CASE 2: Southwestern University: (C)* Chapter 6

The popularity of Southwestern University’s football program under its new coach Phil Flamm, surged in each of
the 5 years since his arrival at the Stephenville, Texas, College. With a football stadium close to maxing out at 54,000 seats
and vocal coach pushing for new stadium, SWU president Joel Wisner faced some difficult decisions. After a phenomenal
upset victory over its archrival, the University of Taxes at the homecoming game in fall, Dr. Wisner was not as happy as one
would think. Instead of ecstatic alumni, students and faculty all Wisner heard was complaints. “The line at the concession
stand were too long”; “Parking was harder to find and farther away than in the old days”; “Seats weren’t comfortable”;
“Traffic was back up halfway to Dallas” and on and on. “A college president just can’t win,” mutter Wisner to himself.
At his staff meeting the following Monday, Wisner turned to his VP of admin, Leslie Gardner, “I wish you would
take care of these football complaints, Leslie” he said. “See what real problems are and let me know how you’ve solved
them.” Gardner wasn’t surprised at the request. “I’ve already got a handle on it, Joel,” she replied. “We’ve been randomly
surveying 50 fans per game for the past year to see what on their mind. It is all part of my campus-wide TQM effort. I’ll get
back to you in a week.” When she returned to her office, Gardner pulled out the file her assistant had compile. “There’s a lot
of information here,” she thought.
Table 6.6. Fan Satisfaction Survey Result (N = 250)
OVERALL GRADE
A B C D E
Game Day A. Parking 90 105 45 5 5
B. Traffic 50 85 48 52 15
C. Seating 45 30 115 35 25
D. Entertainment 160 35 26 10 19
E. Printed Program 66 34 98 22 30
Tickets A. Pricing 105 104 16 15 10
B. Season Ticket Plan 75 80 54 41 0
Concessions A. Prices 16 116 58 58 2
B. Food Selection 155 60 24 11 0
C. Speed of Service 35 45 46 48 76
Respondents
Alumnus 113
Student 83
Faculty/ Staff 16
None of the above 38
Open ended comments on survey cards:
Parking a mess More hot dog stands Put in bigger seats My company will buy
Add a skybox Seats are all metal Friendly ushers a skybox—build it!
Get better cheerleaders Need skyboxes Need better seats Programs
Double the parking attendants Seats stink Expand parking lot overpriced
Everything is okay Go SWU! Hate the bleacher seats Want softer seats
Too crowded Lines are awful Hot dogs cold Beat those
Seats too narrow Seats are uncomfortable $3 for a coffee? No way! Longhorns!
Great food I will pay more for better view Get some skyboxes I’ll pay for a skybox
Phil F. for President! Get a new stadium Love the new uniforms Seats too small
I smelled drugs being smoked Student dress code needed Took an hour to park Band was terrific
Stadium is ancient I want cushioned seats Coach is terrific Love Phil Flamm
Seats are like rocks Not enough police More water fountains Everything is great
Not enough cops for traffic Students to rowdy Better seats Build new stadium
Game starts too late Parking terrible Seats not comfy Move games to
Hire more traffic cops Toilets weren’t clean Bigger parking lot Dallas
Need new band Not enough handicap spots in lot I’m too old for bench seats No complaints
Great! Well done, SWU Cold coffee served at game Dirty bathroom

Discussion Question:
1. Using at least two different quality tools, analyze the data and present your conclusion?
2. How could the survey have been more useful?
3. What is the next step?
A. INTRODUCTION

The popularity of Southwestern University’s football program under its new coach Phil Flamm, surged in each of
the 5 years since his arrival at the Stephenville, Texas, College. With a football stadium close to maxing out at 54,000 seats
and vocal coach pushing for new stadium, SWU president Joel Wisner faced some difficult decisions. After a phenomenal
upset victory over its archrival, the University of Taxes at the homecoming game in fall, Dr. Wisner was not as happy as one
would think. Instead of ecstatic alumni, students and faculty all Wisner heard was complaints. As a response, Wisner turned
to his VP of admin, Leslie Gardner, in order to dissect to real source of the problem and postulate strategies on how to
address the issue. Little did he know that Gardner was already surveying 50 random fans per game for the past year. It was
all part of her Total Quality Management (TQM) effort. This case study presents the application of TQM tools as discussed
in Chapter 7: Process Strategy. The analyst will focus on the three main requirements on the aforementioned Discussion
Questions. This paper will use TQM tools in order to crack the central issue and then formulate alternatives to address the
identified concern.

B. BACKGROUND

Southwestern University is an independent, four-year undergraduate institution comprising the Brown College of
Arts and Sciences, the Garey School of Natural Sciences, and the Sarofim School of Fine Arts. They have chapters of the
Phi Beta Kappa and Alpha Chi honor societies and the Omicron Delta Kappa national leadership honor society. It was the
first institution of higher learning in Texas, chartered by the Republic of Texas in 1840. Their founders were Methodist
missionaries; the University continues its affiliation with the United Methodist Church today.

C. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

Southwestern University’s main concern revolves around the dissatisfaction of football fans. The analyst of the
case intends to use several Total Quality Management (TQM) tools such as the Check Sheet, to summarize the comments,
Fish Bone Diagram, to determine the causes of complaints, as well as Pareto Chart to organize the data gathered for further
analysis in solving the issue. She also aims to discuss the reasons how the survey can become more useful to readers and
then provide insights about the subsequent steps to take after analyzing the data presented.

D. ALTERNATIVE COURSES OF ACTION

To translate the central issue, the analyst will perform two separate TQM tools application. The first approach will
apply on the Satisfaction Survey Results displayed in Table 6.6, and the second approach will focus on the open-ended
comments on the survey cards.

a. Satisfaction Survey Results Viewpoint

Based on Ms. Gardner’s random survey, data can be collected from which problems can be deduced.
Subsequently, these problems are documented in a table and grouped. It is important to apply the “Cause-and-Effect” theory
to each item so that the source of each documented problem can be found. The table below shows the conversion of letter
grades into numerical score. Subsequently, total weighted score and cumulative weighted score were computed.

    WEIGHTS  
    (A) (B) (C) (D) (E)
TOTAL
1 2 3 4 5
Game Day A.       Parking 90 210 135 20 25 480
B.       Traffic 50 170 144 208 75 647
C.       Seating 45 60 345 140 125 715
D.       Entertainment 160 70 78 40 95 443
E.       Printed Program 66 68 294 88 150 666
Tickets A.       Pricing 105 208 48 60 50 471
B.       Season Ticket Plan 75 160 162 164 0 561
Concessions A.       Prices 16 232 174 232 10 664
B.       Food Selection 155 120 72 44 0 391
C.       Speed of Service 35 90 138 192 380 835
Weight = Assigned Weighing Factor x No. of Responses
 The survey data from Table 6.6 were weighted with the following assumptions:

Letter Grade Interpretation Numerical Score REASON

A Excellent 1
B Above Average 2 Since the case study is trying to solve the dissatisfaction
C Satisfactory 3 aforementioned in the case, the weight of each letter grade
D Below Average 4 will be heaviest on E.
E Poor 5
Take note that the identified problems are grouped based on their causes. Weighting of data is done in order to re-
balance the data to more accurately reflect the population. After measuring, identifying, and tabulating the problems, the
next step will be identifying their importance. The analyst organized the inventoried problems in ranking order from the most
important down to the least important in descending order.

No. of Problems
Type of Problem No. of Times % of Total % (Cumulative)
(Cumulative)
Speed of Service 835 14% 835 14%
Seating 715 12% 1550 26%
Printed Program 666 11% 2216 38%
Prices 664 11% 2880 49%
Traffic 647 11% 3527 60%
Season Ticket Plan 561 10% 4088 70%
Parking 480 8% 4568 78%
Pricing 471 8% 5039 86%
Entertainment 443 8% 5482 93%
Food Selection 391 7% 5873 100%
TOTAL 5873 100% 5873 100%
Now that all problems have been grouped, the marks or scores are added. The group with the highest score must
be given the highest priority in order so that they can be dealt with. This is where the most results can be obtained in terms
of optimization. The data can be converted into a graph called a Pareto Analysis Diagram.

No. of Times
% (Cumulative)
 Using the Pareto Chart, the number of times all items were graded with the lowest rating “E” was plotted. Based
on this chart and on the 80-20 principle, the top 3 items namely Speed of service, Seating and Printed Program were
causing the rest of the complaints on the rest of the items.

b. Open-Ended Comments Viewpoint

Table 6.6 also presented open-ended comments on survey cards of randomly selected fans. The frequency of the
positive and negative comments is summarized using Check Sheet. The open-ended comments on survey cards include a
number of positive comments about the entertainment, band, coach, other facilities and food quality. However, this paper
will focus on the negative comments in order to determine the real problem regarding the dissatisfaction of fans.
RESULTS BY TOPIC
(-) Entertainment (+) (-) Facilities (+) (-) Food (+)
  Entertainment 8 14 Seats   3 Access/Variety  
3 Student Behavior   9 Parking   1 Quality 1
2 Crowded   5 Need Sky Boxes   1 Price
1 Cheerleaders   5 Other 1
1 Programs   2 Bathroom  
Band 1 1 Traffic  
  Coach 3            
Positive Comments (+); Negative Comments (-)
Presented below is the results of summarized version of negative comments:
No. of Problems
Topics Frequency % of Total % (Cumulative)
(Cumulative)
Seats 14 29% 14 29%
Parking 9 19% 23 48%
Need Sky Boxes 5 10% 28 58%
Other 5 10% 33 69%
Access/Variety 3 6% 36 75%
Student Behavior 3 6% 39 81%
Bathroom 2 4% 41 85%
Crowded 2 4% 43 90%
Traffic 1 2% 44 92%
Quality 1 2% 45 94%
Price 1 2% 46 96%
Cheerleaders 1 2% 47 98%
Programs 1 2% 48 100%
Entertainment - - - -
Band - - - -
Coach - - - -
TOTAL 48 100% 48 100%
Outwardly, fans dissatisfaction is the main issue of this case. Since open-ended comments are qualitative in
nature, using Fish Bone Diagram is helpful in order to classify and segregate the causes of dissatisfaction.
The operation manager starts with four categories: Material, Machinery, Method, and Manpower. These 4Ms will
be the causes. Each causes provides a good checklist for initial analysis. Individual causes associated with each category
are tied in as separate bones along that branch, often through a brainstorming process. When a fish-bone chart is
systematically developed, possible quality problems and inspection points are highlighted. The analyst of this paper will rely
primarily on identified topics and insert few more details for further comprehension.
(See the Fish Bone Diagram on the next page.)
 The same steps will be applied with the first viewpoint. Presented below is the Pareto Chart of the second
viewpoint.

Using the Pareto Chart, the frequency of negative comments was plotted. Based on this chart and on the 80-20
principle, the top 3 items namely Seats, Parking, and a tie between Need Sky Boxes and Other Facilities were causing the
rest of the complaints on the rest of the items.

ANALYSIS OF THE TWO VIEWPOINTS: Problem Identification

Note how the survey results differ between the survey and open-ended comments. Seats, for instance, comes first
on the open-ended comments, but with the weighting scheme it is second to Speed of Service. Parking comes second on
the open-ended comments, but in the first viewpoint it is near the bottom along with entertainment and food selection.
Bathrooms were not included on the survey questions, but show up on the open-ended comments. This only implies that
different methodologies often yield different results. In identifying the ultimate source of the problem, the nature of the data
must be accounted for. Clearly, Speed of Service was derived from a quantitative data while Seats was based on qualitative
data. As per feedback through a structured questionnaire, the top dissatisfaction issue will be Speed of Service.

ALTERNATIVE COURSES OF ACTION: Solution Formulation

ACA NO. 1: Engagement of Services of a Third-Party Property Management Contractor

Advantages Disadvantages
 Specialized expertise  Possibility of under-performance
 Facilities will be managed properly  Mismanagement of the property management
 Minimal cost vs. constructing of a new stadium company leading to low performance of the deployed
 Transfer of accountability staff and worst, disruption of services.
 Output based on contract and standard set  Legal implication (cost and length of processing) in
 All repairs and renovations will be facilitated by the the event of breach of contract.
contractor subject for Management approval.  Insufficient support of University management on
proposed enhancement and repairs by the
contractor

ACA NO. 2: Construction of a New Stadium

Advantages Disadvantages
 New and improved facilities  Higher Cost
 Justifies increase in ticket pricing for investment  Longer to build
recovery and to cover O&M cost  Longer to recover investment
 Boosts and improves athlete’s performance with new  Increased ticket price may result decrease in
and better facility audience demand
 Attracts potential athlete’s in joining the university

ACA NO. 3: Signing of a Contract or Agreement with a Bigger Stadium Nearest to the University
Advantages Disadvantages
 Readily available  Fixed rental cost regardless of ticket sales.
 No O&M cost  Possible increased rental cost over the years
 Bigger audience capacity  Results to stranded asset (existing stadium will be of
 Well-maintained facilities no use)
 Justifies increase in ticket price due to additional cost in  Will not attract potential athletes
stadium rental  Additional travel cost, effort and time for audience.
 No control in the management of operation and
maintenance of the stadium.
 Possible conflict on scheduling if Stadium has
existing contracts ahead.
 Increase ticket price

Decision Matrix
CRITERIA ACA NO. 1 ACA NO. 2 ACA NO. 3
Cost Efficient                20% 10 5 15
Availability 25% 10 5 15
Accessibility 10% 15 15 5
Ticket Pricing                    5% 15 10 5
Sustainability           20% 10 15 5
Impact to Athlete’s Performance 10% 10 15 5
Control 10% 10 15 5
TOTAL SCORE 100% 72% 68% 63%
Ratings are assigned to each ACA for each criterion 5,10,15; with 15 being the highest and 5 being the lowest.
 Decision Criteria:
 Cost efficiency: The ACA that will enable the company to have savings or incur less cost
 Availability: The ACA that is readily available within the next season
 Accessibility: The ACA used is measures proximity of venue with consideration to travel time, effort and cost.
 Ticket Pricing: The cost impact on the current price of tickets
 Sustainability: Ability of the ACA to provide continued well-maintained stadium for the season.
 Impact to Athlete’s Performance: Ability of the ACA to motivate and improve the Athlete’s performance
 Control: Ability of the University Management to administer the operation and maintenance of the venue.

Conclusion:
The chosen ACA is ACA NO. 1, which is Engagement of Services of a Third-Party Property Management Contractor.

E. RECOMMENDATION

SURVEY’S SIGNIFICANCE: How could the survey have been more useful?

Looking over to Table 6.6, it presents the respondents of the survey. There are 113 alumni, 83, students, 16,
faculty or staff, and 38 none of the mentioned segments. The structure of the survey could have been segmented by faculty,
alumni, guests, and students for an added perspective on quality. Moreover, since the survey was supposed to address
complains of the attendees, it could have been more useful if the tool was designed to determine “failure” instead of grading
items on a scale. Out of the 10 items, the management could focus on identified aspect with a failed rating and the surge of
overwhelming data would be avoided— as experienced by the analyst of the case.

F. CONCLUSION

QUALITY CONTROL: What’s the next step?

Application of TQM tools is still raw in order to achieve quality goods and service. In order to live on the core
principle of this approach, the next step is to improve quality by beginning improvement with the high-frequency item on the
left of the Pareto Chart for either the survey or open-ended negative responses. Following the Pareto Principle,
management should either address the complaints on Speed of service, Seating, and Printed Program— if ever they
decided to focus on the survey results, or address the complains on Seats, Parking, and Need Sky Boxes— if ever they
decided to deal with the open-ended comments, as they are causing 80% of the complains. With the presented courses of
actions above, ACA No. 1— which is Engagement of Services of a Third-Party Property Management Contractor, is the
chosen solution in order to address multitude of issues Southwestern University is currently facing. After all, designing the
product, managing the service process, matching customer expectations to the product, and preparing for exceptions are
the keys to quality service.