Industrial Technologist’s Toolkit For Technical Management (ITTTM) Introduction, Process,...

Industrial Technologist’s Toolkit For Technical Management (ITTTM)

Introduction, Process, Communication Overview

1. ITTTM Toolkits, CD courseware context2. Courseware, courses, toolkits, portfolios3. Courseware application portfolio template

Dr. John W. Sinn, Professor, Bowling Green State University [email protected], www.bgsu.edu/colleges/technology/qs

ITTTM Toolkits, CD Courseware Context

Seven sets define, overview 42 tool courseware system:

Primer: overviews system, core knowledge, start point Cultural: broad change, leadership, transformation Data: six sigma problem solving, decision-making Documentation: problem solving, kaizen, lean, ISO Service: data, documentation in service functions Synchronous: product launch, robust analysis, capstone Communications: information management

Manufacturing and non-manufacturing, e-commerce Digital, MS Word, CD format, based on Office Suite Each set facilitates, guides team work electronically Designed for online communication, optimum flexibility Focused on building portfolio, doing a team-based project

Documentation Tools, Lean

Data Tools, Six Sigma

Service, Tools Manufacturing, Non- Manufacturing

Synchronous Tools, New Product Development

Project Team

Cultural Change And Continuous Improvement

Information Analysis,Communication Systems

Applied Research, Project Structure

Enhanced Problem Solving, Decision Making

Internal, External, E-commerce Relationships

Quality Management Systems(QMS)International Standards Organization (ISO)

Professional Outcomes, Growth, Knowledge

Technological Infrastructure

Industrial Technologists’ Toolkit For Technical Management

ITTTM Toolkits, CD Courseware Context

1. Student Teams Form, In Discussion

Board

2. Review Information,

Identify Project, Chat

3. Analyze Key Parts In Tools, RCA And SDA’s

4. Team All Contribute,

Build Startup Portfolio

5. Faculty Assesses

Portfolio, All Chat, Review

6. Teams Use Feedback To Improve, Do

First Tool

Startup is a base for doing toolkits, portfolio, course……..

Courseware, Courses, Toolkits, Portfolios

Startup completion raises early questions, answers, leads into a base for doing first toolkit, expanded portfolio……..

Startup in courses, courseware parallels, facilitates: Startup information collection, review, analysis Project definition, portfolio structure, team culture Explanation of courseware, introduction Initial use of systems for course, how to communicate Leading into building, compiling a portfolio

After startup, courseware facilitates course, portfolio: Portfolio team oriented, individual also identified clearly Portfolio shows knowledge growth, project deliverables Courseware, assessment oriented, iterative improvement Courseware, disciplined quality system infrastructure Portfolio has structure from courseware to guide Each tool, done as key assignment, evolves portfolio


1. Tool Work Individually, Completed

Like Startup

2. All Work Posted In

Blackboard, Managed

3. Threads Organize RCA And

SDA Posting

4. All Posts Compiled By Team, Build

Portfolio

5. Faculty POAM

Feedback Used In Chat

6. Iteratively Repeat Six

Tools, Grow Project

Portfolio development, assessment, six tools………starts with first tool completion, based on successful startup


1. SDA’s Are Targeted To

Each Tool Content

2. RCA’s Are Built On,

Grown With Each Tool

3. Both Grow Knowledge, Assess To Improve

4. Analyze, Synthesize, Information,

Apply Project

5. Raise Questions,

Research On Project

6. Assess Project,

Document As Portfolio

RCA, SDA forms are courseware, research structure……built in, around application portfolio template

Courseware Application Portfolio Template

Technical project, methodology, applied research Facilitates team project focus, hands-on, reality based Problem solving, technical management, research methods Portfolio assessment documents continuous improvement Questions raised in SDA’s, RCA’s cause team to “dig in” Courseware is research methodology, reflection, assessment

Tools, as courseware, conclude with applications: Applications merge tool content, project experiences Applications are synthesis, interpretation, reflection Requiring, doing team communication, management Table format “collects” team data and documentation Assessed by others, compile based on each others’ work Portfolio emerges as assessed improvement, best practice


SDA’s and RCA’s have several features, many in common:

Both allow interaction, teams grow portfolio, knowledge Both facilitate individual responses by each researcher What and when each researcher contributed, documented Both compiled by team member as grand form in portfolio Both guide, have multiple areas to be filled in, detailed Both require analysis, reflection, writing by all to improve RCA’s recycled, each tool, reflecting growth SDA’s focus tool progress, new technical concepts

RCA’s and SDA’s are the heart of the courseware………


Three RCA’s are continuously done, iteratively, by team with SDA completion as part of each tool to improve portfolio:

Project Portfolio Assessment, Research Methodology, Plan (PPARMP). A research plan, evolved over time, based on findings, analyses, conclusions, recommendations by team.

Review Of Literature, Documentation Assessment (ROLDA) Abstracts of course content, related external information researched, developed around project solution.

Portfolio Presentation Management Team Assessment (PPMTA). Internal, external performance reviews by team.

Each is explained, detailed in the next several slides……..



PPARMP is a planning and organization system……..• Part of the broader portfolio template, courseware • When forms due, by all on team—all, independently• Done by team leadership, rotating to all• Threads set up concurrently in forum, all post• Project information contributed by all over time

PROJECT PORTFOLIO ASSESSMENT, RESEARCH METHODOLOGY, PLAN (PPARMP) RCA

General Use/Application (done by Team Leadership—note that team leaders rotate continuously just like all other team functions):Part 1 A, B, C, D. Team leaders assign independent and grand form team members RCA and SDA compilation responsibilities, due dates. Part 2 A, B, C, D. Continuously evolve “Project” information, and diagrams, to help explain and connect all aspects of team work.Part 3. FACR—RCA is updated and addressed with each tool/phase based on FACR’s done at specific SDA’s.Part 4. General methodological reflection, based on total completed portfolio, and input from all, to assist all in improving.

PART 1. Team leaders prepare threads in discussion board work areas for this tool, where all work can be posted as assigned. All persons on the team should be shown on a line below, given an assignment, corresponding to work posts in discussion board threads.

Phase: Tool: Date: Compiler (s), Team Leader: Team:

Researcher 1A. Assigned Forms Due, First Half Posting Cycle

1B. Researcher Independent Work Reviewed By

1C. Grand Form Compiled, Second Half Posting Cycle 1D. Final Compiled Work Reviewed By

ExampleJoe Smith

John Doe 10/8/03 James Hale

PART 2. This section should be expanded and evolved to address and develop parts 2 A, B, C, and D over time to become several pages in length and assist non-team participants (as well as team participants) in understanding the project focus and context.

2 A. Project Background: (ex, number/type persons in systems, recent changes, historical of systems/processes, product information, etc.)2 B. Project Problem Statement: (ex. how are systems organized and managed to obtain the full benefit of collaborative communication.)2 C. Project Objectives: (three to maximum six, perhaps provided by customer/consultation with others, continuously refined).2 D. Project Research Methodology: (how data is gathered, analyzed with SDA’s/RCA’s. Teams do a modified Gantt chart like those below). Part 2 includes three diagrams as follow, all designed to graphically help describe how the project is being done, also continuously evolved.

Courseware Application Portfolio TemplatePPARMP systematically integrates FACR, tool rollout• Part of broader portfolio template, courseware • Relates to method of work, what is found in SDA’s• All contribute at integrated FACR format, PPARMP• Compilers collect summaries, from threads in forum

Part 4 A, Tool/SDA Project Methodology, Rollout: Tool/SDA methodology is a planned completion of tools and SDA’s in course and project with each tool and phase portfolio. Relationships to FACR, and tool/phase methodologies are updated with each portfolio, coinciding with rollout of work shown in course syllabus. Final phase II portfolio presentation has 18 tools completed, minimum. SDA 1 and 2 are enhanced ongoing throughout course; SDA 3, 4 and 5 are done as shown below; and other SDA’s may be modified per team methodology (ex: up to two SDA’s used in 3, 4, 5 can be repeated and “grown” and other SDA’s may be used from a different set of tools within the total 42 ITTTM). Are any changes recommended for the rollout at this time, and if yes, what is the basis for the proposed changes?

Tool SDA 1 SDA 2 SDA 3 SDA 4 SDA 5 Other (s)

1 OPCP SOGA DSDC ISOQSAOPP GOTA

2 OPCP SOGA GCA BSOP APEIAR

3 OPCP SOGA FMEA GCA (cont) GAIS

4 OPCP SOGA GBAPS MMPLCAA PASPC

5 OPCP SOGA FMEA (cont) MAPA PASPC (cont)

6 OPCP SOGA MTA GCA (cont) GSICPC

Researcher 3A. Project objective (s) written……

3B. Findings, analyses observed as data, documentation in SDA……

3C. Conclusions, recommendations in methods, course outcomes……

3D. TRIRPA, TPPMA, PPDPOA relationships?

Researcher Contribution

Collect From All, Compile

Part 3 A, B, C, and D. Findings, Analysis, Conclusions, Recommendations (FACR-PMP) RCA. As each SDA is used and a FACR done for each, the general results and findings from all persons on the team are brought together as general project findings, analyses, conclusions and recommendations for future planning and work. All work should be organized around objectives in project.

Courseware Application Portfolio TemplatePPARMP brings all parts of portfolio template together• Methodology of work, doing tool applications, phases• All integrate work to build portfolio, research project

Part 4 B, Tool Portfolio Methodology Rollout. Tool portfolio completion in two week posting cycle combines tasks, who should do, and when to complete in relation to all other work. Three tool portfolios are done before phase I and three after, all leading to final phase II compilation (both phases result in a “grand” accumulative portfolio, explained in the next chart). Posting cycle includes all days, and can be done ahead of time. *Astericked tasks are first done by team leader or assistant team leader on a rotating basis, and all coincide with rollout of work in syllabus.

Timeline in Days/Weeks/Months (denoted by color)

Task/Action/Step 01

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

Faculty prepares tool discussion board area X

Team leadership prepares PPARMP, assigns work* X

Team leadership prepares threads in work area* X

SDA’s researched by all, all do all SDA’s X X X

SDA’s independently posted at threads by all X X X X

Non-required team chat about work in motion X X X

SDA’s compiled by team members per PPARMP X X X X X X

RCA’s independently posted at threads by all X X X X X X

RCA’s compiled by team members per PPARMP X X X X X X

Tool portfolio assembled by team leadership* X X

Tool portfolio reviewed by all on team X X

Tool portfolio posted by team leadership* X

Faculty assessment, post in new discussion board X X

Required team chat about POAM, next tool X X

Courseware Application Portfolio TemplateROLDA, systematic tool to abstract, analyze content• Summarizes course content, analyzes for all• Relates externally researched information to SDA’s• All contribute via independent form, post in forum• Compilers collect summaries, from threads in forum

Review Of Literature, Documentation Assessment (ROLDA) RCA

General Use/Application (top part): Read tool long and short forms from ITTTM and provide general tool bibliographic information and 300-500 word abstract of the tool in appropriate areas below NOTE: all must do this individually, one on team compiles all work posted).1. Response 1A, give the main technological concept of the tool.2. Response 2A, explain how the tool added value to the team project. 3. Response 3A, form a question pertaining to the tool for chat discussion. General Use/Application (bottom part): Identify an article/source related to the tool, and summarize in 300-500 words (abstract).4. Response 1B, give the bibliographic source, being careful to cite all details correctly.5. Response 2B, explain how this article added value to the team project.6. Response 3B, SDA connection to the article—usually one or two, minimum.

Phase: Tool: Date: Researcher: Compiler (s): Team:

Information Source (Tool reviewed for this toolkit completion) In Bibliographic Form:

Abstract And Synthesis Of Key Information (usually approximately 300-500 words) completed by compiler (s) based on submissions by all on team as well as their own review of the tool content:

Researcher 1A. Main Technological Concept:

2A. Relationship, Value Added, To Project/: 3A. Assessment Question, Pros And Cons, For Chat:


Collect From All, Compile

Compiler Portfolio Reflections, Summary Of Technical Work, Assessment, Based On Individual Researcher Inputs:

Compiler Reflections To Help Improve Quality Of Work In Portfolio Based On All Individual Researcher Inputs:

Article Abstract Of Key Information (usually approximately 300-500 words—each tool submission requires one for each team member) :

Researcher 1B. Bibliographic Source: Author; How To Access; How/Who, Published; Type Source, etc.:

2B. Why Is This Source Relevant; How Does It Add Value (Reflections By Researcher)?

3B. SDA’s Connected:


Team names for internal assessment. External uses other teams’ names

Compiler organizes excel rating forms, in PPMTA collective “grand” form

All researchers rate others on separate excel forms and post individual PPMTA RCA work

Internal Team

Assessment

General Commun- ication

Threaded Commun- ications

Chat Part-icipation (non/req.)

SDA/RCA Contribu-

tions

Writing Quality In General

Analysis , Reflection In Writing

Format Compliance

+ Details

Data Analysis, Accuracy

Did More/Less Than Asked

General Timeliness, Delivery

Coopera- tion And Attitude

Leadership, Prof.

Demeanor

Grand Total Per Individual

WORK/RATING (1-10): 1 = low /bad; 10 = high/good; 0 = no contribution

MEMBER

Team 1+ 1 5 7 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 8 2 4.83333

up to 12 1 5 9 0 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 7.25

1 10 8 8 2 8 8 8 8 1 8 8 6.5

1 10 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 6.75

6 2 6 6 10 10 3 6 6 6 6 6 6.08333

10 4 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 1 8 10 8.58333

4 10 4 4 4 4 1 4 0 4 4 4 3.91667

4 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 0 4 4 4 3.75

4 7 4 4 4 4 4 4 0 4 4 4 3.91667

4 9 4 4 5 4 4 4 0 4 4 4 4.16667

4 7 4 4 1 4 4 10 0 10 10 4 5.16667

4 9 4 4 4 4 4 10 0 10 10 4 5.58333

TOTAL TEAM AVERAGE =5.54167

Various characteristics are described to help assess each persons’ work in the PPMTA


Characteristics of ITTTM courseware, electronic courses, demonstrate, provide much to do with communication. Relationships, inherent, are basis for knowledge growth.

ITTTM process and content intertwine as learning Interdisciplinary relationships as base, foundation Data and documentation, quality system applications Problem solving, decision-making Change, assessment, improvement systems Technical project management drives communication Team functions, communication systems Communication systems merging with quality systems

ITTTM Courseware, Communication, Systems

Characteristics of ITTTM courseware……... Designed for communication, building knowledge

Table forms require writing, response, analysis, assessmentData, information documented by each researcher in early postSynthesis, articulation done by all, final portfolio compilation

Technical project management, team disciplineTeam functions require effective communication systemsProblem solving, decision-making, all done within ITTTMCommunication systems merge quality system, documentation

ITTTM Courseware, Communication, Systems

How do we assess, evaluate performance? How do we assess e-projects, based on documented deliverables? Review, assess work? Supervise, empower, delegate, assign?

How does e-team behavior play into assessment? Assess those we do not see, objectively use data, documentation? How to organize, manage teams, projects? Do supply chain……

General infrastructure is critical to good communication: All on same page, hardware and software?

PC equipment functionalities similar, compatible? Windows driven, MS Word software base, Office suite……..

Assessing general infrastructure performance………. Objectivity in data and documentation, based on ISO 9000 rubric Do customer requests electronically………not on site?

Electronic Infrastructure In Place, Used?

Broader shell infrastructure, critical for communication: Shell places all on same page, hardware, software…….

Shell provides key part of security in total systems Maintenance, support in place to keep all growing, moving?

Blackboard as shell………. Can do e-team mobility, security, data, documentation……… Parallels, provides, many business and industry functionalities

1. Shell As Base For Commun-

ication

2. Same Hardware

And Software Capabilities

3.e-teams, email In

Place, Main Drivers

4. Review, Assessment,

Systems Documented

5. Systems Define And

Manage Culture

6. Portfolio Demonstrates Objectivity, Deliverables

Infrastructural flow and relationships………

Electronic Infrastructure In Place, Used?

Electronic Infrastructure In Place, Used? Blackboard shell is non-traditional classroom………

Announcements, updated routinely, address progress, issues Course information posted for all, as needed, continuous Shell is where team defines culture, communicates Automatic attendance taken based on presence, lack of Highly flexible, structured, organized—requires communication Requirements, functions require discipline, concentration Student is empowered, requires initiative, time commitment

Chat is where, when, all gather for simultaneous work Team dialogue, problem solving, decision making, project review Chats record “meeting” minutes, archived team growth, same time

Discussion board is for focused postings, organization Threading organizes SDA, RCA posts, evolves knowledge growth Well organized, systematic, reflects management of team

Portfolio is team oriented, research method infrastructure Iterative knowledge growth, around project deliverables Courseware is disciplined quality system infrastructure Portfolio documentation structure from courseware is guide Each tool, done as assigned, iteratively evolves portfolio Portfolio demonstrates progress, deliverables, objectively

Project Research, Professional Portfolio

Electronic course, courseware is applied communication: Read information, articulate response, others reply, ongoing Courseware requires reading prior to applying content Portfolio communicates concepts, project deliverables Feedback, as assessment closes loop, improves in POAM All must initiate, read, post and repeat, engage early, often

1. Syllabus Identifies

Outcomes, Content

2. Content Leads To Rubrics, Metrics

3. Learning Activity

Defined As Matrix

4. Syllabus Matrix Blend Assessment, Courseware

5. Matrix In Syllabus Guides

Portfolio

6. Content Synthesis, Feedback, Portfolio

ITTTM courseware is course level assessment vehicle, via syllabus, statement of anticipated student outcomes


Outcomes drive assessment, as deliverables, for example:1. Communication. ”Good communication practices are

reflected in all work, ultimately as team portfolio.

2. Review of literature. .Literature, information reviewed and extracted supports, grows ideas, knowledge.

3. Content applications. Organize, apply document knowledge via course content as solutions to project.

4. Research methodology. A structured, intentional research plan is designed and implemented.

5. Project management. Resources are well managed to make effective decisions, improve professional practice.


Course outcomes are further defined in the POAM, a matrix assessment system embedded in the syllabus.

QS 327: PORTFOLIO OUTCOME ASSESSMENT MATRIX (POAM)

POAM is instructor feedback of posting cycle work by individuals, and total team, integrating outcomes with courseware use, particularly SDA’s and RCA’s tool applications. POAM shows overall portfolio team performance, given at early and second postings. General issue area (GIA) checks, persons astericked in scorecard, and final score are indications of best practices.

Outcome 1: Documentation-based knowledge. Literature, information supports, develops ideas, knowledge of systems, relationships via documentation-based quality systems values reflecting knowledge growth, improvement, change.

Outcome, aims general assessment, reflect researcher/compiler/team management in RCA’s, SDA’s, others. GIA

oReview, analyze, raise questions about quality systems field focused on project and content, adding valueoQuality and quantity of information appropriately connects project, course content, professional preparation, TRIRPA

GIA improvement feedback, including persons not fully supporting, total points earned (10/20 possible) as a team in final post:

Outcome 2: Global, local quality, technology systems relationships. Student teams do service projects to assess, organize, document knowledge as findings from systematic analysis, structured as data and documentation in tools as solutions to project.


oCultural issues for development and technology transfer, growth in knowledge from project, beyond oSystems in problem solving and decision-making, adding value in resource management and waste oriented servicesoAssess ethical and “values oriented” issues engaging “political correctness and diversity”, as questions raisedoResearchers grow knowledge, from individual applications done, ultimately compiled as grand form “best practices”oVarious data and documentation tools applied as appropriate to quality systems, solving project problems


Outcome 3: Portfolioing model documentation-based systems. Resources well managed as documentation system to make effective decisions, improve based on broad systems knowledge, applications, evolving in forum, growing team portfolio.


oPPDPOA shows good management, team focus, responsibilities for work, all rotating in all compiling functionsoBuilding, assessing internal and external supplier evaluation systems of services performed, judging quality, FACRoPortfolio system, including power point, show good management, writing quality, effective electronic communicationoSupplier, customer communications, information movement, as “real time” innovation, assessment, adding valueoForms, chats, threads show good team management, responsibilities balanced, doing early posts, compiling, rotating


Other general feedback/information for team:

Team Assessed: Assessor: JWS Work Assessed: Date: Team Points:


Industrial Technologist’s Toolkit For Technical Management (ITTTM) Introduction, Process,...

Documents

Transcript of Industrial Technologist’s Toolkit For Technical Management (ITTTM) Introduction, Process,...