Continuous Improvement and Change Management
This domain tests whether you can convert a finding into a durable change. EAQE items present a weakness (from self-evaluation, external review, or data) and ask for a credible improvement plan, a root-cause diagnosis, or an explanation of why a previous change failed.
Core rules
- PDCA is the backbone. Plan (define the problem, baseline, target, method), Do (pilot or implement), Check (measure against baseline), Act (standardise, scale, or revise). DMAIC offers a more structured variant for persistent problems: define, measure, analyse, improve, control.
- Corrective versus preventive action. Corrective action removes the cause of a detected nonconformity; preventive action reduces the likelihood of one occurring. ISO 9001:2015 and ISO 21001 fold both into improvement and require evidence of effectiveness, not just completion.
- Root cause before remedy. Five whys and cause-and-effect (fishbone) analysis separate symptoms from causes. A plan that fixes a symptom recurs next cycle.
- Action plans need six fields: action, owner, deadline, resource, success measure, verification method. Missing any one predicts failure.
- Change models. Kotter's eight steps (urgency, coalition, vision, communication, empowerment, short-term wins, consolidation, anchoring) and ADKAR (awareness, desire, knowledge, ability, reinforcement) explain why technically sound changes stall.
- Human factors. Resistance is information: it often signals workload, competence, incentive or identity concerns. Communicate the "why", involve implementers in design, provide training and time, and make the change visible in recognition and reward.
- Follow-up. External review conditions and recommendations require a tracked, dated follow-up with evidence of effect; improvement without verification is assertion.
Worked example
First-year attrition is 22%, and the response is "launch a new induction week". Five whys: why do students leave? They report feeling unprepared for early assessment. Why? The first summative assessment falls in week three with no formative rehearsal. Why? Assessment scheduling is set by timetabling convenience, not by learning design. Why? No owner coordinates assessment timing across modules. Why? Assessment policy assigns each module to itself. Root cause: absent cross-programme assessment scheduling and no formative checkpoint. Remedy: stagger early assessments, add a low-stakes formative task in weeks two to four, assign a programme-level assessment calendar owner. Check: compare attrition and early-assessment pass rates against baseline for two cohorts; Act: embed the calendar in policy and review annually. Note the original induction idea addressed a symptom.
Traps that cost marks
- Action plans with no owner, deadline or success measure.
- Treating symptoms as causes; assuming a policy revision equals an improvement.
- Declaring success at implementation without measuring effect against baseline.
- Ignoring capacity, workload and change fatigue across simultaneous initiatives.
- Abandoning changes after the first cycle, so gains do not persist (no "Act"/anchoring).