work life & environment. These are related especially to the
quality of output or services in order to improve the performance of the
organization / department and motivate and enrich the work of employees.
This group carries on continuously as a part of organization-wide control
activities, self and mutual developments and control and improvement
within the workplace utilizing quality control techniques with all the
members participating. Generally six to twelve volunteers from the same
work area make up a circle. The members receive training in problem
solving, statistical quality control and group processes. Quality Circle
generally recommends solutions for quality and services which may be
implemented by the management. Thus Quality Circle is not merely a
suggestion system or a quality control group but extends beyond that
because its activities are more comprehensive.

HISTORY OF QUALITY CIRCLES

Quality circles were thus conceived in Japan by 1961 under the
leadership of Dr. Kaoru Ishikawa, then an engineering Professor in Japanese
prestigious Tokyo University. Dr. Ishikawa was earlier concentrating on
Book Reading Circles helping the workers to get theoretical knowledge
about quality control. He under the sponsorship of the Japanese Union of
Scientists and Engineers (JUSE) structured the theories of behavioral
scientists such as Maslow, Herzberg, Mc.Greger, to the quality science
introduced by Dr. Deming and Dr. Juran. Thus the first quality circle was
registered with JUSE during May 1962. By June, 1962, there were three
circles registered with the JUSE. That of August 1969 there were 24,000

quality circles registered with the membership of 2,80,000 and the number
was increasing by 700 to 1000 each month, By mid-1972, the Japanese
estimated that the total quality circles had reached 5,00,000 with a
membership of about 5 million.
It has been seen now that the concept of quality control circles was
evolved and adopted in Japan as a result of compulsion of circumstances
prevailing at the time. Much of the success of the Japanese industry today
can be ascribed to their adopting of the quality circle concept in a big way
through the efforts of the JUSE. To quote one single instance of the
miraculous story of the Japanese industry, in 1960, Japan was unable to sell
a single car abroad, but by 1974, they were exporting 2.5 million cars a year
and by 1979 that figure had doubled.
Simultaneously, awareness of the impact of quality circles in
improving the total performance of any organization has been growing in
the rest of the world too. Countries which are close to Japan like Taiwan and
Korea were the first to follow the Japanese example in practicing this
philosophy and reaping rich benefits. Quality circles soon spread in many
other countries such as Norway, Sweden, Brazil, Canada, France, U.K.,
Singapore, Korea, Taiwan, Malaysia, Argentina and Holland. Of late, a
number of countries the world over were showing keen interest in this
philosophy, and it was seen that there was a participation of delegates from
USSR and China at the International Convention on Quality Control Circles
in Tokyo, 1985.

QUALITY CIRCLES IN INDIA

Quality circle activity was brought to India by the Bharat Heavy
Electricals Ltd. (BHEL)

- Ramachandrapuram unit in Hyderabad. QC was

started in its plant with five circles, in 1981. Now, this movement in BHEL
has grown to 1,629 circles as of 30 June 1990, spread over its plants at
Bhopal, Hyderabad, Hardwar, Tiruchi, and Bangalore. It is estimated that
about 370 companies, almost equally divided between public and private
enterprises, are practicing QC movement.
Presently, at national level quality circles in India have gradually spread to
chemical, pharmaceutical and other 74 processing plants including even the
more traditional jute and textile industries. Typical examples of companies
are BASF, Hindustan Antibiotics, Durgapur Steel Plant, Crompton Greaves,
JK Jute Mills, National Textile Corporation, Shriram Fibers, etc. There are
several other companies successfully operating QCs in India both in the
public and private sectors. Air India, Indian airlines, Apollo Hospitals in
Chennai, State Road Transport Corporations of Andhra Pradesh and Kerala,
South Eastern Railways, Bank of Baroda, State Bank of India, etc. are some
of the service sector organizations joining the fraternity of quality circles
implementing organizations in India. Quality Circles in India have also been
reported from certain families and rural area projects.

Growth of quality circle in India

Quality Circle Forum of India (QCFI) is recognized as the institution

representing The Quality Circle Movement in India and has represented the
country in several international forums. On 31st December 1982 the Quality
Circle Forum of India was registered as a non-profit and non-political
organization. The organization has successfully implemented Quality
concepts under the TQM umbrella across several industry verticals that
have experienced a phenomenal enhancement of their work processes and
productivity after implementation of Quality concept tools.

IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF EDUCATION IN

MECHANICAL DEPARTMENT
Our basic approach for addressing the issue at hand involved the
following steps.
1. Defining a set of parameters for defining the quality of education in
the mechanical engineering department in BITS Pilani
2. Identifying a set of problems associated
3. Classification of selected problems
4. Selection of a few important problems
5. Defining and analyzing the selected problems (Using fishbone
diagrams and Pareto charts)
6. Proposing solutions to the selected problems

STRUCTURE OF THE TEAM

The structure of a quality circle can be divided into four classes
1. Executive Committee
It consists of members from the top management who are involved
with the top level decision making body of the organization.

2. Facilitator
Facilitator acts as the mediator between the quality circle members
and the top management. The facilitator takes direction from the
executive committee and co-ordinates the activities of the circle
meetings.
3. Leader
4. Members
For implementing the quality circle in BITS Pilani, the executive
committee could include the administrative authorities of BITS. The role
of facilitator could be played by one of the faculties in the Mechanical
Engineering Department. The members of the quality circle are the
students in the department and one of them is selected by the group as
the leader.

PARAMETERS FOR QUALITY OF TEACHING

The following parameters were considered for defining the quality of
education in the department.
1. Student-faculty interaction
This is a measure of how good the communication is between the
students and the faculty members
2. Qualification and experience of faculty
3. Curriculum design
This evaluates how up to date and relevant the curriculum is with
respect to the current scenario
4. Evaluation process
This is a measure of how good the evaluation system is in the
department. This includes factors like uniformity of components, focus
on understanding etc.
5. Practical component
This is a measure of the emphasis given on practical application of the
theoretical knowledge gained in the subjects. This includes lab
components, workshop projects etc.

6. Quality of research
This is defined by the standard of research activities, number of
publications, patents etc.
7. Infrastructure
This includes the condition of labs, workshop and the quality of the
equipment present
8. Industrial exposure
This involves the amount of industrial exposure received by the
students.

It

can

be

measured

by

industrial

visits,

internship

opportunities, and industrial projects being carried out by students

9. Research exposure
This includes the knowledge and involvement of the students in the
research activities being carried out in the department.
10.
Flexibility to students
The flexibility given to the students to pursue their interests

IDENTIFICATION OF PROBLEMS
After identifying the parameters which define the quality of education,
the next step was to evaluate the department based on these parameters
and identify some of the problems associated with it. The members of the
quality circle had a brainstorming session regarding this and identified a list
of ten problems. They are as follows.
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
vii.
viii.
ix.
x.

Out of date labs and workshop

Lack of industrial exposure apart from PS program
Non-visibility of research in the department
Minimal publications by students
Old curriculum, new avenues of research missed out
Non-uniformity in evaluation components
Less practical components, lack of good project work
Clash in important electives, many electives are not offered
Poor implementation of feedback by institute and students
Communication gap between students and faculty

The next step involved the classification of these problems, selecting a

few important ones to address and detailed analysis of the selected
problems.

STRATIFICATION OF IDENTIFIED PROBLEMS

We classified the selected problems into three sections based on who
should be responsible for analyzing them and implementing the solutions.
The three sections are as follows.

Solution lies with students:

Some of the problems can be identified and addressed by the
students and can be solved with the help of some good initiative from
their part. Some of the problems which fall into this category are
Research visibility, Good publications, Project work, Communication
gap with faculty and proper use of feedback system to address their

concerns.
Solution lies with department:
Solution of some of the problems lies in the hands of the
Mechanical Engineering department. Examples are problems with
Industrial exposure, Research visibility, Good publications, Old
curriculum, Evaluation uniformity, Practical components, Clash in

electives and offering electives.

Solution lies with management:
Some problems need the attention of the top management. They
are out of date infrastructure, Clash in electives, Poor implementation
of feedback etc.

SELECTION OF PROBLEMS
Our next step involved selecting a few out of all the listed problems.
We took feedback from other students in the department regarding which
set of problems they found important to be addressed and analyzed in

detail. We then used their feedback to shorten the list of problems. Then the
quality circle members had a voting session to decide on the final set of
problems. We selected a total of four problems to be analyzed. The selected
problems are
1. Lack of industrial exposure
2. Non-visibility of research in the department
3. Old curriculum
4. Clash in electives, many electives not offered

DEFINING THE PROBLEMS

The selected problems were then defined in a few statements so that
the efforts to solve these problems can be channeled in the right direction.
Problem 1:
Students lack in industrial exposure which leads to unawareness of modern
techniques used in industry and the working of professional organizations.
Problem 2:
Research work by the department faculty is largely not visible to the
students and this has a negative effect on the choices available to the
students as well as motivation.
Problem 3:
Curriculum design is based on age old concepts and practices and lacks a
modern flavor of current technologies.
Problem 4:

Many of the electives are not offered and those which are offered are not
available to the students due to clashes in the timetable.

PROBLEM 1: INDUSTRIAL EXPOSURE

Lack of industrial exposure was an important problem identified through
the selection procedure. Students apart from the PS program do not get the
opportunity for much industrial experience. There are minimal to zero
industrial visits organized by the department which is a major cause for
practical unawareness amongst the students.

Causes:
Four stakeholders were identified1. Students
1.1 Lack of Initiative: There is a lack of initiative from the students
side. Students do not come up with ideas for increasing the practical
component in the learning procedure.
1.2 Lack of Interest: There is a lack of interest for these activities
amongst the students. Students are mostly busy in other extracurricular activities which leaves no time to focus on practical
learning in the core subjects.
2. Faculty
2.1 High Workload: Teachers are caught up in administrative or other
workload from the department which leaves no time to focus on such
components in their curriculum.
2.2 Less Industrial Tie-ups: Faculty has minimal contact with people in
industries and hence are unable to proceed with such initiatives even
if they are willing to do so.
2.3 Focus on Theory: Teachers emphasize more on theoretical aspects
of the subject in the courses rather than developing a practical
understanding.
3. Mechanical Engineering Association

Mechanical Engineering Association has not been very involved or

interested in organizing industrial activities for the students. There is
a lack of initiative on one hand and a lack of funds on the other. There
are limited options when it comes to budget allocation for the
association.
4. Head of the Department
4.1 Administrative Workload
4.2 Communication Gap

Cause and Effect Diagram:

Pareto Chart:
Each member of the Quality Circle rated each cause out of 10. These ratings
were used to generate a Pareto chart for each problem.

Lack of industrial exposure

25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Total

Cumulative %

The Pareto chart helps to identify the key cause(s) regarding a particular
problem. In this case lack of funds for MEA is identified as the most
important cause.

Proposed Solutions:

Mechanical Engineering Association can play an important role.

A fixed amount of fund should be allocated to MEA every year to

organize industrial visits in power-plants, steel plants etc.

Industrial case studies should be made part of the evaluation

components by the faculty to motivate students.

A faculty should be made in-charge of industrial tie-ups to facilitate

learning for the students.

PROBLEM 2: RESEARCH VISIBILITY

Research visibility is a major issue at hand. Students are not aware of the
research work being done by the faculty or the research centers in the
department. Students working on their own research are also working on
their own without any coordination with other students who might be
pursuing some related field.

Causes:
Three stakeholders were identified1. Students

1.1 Communication Gap: There is a communication gap between the

students and the faculty. Students do not approach the faculty with
their queries and doubts or research proposals.
1.2 Extra-curricular Focus: Students focus more on their club,
department or association activities which leads to a lack of interest
in academic research activities.
2. Faculty
2.1 Non-Maintenance of Faculty Homepage: The faculty homepage at
the BITS website is outdated and recent research activities of the
faculty are not put up on the page. This makes it difficult for the
student to gauge which faculty to contact.
2.2 Selection Procedure for Projects: Faculty does not select the
students for project work, rather whichever student approaches the
faculty gets an SOP under the teacher. This results in early filling of
the slots available under many teachers.
3. Research Centers
3.1 Non-Transparent Functioning: Most of the students are unaware
of the research centers in BITS such as CRIS, CREED etc. The
working procedure of these centers is unknown and the functioning is
largely non-transparent.
3.2 Lack of Public Website: There is no website of these centers where
students can go and check out the latest projects and activities going
on in these centers.

Cause and Effect Diagram:

Pareto Chart:
Each member of the Quality the circle rated each cause out of 10. These
ratings were used to generate a Pareto chart for each problem.

Non-visisbility of Research
25
20
15
10
5
0

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Total

Cumulative %

Pareto chart helped us to identify that communication gap and the

functioning of the research centers are the two main causes to the problem.

Proposed Solutions:

Research centers should increase their visibility by opening public

websites.

Proper recruitment process should be established for these research

centers by the faculty in-charge.

Faculty in the mechanical department should take presentations

explaining their research area and current requirements.

PROBLEM 3: OLD CURRICULUM

One of the major problems identified regarding the department is its old
curriculum. The curriculum is more focused towards theory and not the
practical applications, and in many courses the curriculum (and the issued
textbooks) is outdated and lacks practical application of the old theory in
todays industries.

Causes:
Four stakeholders were identified1 Students
1.1 Lack of Experience: Students often have no knowledge regarding
how outdated the curriculum is or if the course includes application of
theory in modern industries. Students also may not be aware of the
new innovations taking place in the industry that may not be a part of
the curriculum.
1.2 Lack of Feedback: Students fail to communicate with the faculty
regarding the changes required (if identified) in the curriculum.
2 Senate
The senate finalizes the change in curriculum for any course. The lack
of student representation in the senate leads to the unawareness of
students regarding the procedure to change curriculums.
3 Faculty
3.1 High Workload & Focus on Research: Often a faculty has to teach
multiple subjects and also carry out project work leading to high work
load. This may hinder the faculty from updating the curriculum
regularly.
3.2 Less Industrial Interaction: The faculty may have less industrial

interactions and thus end up making the curriculum theoretical rather

than practical.
4 Head of Department
4.1: Administrative Workload
4.2 Communication Gap: There is a communication gap between the
students and the HOD due lack of regular interaction. This reduces
the feedback the faculty members get from the student regarding the
curriculum.

Cause and Effect Diagram:

Pareto Chart:
Each member of the Quality Circle rated each cause out of 10. These ratings
were used to generate a Pareto chart for each problem.

Old curriculum
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

30
25
20
15
10
5
0

Total

Cumulative %

The Pareto chart helps to identify the key cause(s) regarding a particular
problem. In this case lack of feedback system in the senate is identified as
the most important cause.

Proposed Solutions:

Senate has an important role to play in changing the curriculum.

Student representation is inadequate which results in improper

feedback. This should be rectified by engaging student representative
from each department.

A curriculum committee for the mechanical department should be setup which will review the curriculum every year and suggest changes.

The committee should comprise of faculty as well as student

representation to reduce the communication gap.

PROBLEM 4: ELECTIVE CLASH AND UNAVAILABILITY

This is probably the major issue for every student at BITS. Most of the
electives offered to the students often clash other electives or other CDCs
(dual-degree). This largely reduces the amount of electives the students can
choose from. Also many electives like aerodynamics are offered in IITs but
are not offered at BITS.

Causes:
4 stakeholders were identified1 Students
1.1 Lack of Experience: The students are often unaware regarding the
problems faced during registration of electives (particularly for the 1st
time in 3rd year).

1.2 Lack of Communication: Students fail to communicate the

problems faced during the selection of electives to the faculty or ID.
2 Faculty
2.1 High Workload
2.2 lack of inter-departmental interaction: There are clashes between
electives offered by different departments due to lack of inter
departmental interaction.
2.3 Lack of Experts on Some Subjects: Some electives are not being
offered due to lack of experts on subject. Lack of experts also leads to
same faculty teaching multiple electives leading to further clashes.
3 ID
3.1 Lack of feedback ID gets from faculty and students regarding
clashes.
3.2 Improper Communication Channel: ID is not able to communicate
to all the departments at the same time to help reduce the clashes in
electives and resolve the issue.
4 ARCD
4.1 Lack of coordination between ARCD and ID

Cause and Effect Diagram:

Pareto Chart:
Each member of the Quality the circle rated each cause out of 10. These
ratings were used to generate a Pareto chart for each problem.

Clash of important electives

30

100
90

25

80
70

20

60

15

50
40

10

30
20

10

Total

cumulative %

Pareto chart helped us to identify that interdepartmental clashes and

improper communication channel across departments are the two main
causes to the problem.

Proposed Solutions:

Instruction Division should set-up a proper communication channel

across the departments to reduce inter-departmental clashes in
timetable.

Departmental electives should be made sure to not clash with each

other by communicating with Instruction Division.

New faculty recruitments should be made according to specializations

in subjects which are not currently being offered to students.

CONCLUSION:
Quality circle meetings help in inculcating the values of team work and
participative decision making. Some important problems were identified
and were discussed with intense brainstorming sessions. Productive
solutions were come up with and some of them can be implemented very
shortly with support from the department and collaboration with students.

REFERENCES:

Mitra, Amitava. Fundamentals of quality control and improvement.

John Wiley & Sons, 2012.

Gaikwad, Vishal V., and Anita V. Gaikwad. "Quality Circle as an
Effective Management Tool: A Case Study of Indira College of
Engineering and Management Library." Proceeding of International

Conference on Academic Libraries. 2009.

http://asq.org/learn-about-quality/cause-analysis-

tools/overview/pareto.html
http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newTMC_03.htm
http://asq.org/learn-about-quality/cause-analysis-

tools/overview/fishbone.html
http://www.qcfi.in/