Category Six: Quality Overview

Category Six Overview

Southeast Technical Institute’s quality process was initiated in the early 90’s with staff professional development in Total Quality Management (TQM), the creation of program teams to replace department heads, and the hiring of an administrator with background in continuous quality improvement (CQI). While the CQI framework has undergone various iterations since then, the culture of teams and quality focus remains strong. Programs and departments function with a team decision-making model, which is based on determining stakeholder need and planning from a data-informed perspective.  Key to our CQI efforts is our Deploying Actions Process, which is referenced throughout the portfolio and has helped the Institute develop consistent and robust processes.

Since joining AQIP in 2006, Southeast Tech has found AQIP participation and external feedback beneficial for helping identify initiatives and improving existing systems. The Institute completed its first Systems Portfolio in Fall 2010.

Quality initiatives, however, are not selected, deployed and evaluated in a vacuum, separate from institutional planning.  In fact, quality initiatives are directly linked to and complement the Institute’s mission, vision, and strategic plan.  Therefore, it is important to understand that all quality initiatives flow from and are part of the following Southeast Tech key processes, which are described in other areas within this portfolio:

• Strategic Planning Process (4P 2 )

• Annual Planning and Budgeting processes (4P 2 )

• Institutional Goals and Key Performance Indicators (4P 2 , 4R 1 )

• Academic Quality Improvement Program Framework (6P 2 )

Developing an effective quality improvement process is one thing; implementing it effectively is another.  While Southeast Tech believes it has developed an integrated quality improvement process as described in 6P 1  and 6P 2 , we do not claim that our implementation of the process has always matched the developed process.  However, with recent implemented process changes, as well as adjustments to process implementation that focuses more on internal input and employee-led initiatives, we believe that our implementation of these processes will move from systematic to integrated within the next few years.

Southeast Tech’s Quality Overview (6P 2 ) section focuses on the framework the Institute uses to accomplish its continuous quality initiatives as well as how the Institute assures these initiatives directly align with the mission, vision and strategic plan. This section also describes how the Institute assures that non-duplication and conflicting initiatives are avoided and how it gives the Institute the opportunity to reflect on all of its quality improvement initiatives at the Institutional level.

Quality Improvement Initiatives (6P 1 ) focuses on the overall process the Institute uses, regardless of campus area (team/committee or program/department) to select and deploy specific initiatives (within the framework described in 6P 2 ), as well as how the Institute assures, during the initiative development stage, that is aligns with the strategic plan, mission and vision. This section also provides the Institute with the opportunity to reflect on quality improvement initiatives at the specific initiative level.

6P1 Quality Improvement Initiatives

• Selecting, deploying and evaluating quality improvement initiatives;
• Aligning the Systems Portfolio, Action Projects, Comprehensive Quality Review and Strategy Forums.

Selecting Quality Improvement Initiatives

Quality improvement initiatives are selected based on the various levels they impact and their connection to the strategic plan and Southeast Tech’s mission, vision and values. Therefore, the method of selection varies accordingly (see the Academic Quality Improvement Program Framework in 6P2 for additional information):

• Institutional-Level Quality Improvement Initiatives:  At the Institutional level, quality initiatives may be selected in several ways:
  • Directly by the Southeast Tech Board, Council, Administration or Futures Team: The Board, Council, Administrative or Futures Team may determine a specific initiative be implemented in order to meet a specific strategic goal or need of the Institute;
  • Through an Institutional Strategy Forum:  Conducted every summer, the Strategy Forum provides the opportunity to develop new initiatives and implementation action steps.  Strategy Forums involve stakeholders from across campus and may include external stakeholders. The Forum follows a defined CQI process, facilitated by a Forum leader, to assure maximum output during the day-long event. Approximately 30 to 40 employees participate in the Forum, giving them the opportunity for engagement in planning processes and direct training on CQI tools.

The initial concept or idea for the initiative, however, may have come from an individual stakeholder (internal or external), a committee, team, or other established group that was brought before the Futures Team or taken directly to administration; however, final selection of any initiative at the Institutional level requires administrative or higher approval.  These initiatives are determined to be vital to the continued success of the Institution, an enhancement to the Institute’s ability to meet its mission or its strategic plan, or required by federal, state, accreditation or other entities. For example, AQIP-defined Strategic Issues during Systems Appraisal and Comprehensive Quality Review processes are recognized and evaluated as Institutional-level quality initiatives because of their direct impact on accreditation.​​​

• Established AQIP Team Institutional-Level Quality Improvement Initiatives:  Many quality initiatives directly impact one or more stakeholder groups associated with the Institute.  Southeast Tech has developed specific AQIP Teams to select quality initiatives in their defined areas (6P2).  These initiatives are directly related to the areas assigned to each team and include any assigned strategic plan initiatives as determined by the Futures Team. 
• Program and Department Improvement Initiatives:  Quality initiatives are also selected within program and department teams.  These initiatives are frequently linked directly to internal processes that affect the Institute at the program or department levels, but may include initiatives that impact the Institute at all levels.  Initiatives are often designed to improve efficiencies, increase service offerings, or better meet student needs at the program or department level.
• Committee Improvement Initiatives:  Although many committees and sub-committees flow directly into program, department, or AQIP teams and are therefore included in those quality improvement initiatives, Southeast Tech has a number of stand-alone committees developed for a single, defined purpose.  These committees, such as the Credential Committee, which reviews, approves, and tracks faculty credentialing, and the Curriculum Committee, which assures that curriculum standards are maintained across the Institute, may also develop quality initiatives at the committee level to improve efficiencies or the services provided within the committee.

Regardless of the Institutional level or type of team or committee, it is the responsibility of the Futures Team (6P2) to assure that all initiatives support Southeast Tech’s Strategic Plan, which is tied directly to the mission and vision of the Institute through the Strategic Planning and Annual Planning processes (4P2).  To further assure this alignment, a connection to the strategic plan is required as part of the quality initiative documentation in the Institute’s Planning and Assessments database.

Approval of initiatives varies according to the level and impact.  Initiatives that impact only a particular department or team may be approved by the immediate supervisor.  Initiatives that will have a wider impact, or will require additional funding, require higher level approval.  The Futures Team oversees the overall process to assure alignment and implementation (6P2). 

These initiatives are then included in the Institute’s Annual Plan, which is reviewed and approved by administration, the Council, and the Board, to assure they are consistent with one another and are monitored to determine effectiveness.

Deploying and Evaluating Quality Improvement Initiatives

The Southeast Tech Deploying Actions Process (Figure 6P1.1) applies to all quality initiatives at the Institute – Institutional, program, department, committee and team. Regardless of whether the action involves program development, a request for resources, changes within a department, or a major strategic planning initiative, the Institute strives to follow the Deploying Actions Process.

Capture:  The process starts by capturing the data associated with the requested action to be taken. Southeast Tech first identifies stakeholder needs through a variety of sources important to the action, such as enrollment, retention and graduation rates, stakeholder survey data, input from internal and external stakeholders, dialogue with other programs, departments or external stakeholders, etc. 

Develop:  Once a focused need is identified by capturing the data, Southeast Tech develops an action project by researching and justifying the need, identifying expected outcomes, and linking the action project to a strategic goal.  An implementation measure is developed and a target level is set.  Finally, the developed plan is documented in the Planning and Assessments database.

Southeast Tech frequently uses its annual Strategy Forum for initial development of Institutional-level quality improvement initiatives. During forums, employees from across campus and at all levels, as well as external stakeholders as applicable, take an assigned new initiative and the captured inputs, and through a CQI defined process, develop the initial stages of initiative development. The resulting outcome of the forum is then given to the appropriate team/committee for further development and final consideration for implementation. (Strategy Forum events generally follow the following process:  Affinity Map, The Five Whys, Our Current State, Our Desired State, Strategies for Improvement, Final Report and Presentation.) 

Decide:  Depending upon the level of the action project, a decision is made about whether or not to pursue the project.  This decision may involve state or federal offices, the Southeast Tech Council, Southeast Tech Board, administration, the Futures Team, and/or a program or department team or Institutional committee.

Deploy/Implement:  Various factors play a role in implementing a particular action project.  Expenses may need to be budgeted, infrastructure may need to be developed, relationships may need to be established, etc.  Each of these areas is addressed as the action project is implemented.  Implementation is the responsibility of the team, committee, program or department that developed or was assigned the particular action project.

Evaluate: Outcomes of the action project are evaluated by the assigned group and are based on the measures established during the development stage.  Comparisons are made against the set target, and trends are monitored over time.  When appropriate and available, benchmarking through external stakeholder comparison data is used as part of the evaluation process. Results are discussed and an evaluation is written within the Planning and Assessments database.  Depending upon the level of the action project, the overall effectiveness of the action may be further reviewed by the Futures Team, administration, a Celebrating Learning coach, a department or team, Southeast Tech Council or Board, etc. Revisions are then made, based upon the results, to further improve the effectiveness of the action project.  

Publish:  Publication of action projects takes many forms, both internal and external, depending upon the level of the action project and its impact on the Institute.  These publications include documentation in the Planning and Assessments database, Campus Notes, meeting minutes, emails, the President’s Report, newsletters, annual planning reports, etc. 

Reflect:  To assure that Southeast Tech continually strives for quality improvement, the Deploying Actions Process itself is reviewed by the Futures Team.  This reflection helps the Institute refine the process for further improvements not only in the newly implemented action projects, but also in how the Institute operates.  Reflections for improvement are documented in Futures Team minutes and adjustments are made as needed.

Finally, the process loops back to stakeholders to capture additional stakeholder needs.  The cycle is then repeated.

Aligning the Systems Portfolio, Action Projects, Comprehensive Quality Review, and Strategy Forums

Southeast Tech’s Systems Portfolio/Appraisal, Action Projects, Comprehensive Quality Review and Strategy Forums are all included as initiatives within the Institutional-Level Quality Improvement Initiatives selection process. The Futures Team oversees these AQIP processes and assures that the feedback received (Systems Portfolio/Appraisal, Comprehensive Quality Review, Strategy Forum), as well as Institutional actions taken (Action Projects, Strategy Forum), are integrated into and aligned with the Institute’s overall continuous quality improvement initiatives.  The Futures Team then assigns these initiatives to specific teams and committees in a similar process to how the Futures Team assigns strategic planning implementation to the various teams (6P2).  The Deploying Actions Process is then used for implementation.

6R1 Quality Improvement Initiatives

• Outcomes/measures tracked and tools utilized
• Summary results of measures (include tables and figures when possible)
• Comparison of results with internal targets and external benchmarks
• Interpretation of results and insights gained

Outcomes/Measures Tracked and Tools Utilized

Because continuous quality improvement does not occur in and of itself, and because CQI initiatives are frequently tied to specific processes related to other sections of this portfolio, the results of many of these initiatives are provided throughout this portfolio and therefore will not be presented here.  Additionally, due to the number of quality improvement initiatives that have occurred since the last portfolio, the following will provide information from some of the broader initiatives that have impacted a larger part of the Institute. More information on Southeast Tech’s Action Projects may be found on the Higher Learning Commission site at http://apdarchive.hlcommission.org/. Beyond the results of individual action projects, the Institute also measures the impact of continuous quality improvement initiatives through the results of the Institute’s Key Performance Indicators (4R 1 ).

Summary Results of Measures AND Comparison of Results with Internal Targets and External Benchmarks AND Interpretation of Results and Insights Gained

Action Project: Retaining At-Risk Students: Taking the Next Step (5/1/2012 – 10/31/2013)

Purpose:  Enhance Southeast Tech’s previously implemented Student Success Center action project (2010 Systems Portfolio) and the Institute’s retention process (2P 1 ). 

• Developed a required two-credit Academic Recovery course to assist students on Academic Probation and Financial Aid Warning;
• Hired Housing/Retention Coordinators to facilitate the recovery course.

Results: Retained students (to next semester) stayed about the same (37% to 38%). However, the gpa of the returning students improved (0.91 to 1.12) with 26% having a 2.0 gpa or higher compared to 23.8% without the recovery course. Persistence Rates of Academic Recovery students from fall to spring semester have now met the 60% target for the past two measures (Table 6R1.2).

• Developed Attendance Challenge to encourage class attendance (14 day and 30 day), promote student academic success, and retain students.

Results: In fall 2012, 1,384 students (49%) made the 30-day challenge and in fall 2013, 1,425 (51%) made the 30-day challenge. Retention for these two groups was 92% each year compared to 75% and 78%, respectively, for those students not completing the challenge.  The difference has continued at a similar level (Table 6R1.4).

• Implemented Southeast Tech Cares, an internal communication system on student needs and at-risk student identifier software package.

Results: This process is now integrated into, and is a key driver, for our retention process (2P 1 ). Internal communications on student concerns has improved, with 129 employees (45% of those with access to the system) inputting communications, exceeding the original target of 30%. Referrals are now resolved at a 96.5% level within the semester, an accomplishment far above the Institute’s 60% target. The Student Success Team will now determine new target levels in these areas. The Institute has not, however, met its number of actions and referrals target the past two years (Table 6R1.1).  This will be reviewed by the Student Success Team as well in summer 2017.

• Redesigned pre-academic coursework to improve student completion and retention rates through co-requisite Math 099 and English 099 classes. 

Results: The pre-academic course change has significantly impacted our overall success rates in the academically-required courses. Previously, only about 28% of students successfully completed ENGL 098 and then ENGL 101. With the ENGL 099/101 co-requisite, completion rate was 47% for the first cohort group, which rose to 82% for the next. Initial math completion rates, though not has high, moved from 42% for the MATH 098/MATH 101/102 option, to 57% for the first cohort of the MATH 099/MATH 101/102 option.  Fall to Spring persistence rates of co-requisite students has met the 80% target in 2013 and 2015; however, the results have been sporadic, moving above and below target; therefore, the Institute will retain the target at the current level (Table 6R1.6).

Two other processes, JumpStart Days (pre-semester new student orientation to program and preparation for the new semester) and Emergency Loans (up to $500 for student emergencies) have also shown to be effective. JumpStart Day attendee fall-to-spring persistence rates are 23% higher than non-attendees (Table 6R1.3), and students receiving emergency loans have had persistence rates up to 86% (Table 6R1.5). Both have had results above target; however, persistence rates for emergency loan recipients has recently fallen.  The Student Success Team will review this information in summer 2017. 

The overall target of this action project was to help increase student retention, which Southeast Tech has seen rise from 60% (fall to fall) in 2012 to 65% in 2013, and 69.3% in 2015. While the increase cannot be attributed solely to the efforts of this action project, the increased retention rate is significant and points to the success of the project.

Lessons Learned: While the action project proved to be very effective, and the Institute is continuing to use all of the implemented actions, the Institute learned that the scope of the action project was too broad for a single action project. Developing, implementing and measuring the actions simultaneously increased the workload across multiple departments and impaired the ability of the Institute to meet implementation challenges to the level the Institute would have liked. Southeast Tech recognizes the need to limit action project goals and actions to a manageable level in the future.

Action Project: Embrace a Culture of Communication that Values People, Promotes Individual Contributions and Enhances Student Success (12/14/2011 to 10/31/2013)

Purpose: Developing a culture of communication builds a strong campus community and provides the atmosphere necessary to meet the Institute’s mission.

• Created a “cabinet” consisting of a faculty and staff member meeting with administration. The cabinet, however, did not provide the expected results and was discontinued; in January 2017 a faculty and staff member were added as members of Southeast Tech’s Council to provide improved communication to all employees;
• Developed annual internal strategy forums, which have continued since implementation in summer 2012;
• Implemented monthly department and program meetings.  While most areas now hold monthly or more frequent meetings, there are still a few areas where meetings are less frequent;
• Improved the internal STInet site for quicker and easier communications for employees. The new site makes navigating and finding information easier and uses Sharepoint for better data and information access;
• Revised staff evaluation process. The revision has been made, piloted, and is expanding to more areas; 
• Implemented an internal program/department improvement process. The process was piloted but was replaced by a program/department review process that occurs annually as part of the Annual Planning process.

Results:  The improved communication results on the CESS indicate the Institute’s success in this area (4R 3 ); however, the Institute has not met its target levels in these areas and will continue to strive to improve communications. 

Lessons Learned: Just as the scope of an action project can be too large, the timeline for implementation can be too short. Southeast Tech found that its communication action project had several timelines that were not possible and had to make adjustments accordingly. The Institute also learned that communication is a broad subject and one that requires constant attention and adjustment, and has to continually be improved and monitored.

Action Project: Develop a More Comprehensive Entrance Requirement Process (3/9/2015 to 6/30/2016)

Purpose:  To develop a more comprehensive review process for program entrance requirements to assure that the Institute is successfully placing students in programs where they can be successful.

• Developed a specific process for entrance requirement review as well as a scheduled review calendar (1P 4 );

Results:  Reviewed nine programs through Spring 2017. Revised entrance requirements and developed pre-program entrance options.

Lessons Learned: With limited resources, assuring entrance requirements are evaluated across the campus in a timely fashion can be difficult.  Since this process is still fairly new, the Institute has established a review schedule (1P 4 ), which will be re-evaluated for effectiveness after the process has been used for a longer period of time.

Action Project: Improving Efficiencies in Key Student Support Areas (7/2/2012 to 12/26/2014)

Purpose:  To reduce staff time required to complete key processes so that additional time can be spent assisting students and helping them achieve their goals.

• Improved Financial Aid workflow.

Results: Doubled the Financial Aid Office’s ability to effectively provide student notifications on ISIRs in a timely fashion, increased by over 30% the Office’s ability to handle loan disbursements, and reduced the time necessary to process all student aid awards by nearly a month.

• Improved the student enrollment verification process for loan and pell grant disbursements by using the Institute’s Southeast Tech Cares (Jenzabar) software.

Results: While not easily quantifiable, the process has helped achieve the goal described above. 

• Improved student unearned failing grade (unofficial withdraw) process. Using a similar process to the student enrollment verification process, Southeast Tech has been able to effectively implement a process to assure that students with unearned failing grades are documented and the appropriate steps are taken regarding financial aid for these students.

Results:  A reduction in student appeals/complaints regarding course charges as related to discontinuation of attendance (2R 4 ).

• Implemented a stronger transcript and transfer credit work flow through document imaging/work flow software (Nolij)

Results: Reduced transcript and transfer workflow by as much as 75%, resulting in more timely notification to students regarding transfer credits; reduced admissions time spent creating folders and moving folders from location to location.

• Implemented a new process for catalog and systems portfolio development through the implementation of a catalog software system (Acalog). 

Results: Reduced the time it takes to produce the catalog by ½ month to a full month; improved the process of developing the Systems Portfolio by making it more manageable.  

Lessons Learned:  Action projects take time away from regular duties.  Many times projects add more work to already time-strapped employees. This project helped the Institute realize that time spent developing new, more efficient processes, while requiring additional time and effort up front, are worth it in the long run. The efficiencies now gained from this action project have reduced work time on many processes, allowing employees to spend more time assisting students and completing other job responsibilities.

Action Project: Connecting Performance Targets to Planning, Budget and Actions (6/1/2011 to 12/26/2014)

Purpose:  Assuring alignment of Institutional, departmental and program action projects with measurable targets that are integrated into planning and budget is vital to assuring the Institute remains mission focused in all areas.

• Developed the Planning and Assessments database (originally called the Targets, Actions and Assessments Database) to track actions and assure alignment to the strategic plan and mission as well as assure targets are set and results are monitored;
• Integrated targets, actions, and data elements associated with departments and programs into the budgeting process to assure review occurs as part of the Annual Planning process. 

Results: The Planning and Assessments database is currently in use to track information. In 2017-2018, Southeast Tech plans to move from a homemade Access database to a more integrated commercial software package.  The method for integrating action projects, data, assessments, etc. into the budget was developed by 2014, but initial implementation occurred in 2016-2017 and will be expanded in the future.

Lessons Learned: As projects are implemented and used over time, inadequacies in the process often surface.  In this case, the Institute has outgrown the ability of the original Access database to meet Institute needs; therefore, the Institute has made the budget resource commitment to move to a software platform that will not only meet the Institute’s current needs, but future needs as well.

Action Project: Strategic Planning Process (8/4/2015 to 2/27/2016)

Purpose: As the Institute prepared to develop a new strategic plan, developing a repeatable strategic planning process would assure that the Institute could maintain its continuous quality improvement processes effectively.

• Implemented a successful Strategic Planning process.

Results: Southeast Tech has developed a Strategic Planning process that can be replicated for all future strategic plan development (4P 2 ).

Lessons Learned: The use of Southeast Tech’s internal Strategy Forum to develop the first stages of the Strategic Planning process helped the Institute gather internal and external stakeholder perspectives and ideas for both the process and its implementation.  Taking that information and several Forum participants into the Strategic Planning Committee further improved the final process outcome.  Finally, developing a full process that is repeatable and sustainable will make future strategic planning development easier and more effective.

6I1 Quality Initiatives Improvements

Southeast Tech’s quality initiatives section 6R1 includes information on the success of the Institute’s individual initiatives as well as lessons learned.  In recent years, the Institute has focused its quality initiatives on student success and retention, strategic and annual planning, the use of data in decision making, and integrating all processes across campus in order to tie them all together.  The Institute is very pleased with the results of these efforts, which are documented throughout the Portfolio.

Key to this success has been the “Deploying Actions Process” discussed in 6P 1 .  The process was developed by the Futures Team more than fifteen years ago, and although it has been strengthened over the years, including a review and revision for this Portfolio, the premise of the process, and the natural flow it provides, has played a significant role in the Institute’s continuous quality success.  

As stated in the Strategic Plan, the Institute will now focus its attention on improving the prospective student campus experience, from admissions to registration to the first day of class, creating a stronger college experience for current students, and building stronger relationships with our external stakeholders.  Southeast Tech believes the focus on these initiatives will propel the Institute to the next level of its quality journey.

6P2 Culture of Quality

• Developing an infrastructure and providing resources to support a culture of quality
• Ensuring continuous quality improvement is making an evident and widely understood impact on institutional culture and operations (5.D.1)
• Ensuring the institution learns from its experiences with CQI initiatives (5.D.2)
• Reviewing, reaffirming, and understanding the role and vitality of the AQIP Pathway within the institution

Developing an Infrastructure and Providing Resources to Support a Culture of Quality

To support Southeast Tech’s Culture of Quality, the Institute has developed an Academic Quality Improvement Program Framework that provides structure, yet flexibility, to our continuous quality initiatives (Figure 6P2.1):

Southeast Tech Council and Board:  Southeast Tech’s Mission and Vision encapsulates the Institutional AQIP Framework. From that mission and vision and based on the strategic plan, the Southeast Tech Council establishes the overall direction of the Institute and sets key performance indicators (KPI’s) with Southeast Tech administration.  It is the Council’s responsibility to review and make recommendations for: 

• Institutional Strategic Goals;
• Key Performance Indicators (KPI) and Targets; 
• Institutional Strategic Plan;
• Progress Toward KPI and Strategic Goals.  

Council recommendations are then presented to the Board, which revises recommendations as needed and officially adopts the overall Institute direction. 

Southeast Tech Administration:  Institutional administration– the next layer in the framework– sets the direction of the Institute on an annual basis in order to meet the strategic plan, KPI, and the overall direction set by the Southeast Tech Council and Board.  The administration works directly with Southeast Tech programs and departments to set program and department targets and assessments that are tied to the strategic goals and KPI. Administration has the responsibility to direct the AQIP process by:

• Initiating and Implementing the Strategic Planning Process (4P2);
• Initiating and Implementing the Annual Planning Process (4P2);
• Initiating and Implementing Institutional-Level Action Projects to Meet the strategic plan (6R1);
• Assisting Programs and Departments in the Development and Completion of Targets and Assessments (4P3).

Department and Program Teams: Department and program teams meet at least once a month, if not more.  These teams work with their direct supervisor to set targets and implement actions specifically for the improvement of their assigned areas.  The direct supervisor assures that these actions are consistent with the Institutional mission, vision, and strategic plan.  Team initiatives are shared with the Southeast Tech Administrative Team and are documented in the Planning and Assessments Database.

Program Teams:  Southeast Tech program teams provide the structure for all programs, courses, curriculum, and course delivery, as well as recommendations for equipment, facilities, and other budget decisions as they relate to that program. 

Department Teams:  Department teams operate in a manner similar to program teams, assuring that Southeast Tech services and operations are meeting the needs of its stakeholders. Department teams are developed around specific Institutional or student needs (such as Information Technology, Student Success, and Business Office) and are assigned the task of meeting these operational or student support needs.  

AQIP Futures Team:  The Futures Team functions as the primary coordinating entity for Southeast Tech’s AQIP processes. The team monitors, oversees, and communicates AQIP Institutional information and data to other teams and committees and makes planning/action/improvement recommendations to Administration based on stakeholder input from these teams and committees. 

The Futures Team serves as the “big picture” conduit for initiatives and projects taking place throughout the Institute.  To assure that the team has broad membership and can maintain alignment with the other AQIP teams, at least one member of the Futures Team also serves on a corresponding AQIP Team.  The Futures Team also includes representatives from every building as well as representatives from staff, faculty and administration.

The team monitors, oversees and communicates the Southeast Tech AQIP process by:

• Coordinating AQIP Institutional Information and Data Management Processes;
• Recommending to Administration Future Institutional Changes;
• Overseeing and Connecting the Southeast Tech AQIP Teams.

As part of its monthly meetings, Futures Team members provide information on what the various AQIP teams are doing in terms of their quality initiatives.  To accomplish this, Futures Team members are assigned specific AQIP teams to monitor and coordinate progress reports.  The Futures Team assures that initiatives are directly related to the strategic plan and are consistent with other initiatives and the mission and vision of the Institute. 

The AQIP Futures Team oversees the following five Southeast Tech AQIP teams:

External Stakeholder Relationships Team (ESR): With Southeast Tech’s mission of educating for employment, external stakeholder relationships are key to the Institute’s ability to meet its mission. Therefore, it is the responsibility of the External Stakeholder Relationships Team to assure that Southeast Tech is building ties that assure the Institute is providing industry with the appropriate programs and services by:

• Monitoring External Stakeholder Relationships and Satisfaction;
• Developing, Implementing, and Recommending Relationship-Building Initiatives. 

Celebrating Learning Team (CLT): Student learning is key to the mission of the Institute.  Therefore, the Institute recognizes that assuring that learning is taking place and meeting student needs is critical.  The Celebrating Learning Team assists program faculty and Southeast Tech departments with developing, analyzing and completing student learning and team assessments and targets. Team members serve as coaches to assigned programs and departments, ensuring that every program and department has expert assistance with completing their assessments and targets.  The team also develops and monitors Institutional assessments.  The Celebrating Learning Team helps assure this by:

• Communicating Student Learning Assessment Outcomes to Stakeholders;
• Assisting Programs/Departments in Developing and Completing Assessments and Targets;
• Monitoring Program/Department Assessments/Targets and Developing Institutional Reports;
• Developing and Implementing Institutional-Level Student Learning Assessments;
• Providing Training Assistance on Assessment and Related Areas.

Education Design and Delivery Team (EDD):  Improving how we educate students and provide them with the academic knowledge necessary for their respective programs requires that the Institution analyze, revise and adjust how it instructs and delivers education. The Education Design and Delivery Team concerns itself with Institutional-level academic program design and delivery, with particular emphasis on technology as it impacts learning. The team chooses specific areas to improve, such as the Institute’s online delivery processes, and then researches and implements best practices as they relate to the Institute. It is the responsibility of the Education Design and Delivery Team to fulfill this responsibility by:

• Monitoring Student Academic Outcomes;
• Developing, Implementing, and Recommending Institutional-Level Program Design and Delivery Methods.

Student Success Team (SST): Students must be ready to learn.  The Student Success Team’s goal is to help remove student barriers and meet student needs so that learning can occur.  Southeast Tech believes in intrusive advising, continuously striving to solve student issues and concerns before they can impact student academic performance. Through the use of software, tools and programs such as the Southeast Tech Cares Alert System, the Student Success Seminar and Academic Recovery courses, JumpStart, and many others, the Student Success Team develops processes that integrate these tools and create additional tools to meet student needs. The Student Success Team monitors student satisfaction and needs and recommends and implements strategies for improving the level of overall student support.  The Team meets these responsibilities by:

• Monitoring Student Satisfaction and Student Needs through Analysis of Direct and Indirect Measures Impacting Student Success;
• Developing, Implementing, and Recommending Institutional-Level Student Success and Satisfaction Improvements.

Campus Climate Team (CCT):  A healthy employee campus climate is critical to Institutional and student success.  The Campus Climate Team addresses concerns and implements actions related to Valuing Employees and improving the campus climate. The Campus Climate Team meets this challenge by:

• Monitoring Employee Campus Climate;
• Developing, Implementing, and Recommending Institutional-Level Employee Campus Climate Improvements.

Implementation and Communication Flow:  To assure that implementation follows a defined process, involves the appropriate approval process, and is communicated to stakeholders, Southeast Tech has established its Implementation and Communication Flow process. As indicated by the internal boxes within the framework, implementation and communication flow from the AQIP Teams to the AQIP Futures Team, then to Southeast Tech Administration, and finally to the Southeast Tech Council, providing for action projects to be developed at the level closest to the immediate need or opportunity for improvement.  Similarly, implementation and communications flow from Southeast Tech teams (program and department) to Southeast Tech administration and then to the Southeast Tech Council.  The implementation and communication can also flow down the framework as well.  By assuring that the appropriate representation on these key teams is established, as well as assuring that information and communications occur through an established process, the Institute is able to develop continuous quality improvement initiatives that meet the needs of the Institute and are consistent with each other.

Culture of Quality Resources:  As part of the Institutional continuous quality initiatives process, Southeast Tech defines the necessary resources to assure the success of the initiative and includes those resources as part of the initiative (see 6P1 ”Southeast Tech Deploying Actions Process”).  As for training on continuous quality, the Institute has found that hands-on training has been the most successful.  As stated in 6P1, Southeast Tech conducts annual strategy forums.  These strategy forums, which began in summer 2012, provide the Institute the opportunity to not only develop Institutional action projects that will help the Institute meet its strategic goals, but also to train employees on how to use continuous quality improvement tools that can help them improve their departments, programs, or work on other Institutional committees.  Additionally, Southeast Tech has rotated the facilitators for these strategy forums, which has provided more training for individuals who are interested in taking leadership roles in Southeast Tech’s quality initiatives.  These individuals serve as resources for other campus areas on how to effectively use these tools.  To further develop quality leaders, Southeast Tech has established non-administrative “chairs” and “co-chairs” as team leaders with administrators serving as team members and resources, allowing for more opportunities to build the Institute’s quality culture.  Initial training on the Institute’s quality culture is provided as part of the onboarding process (3P1).   

Reflection: AQIP teams hold summer retreats to review current actions and performance measures, compare results to targets, set future targets and actions, and reflect and revise team processes for future improvements.  All team actions, as well as information regarding targets and performance measures, are included in meeting minutes and in the Planning and Assessments database.

Ensuring Continuous Quality Improvement is Making an Evident and Widely Understood Impact on Institutional Culture and Operations (5.D.1)

It is the responsibility of the Futures and Administrative teams to assure that the Institute’s CQI process is making an evident and widely understood impact on the Institutional culture and operations.  The reporting by all teams/committees to the Futures Team assures that the Team is aware of all initiatives and their status from across campus. This provides the Futures Team with the necessary inputs to evaluate the Institute’s CQI efforts and develop a report to administration on the current state of Southeast Tech’s CQI efforts.  In turn, the Administrative Team then provides a similar report to the Council and Board, expressing the Institute’s move toward fulfillment of the strategic plan and quality improvements.  Finally, it is the responsibility of the Futures Team to assure the campus community and external stakeholders are aware of Southeast Tech’s accomplishments. These communications may include the Futures Team Annual Report, emails, Monthly Meeting presentations, Tech Times and President’s Report articles, and external stakeholder communications through Career Connections, press releases and Advisory Committee minutes (6P1) (5.D.1).

Ensuring the Institution Learns From Its Experiences With CQI Initiatives (5.D.2)

Reflection is the key to learning from CQI initiatives; therefore, reflection is part of the Deploying Actions Process (6P1) for every individual initiative.  To assure that teams/committees also reflect on the processes used within the team/committee, summer retreats are frequently used to not only set the course for the next academic year, but to reflect on the accomplishments and opportunities for improvement from the previous academic year.  The summer retreats have become an important process in assuring the continuation and effectiveness of the Institute’s quality efforts (5.D.2). 

Reviewing, Reaffirming, and Understanding the Role and Vitality of the AQIP Pathway Within the Institution

As teams/committees complete the reflection process and set their direction for the upcoming year, they are reaffirming the Institute’s commitment to and understanding of the role the AQIP pathway plays within the Institution.  As the Institute reflects on all of its accomplishments throughout this Systems Portfolio, a continued commitment to AQIP is maintained.

6R2 Culture of Quality Results

• Outcomes/measures tracked and tools utilized
• Summary results of measures (include tables and figures when possible)
• Comparison of results with internal targets and external benchmarks
• Interpretation of results and insights gained

Outcomes/Measures Tracked and Tools Utilized

Because a culture of quality is evidenced by both quality improvement processes and the culture itself, Southeast Tech includes both in its measurements of effectiveness. Therefore, the Institute tracks the following:

• Employee Continuous Quality Training and Participation
• Employee Perceptions of Quality Efforts

Summary Results of Measures AND Comparison of Results with Internal Targets and External Benchmarks AND Interpretation of Results and Insights Gained

Throughout the results sections of the Portfolio, the impact of our continuous quality initiatives is evident. This section will focus more on the Institute’s work toward the development of a continuous quality culture. 

Employee Continuous Quality Training and Participation:  Since May 2012, Southeast Tech has held internal Strategy Forums. These forums not only provide the Institute with the opportunity to develop continuous quality initiatives, but to train employees on continuous quality improvement (CQI) processes.  

Strategy Forum Topics:

May 2012: Improving Internal Communications

May 2013: Internal Customer Service

May 2014: Retention: Closing the Loop

May 2015: HLC Peer-Led Forum with these topics - Entrance Requirements, Strategic Planning, Student Recruitment, Southeast Tech Image, Student Experience, Working Relationships

July 2016: Building External Stakeholder Relationships

July 2017: Leading a Team/Committee (Leadership Training)

Each Forum has anywhere from 30 to 40 participants. Southeast Tech has now trained 106 employees on CQI concepts through the Forums, which equates to almost half of all full time employees.  These employees have then used the concepts learned in the training to guide the committees and teams on which they serve.

By the completion of the July 2017 Strategy Forum, eight people will have led the forums, providing additional learning opportunities.

In May 2015 Southeast Tech was privileged to have HLC peer reviewers on campus to lead the Institute through two days of CQI training. The campus closed all offices on the first day to allow all employees to attend the training. A second full day of topic-led training was held for individuals who volunteered to attend the session. 

Southeast Tech is also committed to other annual training on CQI, including consistently sending employees to HLC’s Annual Meeting’s AQIP sessions. The Institute also encourages employees to become involved in peer review.  Currently, the Vice President of Student Affairs has been trained as a peer reviewer in the AQIP process.

Employee Perceptions of Quality Efforts: Gauging how employees perceive the Institute’s quality direction provides another measure of quality results. The CESS includes the question, “Efforts to improve quality are paying off”.  Southeast Tech is currently more than 90% below its target level as shown in Table 6R2.1 for this measure. Southeast Tech has now adjusted its quality culture to a stronger employee-led team structure, with increased opportunities for communication of quality initiatives across campus. The Institute believes that the successful implementation of the new leadership model will improve this rating when the survey is conducted again in spring 2018.  

6I2 Culture of Quality Improvements

Southeast Tech has been using its AQIP Framework (Figure 6P2.1) for over twenty years. The framework has been revised and improved many times, including the addition of the new External Stakeholder Relationships Team in 2016-2017, yet it has maintained its relevance and effectiveness in guiding the Institute and its quality initiatives. However, as shown in Table 6R2.1, internal stakeholders have not perceived the Institute as moving quality forward to the level of the established target.  Therefore, starting with 2016-2017 and continuing over the next two to three years, the Institute is increasing employee ownership of the quality process, moving non-administrative positions into leadership roles on teams and committees, developing consistent agenda and minutes across campus, establishing by-laws to guide team and committee actions, developing reporting processes to assure communications occur across campus, and providing internal leadership training. These efforts are being led by the Futures Team, which is taking on a more significant role in the development, implementation and communication of the Institute’s quality efforts. By placing the continuous quality improvement process directly in the hands of all internal stakeholders, the Institute believes the quality culture will be enhanced and strengthened.