Back in 2013, while evaluating SQC Case Studies as a Commentator in the capacity of Master Trainer amid 9th National Convention on Students’ Quality Circles, 2013 (9th NCSQC’13), at LRI School, Kathmandu, I along with fellow Master Trainer Mr. Subash Adhikari from Simara, encountered with a critically thought-provoking presentation by the SQCians from Monastic School, Janakpur which worked as a whack on the side of my head. The title of the Case Study was “Kleptomania” and after a well-versed presentation from the circle, we went for receiving comments. After appreciative comments from the floor, I asked them about the data collection method they used for the major problems.
They had used Survey Methods with some questionnaires. Since “Kleptomania” is a psychological term pertaining to compulsive stealing habit, I asked if they got appropriate data from the questionnaires. Before they answered, a student from Mount View English Boarding School, Bhaktapur raised a question, “Who will answer ‘YES’ if you go and ask, ‘Do you steal or are you a thief?'” There was utter silence in the hall for a moment and then Monastic SQCians defended their perspective with some events of collecting data which was quite convincing but I couldn’t get satisfied with the very survey method of data collection. Truth be told, till that point of time, almost all of the Case Studies dealt with Psycho-Social and Behavioural Problems of the students and used Survey Methods so popularly due to its simplicity and ease.

1. Initiation of Character Identification and Observation

I got into a deep cognitive process of unfolding the mystery – what could be the best tool to observe Psycho-Social and Behavioural Problems that could be used by SQC with an ease. The answer was already there – Check-Sheets because the Father of SQC Prof. Dinesh P. Chapagain always emphasized on its use in observing the problems. But it was not that easy to use a typical Check-Sheet because Psycho-Social and Behavioural Problems are not directly observable in its nature. One cannot simply see its occurrences, count its events and give checks. Moreover, since Psycho-Social Problems stem to some mental conditions holding a kind of stigma in the society, people tend to hide them. So, survey could be a very less effective tool but it was the most popular.
I collected some SQC Case Study Presentations from NCSQCs and ICSQCs, and started studying the problems in observing the problems itself. In my observation, I concluded that it was not a problem only in Nepal but in other countries as well because it was not dealt much differently in other countries too. While observing SQC meetings in my own school and some other schools, I tried to find the ways to observe the psychosocial and behavioural problems.
In SQC, there is a phase, right after identification of the major problem, which deals with identification and observation of the characters of the problem. Surprisingly, this phase was typically missing in most of the case studies. Then, I tried to break down the identified psychosocial problems into their characters. I used simple thinking cues like “how it looks like, where it occurs, when it occurs, how often it occurs, etc.”, intentionally avoiding “Why” questions because it could lead to causes. I further wanted to see what happens to the body, eyes, face, hands, heart, feet, etc. when such problems afflict a person. With this, I found that we could break the problems down into several individual characters and sum of them could represent the problem in true sense. This made me encouraged, and then I tried to see if the characters were observable with a Check-Sheet. In my finding, almost all the characters were observable and but there were still some directly not observable characters which needed more breakdown.
After this realization, I encouraged Students, Facilitators and Master Trainers in my contacts to use the pathway of breaking down the problems of psycho-social nature into characters and observing them using Check-Sheets. Gradually, it started getting popular in Nepalese SQC Fraternity and receiving attention of Prof. Chapagain. Initially, this approach was not liked by some SQC Practitioners but it kept on growing bigger. With this practice, we came to a conclusion of seeing problems in the way illustrated below:

 

For each and every problem identified by SQCs, we evaluated whether they were directly observable or directly not observable. Directly observable problems could be observed immediately by preparing a Check-Sheet. For problems of psychosocial nature which were not directly observable, we identified different characters from different dimensions and then only Check-Sheets were developed to observe them. We also ensured through process that even for the directly observable problems, character identification needed to be done to understand the problem in deeper level.

With this shift, we believe that SQCs got better opportunities to see the problem deeply, closely and realistically. As Peter Drucker rightly remarked, “What gets measured, gets managed”, SQCs could truthfully measure the intensity of the psychosocial problems they identified that paved a way for the permanent solution of the problems. I believe that this improvement proved to be one of the game changers in solving Psychosocial and Behavioural Problems in the SQC.

We also diversified the models of Check-Sheets for that purpose. We used the data collected from the character-based check-sheets for interpreting the problems using different graphical tools and then to set SMART Goals or target setting since data were received in quantified numbers.

In the 8th SQC Master Trainers’ Laboratory 2018 (8th SQC MasterLab’18), Prof. Chapagain asked me to present on Schedule Method of Check-Sheet which was quite similar to what we have been doing to identify and observe characters of the problem. It gave us more clarity and better perspective to look upon the psychosocial and behavioural problems. Later that year, Prof. Chapagain formed an Expert Technical Committee to further experiment on SQC Tools reframed by him for the Nepalese model of 3rd Generation SQC and I was bestowed upon with the responsibility of Coordinator along with Roshan Thapa, Rabi Shrestha, Narayan Prasad Sapkota and Rupak KC as members. We extensively studied and experimented with all the tools for about two and half months and prepared a detailed report and submitted it to Prof. Chapagain in October, 2018, just before Dashain Festival of that year. Fellow Master Trainer and now QUEST-Nepal Executive Committee Member Mr. Narayan Prasad Sapkota got the responsibility to experiment Schedule Method of Check-Sheet and I believe he did it with justice.
This shift also paved the way to set the targets for solving or minimizing the identified major problem on individual character events of the problems collected through the check-sheets. The total count of the events could also be considered as the size of the problems. Such a typical Target Setting looked like this:

Prof. Chapagain has always been witnessing every efforts and development in SQC so closely that it doesn’t go beyond the SQC Philosophy. At that point of time, he suggested us to use Radar Chart to show the Targets. When we tried it for the first time, we got amazed that this could have been the best tool ever we could use for this segment of SQC. Actually, Radar Chart changed the size of the problems into pictures or graphics. Since we could use different line colours and shape colours, we could see the actual problem size now and the targeted size in different spokes of characters. This way, we got a new and highly collaborative tool for SQC which looked like this:

 

2. Causal Attributions in Root Cause Analysis:

Another trap that can derail the solution of Psychosocial and Behavioural Problems in SQC is the Root Cause Analysis. In Nepalese model of 3G SQC, we use Cause and Effect or Ishikawa or Fishbone Diagram for the analysis of causes. Hitherto, in the course reframing the QCC tools for 3G SQC, we had already replaced the typical Fishbone 4M – Men, Machine, Methods and Materials with the categories more relevant to school set up like School, Students, Parents, Society, etc. as shown below:

For finding Root Causes, we stratify the Causes identified with Ishikawa Diagram into:

(i) Tackleable (A)
(ii) Tackleable with other’s help (B) and
(iii) Untackleable (C)

Then, students take all the Tackleable Causes for Root Cause or Why-Why Analysis.
Root Cause Analysis for industrial problems in industries and psychosocial problems in schools are poles apart and there is no match or comparison. In industrial set-up, causes for a problem can be directly attributed to either machine or materials or men or methods. That is equally true whether we do a Fishbone Analysis or 5-Why Analysis. It is workers’ responsibility to fix all 4 categories of problems and there is no issue of avoidance and denial. But in Root Cause Analysis in SQC for Psychosocial Problems, possibility of solution largely depends on the causes the students attribute. Naturally, students tend to attribute the causes for their failure, weakness and behavioural issues to other people like parents, teachers, friends or situations and circumstances. That is the blame-game they typically want to play. Same applies for SQCians. Until and unless they take the responsibility for their work, action and thoughts, their psychosocial and behavioural problems cannot be solved because if there is anyone who could solve such of their problems, that’s only them and themselves. We had to break the vicious cycle and make them responsible.
So, while doing Why-Why Analysis, we encouraged the students to answer with only the causes for which they could be responsible and they could tackle within the Circle’s capacity. Initially, it was very difficult. We find it even more difficult when we practice it with trainees of SQC Facilitators’ Skills Training (SQCFST) because adult minds cannot be changed with knowledge but only with experiences.
For this, we actually tried to blend the Causal Attribution Theory in SQC. Causal Attributions are explanations or reasons that we give to explain our behaviours and/or actions and their outcomes. Causal attributions provide answers to the ‘why’ questions (Graham, 1991). Because causal attributions influence students’ self-perception and self-concept, they can affect their mindset and motivation. Causal Attributions have 3 dimensions:

  • Internal versus External Locus of Control: This refers to whether we see the causes of success or failure as being within us or due to external factors.
  • Controllable vs Uncontrollable Factors: Of all the causal attributions, effort is the most easily controlled as we can determine how much effort we can expend. So, if we believe that studying will improve our grades, we are likely to work hard. However, if we think that how well we do in a test depends on an uncontrollable factor (e.g., our teacher’s compassion or luck), we will probably be less inclined to study.
  • Stable vs Unstable Factors: Causes of successes or failures can also be perceived to be stable or unstable.

We encouraged students to come with the Why Answers with internal Locus of Control and Controllable Factors, leaving Stable and Unstable Factors because it needed help from others. So now, the answers to the Why would infer to the effort, including non-action, wrong action, weaknesses but not to the difficulty of the task or luck and quality of efforts but strictly not to events. In real sense, this too changed the game in solving the psychosocial and behavioural problems because this totally prevented students to be infected with what DAVID SCHWARTZ likes to term as “Excusitis” – a never-ending blame game to find excuses for your failure, non-actions, wrong decisions and wrong actions, in his bestselling book “The Magic of Thinking Big”.
I was so much fortunate to get massive opportunities of training SQC Facilitators nationwide and share the improvements in SQC for two consecutive Executive tenures of QUEST-Nepal under the stewardship of our Past President Late Mr. Rajkumar Maharjan. He was a man of great vision and values, and the expansion of SQC in his tenures as Senior Vice President and President of QUEST-Nepal was incomparably huge and wide along with many milestones in quality improvements. On the whole, it can be summed up that the Nepal Model of 3rd Generation SQC coined by Prof. Dinesh P. Chapagain has been continually evolving since its inception in the early 2000s and experimenting Kaizen in the use of QCC Tools as a way of reframing it for 3G SQC.

 

Leave a Reply