JOMO KENYATTA UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE AND TECHNOLOGY

MASTER OF SCIENCE IN PROJECT MANAGEMENT

COURSE: PROJECT QUALITY AND RISK MANAGEMENT

COURSE CODE: HEPM 3111

NAME 1: PASCAL MSHANGA MWABONJE

REG NO: HDE314-COO4-2405/2017

2: HENRY MWRINGA MWADONDO

REG.NO. HDE314-COO4-3351/2017

3: MATILDAH TENGE MWATA

REG.NO. HD317-C004-8086/2015

4: LINA NYABOKE ONGWERA

REG.NO: HDE314-COO4-3691-2017

LECTURER: STEVE GACHIE

GROUP ASSIGNMENT

DR. KAORU ISHIKAWA CONTRIBUTION TO QUALITY

Submission date: 18thJune, 2018

1
ACKNOWLEDGMENT

We thank God for keeping us healthy fundamental and giving us strength to do this group

assignment.

We would also like to thank the course lecturer Steve Gachie for His sincere guidance and

sharing expertise to us.

To our families, we wish to thank you for your unceasing support that is extended to us as we

do this course hence making us successful.

2
ABSTRACT

According to Philip Mason Ishikawa throughout his life had the obsession of achieving

quality in organizations. Therefore, in his studies he developed some basic principles. He

affirmed that man should always be considered a good being, and for this reason he should be

trusted in his work. For Ishikawa a worker compromises his well-being, indicating that he is

interested in performing his duties in the best possible way. From the quality approach,

company managers must be able to recognize this interest of the workers. Ishikawa thought

that all business activity should be aimed at subjects who needed certain products or services,

which is why it was important to know them. He considered that participation and teamwork,

through quality circles, should be present at all levels of the organization. It identified

marketing as the center of every organization, understood as the right arrangement of

products and services for stakeholders. He firmly believed that working for quality was

conducive to continuous improvement. To achieve this, it was necessary to follow up on each

of the processes carried out in an organization.

3
Table Contents
ACKNOWLEDGMENT........................................................................................................................i
ABSTRACT..........................................................................................................................................ii
Table Contents......................................................................................................................................iii
LIST OF FIGURE................................................................................................................................iv
DEFINITION OF TERMS....................................................................................................................v
1.0 INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................1
1.1 BACKGROUNG INFORMATION.............................................................................................2
1.2 DR. KAORU ISHIKAWA CONTRIBUTION TO QUALITY...................................................3
1.2.1 Cause-effect model...............................................................................................................4
1.2.2 Quality Circles......................................................................................................................4
1.2.3 Company-wide Quality.........................................................................................................5
1.2.4 Plan-do-check-act model......................................................................................................7
1.2.5 Dr. Ishikawa’s seven quality tools........................................................................................8
2.0 INFLUENCE OF ISHIKAWA’S POSTULATES OF QUALITY................................................20
3.0 CRITIQUE OF ISHIKAWA QUALITY MANAGEMENT THEORY.........................................23
4.0 CONCLUSION.............................................................................................................................24
REFERENCES....................................................................................................................................25

4
LIST OF FIGURE
Figure 1.1 Metal Box Thickness Histogram

Figure 1.2. Example of Cause and Effect Diagram from “Guide to Quality Control”

Figure 4: Check Sheet Example

Figure 5: Pareto Diagram for Defective Items

Figure 6: Stratification Graph by Group

Figure 7: X-R Chart Example

Figure 8: Scatter Diagram Example

5
DEFINITION OF TERMS
Quality – the degree or grade of excellence according to Webster

Kaizen - it is the Japanese word for "improvement". In business, kaizen refers to activities

that continuously improve all functions and involve all Kaizen in kanji employees from the

CEO to the assembly line workers.

Total Quality Control - Total Quality Management or TQM for short, is defined as

“operational philosophy committed to customer satisfaction and continuous improvement”

Leadership - the ability to influence people towards attaining a goal.

6
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Ishikawa’s Philosophy

Ishikawa’s philosophy focused on transforming the workplace, he wanted people to begin to

take pride in the quality of their work. Often times in his book, “What is Total Quality

Control?” he mentions the fact that top management cannot be disconnected from the total

quality management of the company (Molla & Licker, 2001)

He wrote about challenging managers not only to implement the quality into their company,

but to keep the mentality of continuous improvement. Besides just continuous improvement

of quality, Ishikawa also promoted something slightly different from the other gurus. He

valued the idea of a company-wide quality control that was based on a continuous customer

service mentality. He argues that quality control extends beyond the product and

encompasses after-sales service, quality of management, quality of individuals and the

company itself (Chaston & Mangles, 2001).

His dream was for this level of service to seep its way through all levels of management and

then make its way into the everyday lives for all those involved.

1
1.1 BACKGROUNG INFORMATION
Kaoru Ishikawa is internationally known as the quality guru. Among its main contributions

is the creation of the cause-effect model, focused on identifying the problems that a company

must face. Ishikawa was born in Tokyo in 1915 into a family of eight children. His father was

an important industrialist, from whom he inherited his love for the organizations. From a very

young age Ishikawa had contact with the industry thanks to the works carried out by his

father, and became chemist, engineer and administrator of companies, obtaining a doctorate

in this last area.

At the age of 24, he obtained an engineering degree from Tokyo Imperial University, and

later worked in a naval company and a large Japanese oil company, where he obtained an

important practice in the knowledge of labor relations and the motivations of the workers.

He studied business administration and eight years later became a full professor at the same

university; in his desire to investigate statistical methods, was invited to participate in a study

group on quality in organizations. This invitation marked the rest of his life, since from that

experience he became an expert and brought to humanity a great knowledge about success in

business. In 1960, he was part of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO),

responsible for issuing regulations on products and processes within companies.

Seven years later he was appointed chairman of the ISO delegation in Japan, where he

continued to work to rescue and strengthen the companies affected after World War II.

In the field of organizations, Ishikawa is recognized mainly by the invention of the cause-

effect model or fishbone, which seeks to solve the problems detected. Ishikawa died in 1989.

In life he received numerous awards for his contributions to business administration, as well

as his teaching and research work.

2
1.2 DR. KAORU ISHIKAWA CONTRIBUTION TO QUALITY
Over Ishikawa’s career, he has greatly impacted the world of total quality. In this section, we

will discover the several ways he did so. The first contribution includes enhancing Deming’s

PDCA model or Plan Do Check Act model, he transformed it into a six step plan; the six

steps include: Determine goals and targets, determine methods of reaching goals, engage in

education and training, implement work, check the efforts of implementation, and lastly take

appropriate action to accomplish goals and targets. Often times this six step process was used

by quality circles. Quality circles, which were started by Ishikawa, were extremely popular

after they were first tested in the early 1960’s (Hayes, 2002).

The main idea of the quality circles was to seek out and solve work-related problems.

Arguably the most impressive and widely used quality principle of Ishikawa’s is the Fishbone

Diagram. Commonly known as the: Cause and Effect diagram, the Fishbone Diagram, and

lastly the Ishikawa diagram. It was developed to “graphically represent the relationship

between a problem and its potential causes. Fishbone diagrams can help a group examine

thoroughly all possible causes of a quality problem and discern the relationships among them

(Johnson and Wang, 2002).

Through the construction and use of this diagram, companies can get a good look at the cause

of a problem and then figure out how to reduce or eliminate that problem through the use of

improved quality controls (Venkatraman, 2007).

3
1.2.1 Cause-effect model
He was the creator of the cause-effect model, which starts with identifying a problem facing a

particular company. Once identified and with the help of a group of members of the

organization, the causes and their possible effects are identified, based on a scheme known as

fishbone, by the shape of the proposed chart (Ishikawa, 1985).

To follow the cause-effect model, it is important to develop a kind of workshop with

members throughout the organization. Some categories are determined for the study and,

through a brainstorm; these are written on the schematic in the form of a fishbone.

The members of the organization identify causes to find the source of the problem in each

case. For this reason, it is stated that it is the model of why. Leaders should constantly ask

attendees why the causes are.

1.2.2 Quality Circles

organizations. They consist of work groups made up of people who carry out similar

activities in the same area of the company. Together with a leader or supervisor, they analyze

the problems that exist within their group and elaborate possible solutions. In this way it is

possible to identify in depth the origin of an organizational problem (Ishikawa, 1990).

Quality circles were at their most popular during the 1980s, but continue to exist in the form

of Kaizen groups and similar worker participation schemes. Examples of quality circles are

improving occupational safety and health, improving product design, and improvement in the

workplace and manufacturing processes. The term quality circles were most accessibly

defined by Professor Kaoru Ishikawa in his 1988 handbook, "What is Total Quality Control?
4
The Japanese Way" and circulated throughout Japanese industry by the Japanese Union of

Scientists and Engineers in 1960.

Quality circles are typically more formal groups. They meet regularly on company time and

are trained by competent persons (usually designated as facilitators) who may be personnel

and industrial relations specialists trained in human factors and the basic skills of problem

identification, information gathering and analysis, basic statistics, and solution generation.

Quality circles are generally free to select any topic they wish (other than those related to

salary and terms and conditions of work, as there are other channels through which these

issues are usually considered). Quality circles have the advantage of continuity; the circle

remains intact from project to project (Ishikawa, 1990).

1.2.3 Company-wide Quality

employees have greater role to play, arguing that an over-reliance on the quality professional

would limit the potential for improvement. Maintaining that company-wide participation was

required from the top management to the front-line staff. As every area of an organization can

affect quality, all areas should study statistical techniques and implement as required with

internal and external Quality Audit programs.

Going on to name areas such as engineering, design, manufacturing, sales, materials,

clerical, planning, accounting, business and personnel that can not only improve internally

but also provide the essential information to allow strategic management decisions to be

made concerning the company (Venkatraman, 2007).

5
Under the “company-wide” Ishikawa umbrella are not just a company’s internal quality

control activities but the company itself, the quality of management, human respect, after

sales service and customer care. Therefore, suggesting the following benefits:

 Reduced defect

 Improved product quality is improved

 Quality improvement becomes the norm

 Increased reliability

 Reduced costs

 Increased quality of production

 Waste is identified and reduced

 Rework is identified and reduced

 Improvement techniques are established and continually improved

 Inspection and after-the-fact expenses are reduced Contracts are rationalized

 Sales and market opportunities are increased

 Company reputation is increased

 Interdepartmental barriers are broken down and communication becomes easier

 False and inaccurate data is reduced

 Meetings are more effective and focused

 Repairs and maintenance are rationalized

 Improvement in human relations

 Company loyalty is increased

6
1.2.4 Plan-do-check-act model
Besides his own developments, Ishikawa drew and expounded on principles from other

quality gurus, including those of one man in particular: W. Edwards Deming, creator of the

Plan-Do-Check-Act model. Ishikawa expanded Deming's four steps into the following six:

Determine goals and targets.

Determine methods of reaching goals.

Engage in education and training. Implement work.

Check the effects of implementation. Take appropriate action.

7
1.2.5 Dr. Ishikawa’s seven quality tools

HISTOGRAMS

The histogram is the first tool introduced by Dr. Ishikawa. A histogram is a “snapshot” in

time of the dispersion (variation) in your process. A histogram tells you four things about

your process:

1. What value or range of values occur most frequently (called the mode)

2. The amount of variation in the process

3. The relationship of the process variation to the specifications

4. The shape of the variation (e.g., bell shaped, skewed)

An example using the metal box thickness data from the book is shown in Figure below.

8
Figure 1: Metal Box Thickness Histogram

The x-axis is the measurements. The y-axis is the frequency each value or range of values

occurred. The histogram in Figure appears to be bell-shaped. There are some data above the

upper specification limit (USL).

Systems Thinking: This is the art of seeing the world in a joined up way. It involves seeing

your organization as a system, rather than taking a reductive approach to considering only the

individual parts. It is important that everyone in the system understand the system aims and

understands the process through which outcomes are obtained. Changes need to consider

consequential and indirect impacts.

9
CAUSE AND EFFECT DIAGRAMS

The second tool introduced is the cause and effect diagram. This chapter starts with the

question “why does quality dispersion occur?” In other words, why does the data shown in

our histogram have variation? A cause and effect diagram summarizes reasons for variation

in our process. The effect is placed on the right-hand side of the chart. The “effect” can be a

problem or a goal. The major categories are selected. These are often the 4M’s, a P and an

E: methods, materials, measurements, machines, environment, and people. The assorted

reasons for variation are then brainstormed under each of the major categories.

An example of cause and effect diagram is shown below. It deals with wobble during

machine rotation. Note that this cause and effect diagram does not have the 4M’s, a P and an

E. In fact, most of the examples in the book have different major categories. In this example,

the four major categories are workers, materials, inspection and tools.

Figure 2: Example of Cause and Effect Diagram from “Guide to Quality Control”

10
The above cause and effect diagram is called a “dispersion analysis” cause and effect

diagram. With this method, the diagram’s center line follows the production process. All

things that can impact quality are added to the appropriate process stage..

How to create a fish diagram:

Create a head, which lists the problem or issue to be studied.

Create a backbone for the fish (straight line which leads to the head).

Identify at least four “causes” that contribute to the problem. Connect these four causes with

arrows to the spine. These will create the first bones of the fish.

Brainstorm around each “cause” to document those things that contributed to the cause. Use

the 5 Whys or another questioning process such as the 4P’s (Policies, Procedures, People and

Plant) to keep the conversation focused.

11
Continue breaking down each cause until the root causes have been identified.

CHECK SHEETS

When was the last time you used a check sheet? It probably has been a long time. This is the

third tool introduced in the book. Check sheets used to be a major way of collecting data. If

you wanted to track reasons for defective items, you developed a check sheet and tracked the

reasons over time on that sheet. Now it seems, all the information is entered in a computer

system and the system tracks things for us. Figure 4 is an example of a check sheet from the

book for tracking defects at final inspection.

Figure 4: Check Sheet Example

The reasons for defects are listed on the left-hand side. Each time a defect occurs, a tick

mark is placed in the column for the reason for the defect. When the product has finished

being inspected, the defects are totaled and the total placed in the last column.

PARETO DIAGRAMS

12
The fourth tool introduced in the book is the Pareto diagram. A Pareto diagram is a bar chart

that is used to help separate the “vital few” problems from the “trivial many” problems. It is

a data-based approach to help decide what problem to work on first. An example of the

Pareto diagram from the book is given in Figure 5.

Figure 5: Pareto Diagram for Defective Items

This Pareto summarizes the reasons for defective items. The item with the most defects is

“caulking.” It is listed first. The other reasons for defectives items are listed in descending

order. The bar height represents how often each reason occurred. The line on the Pareto

diagram is the cumulative percent line. The figure gives 72% for the “connecting” bar.

These means that 72% of the defectives items were due to “connecting” and “caulking”

defects. It is clear from the Pareto diagram that “caulking” is the reason that needs to be

addressed first.

13
GRAPHS

The fifth tool introduced is “graphs.” There are actually a number of different graphs shown

in this chapter. It begins with three questions:

1. What is the purpose of the chart? 2. How is the chart used? 3. How can it be made more

useful?

These are actually three interesting questions. Too often, a chart is put out without much

thought of the purpose of the chart or how it will be used. And how to make it more useful?

Probably not many of us think about that. Good advice from decades ago.

A variety of graphs are shown in this chapter of the book including graphs by groups (like

shifts), run charts, and pie charts.

If you search on-line for the basic seven tools of quality, you will often find this one called

stratification. This is the graphing by group where you are looking for patterns based on a

variety of sources. You sometimes will see this one replaced by a flow chart or a simple run

chart.

14
Figure 6: Stratification Graph by Group

It plots the output from two groups: A and B. It is clear that group A’s production is higher

each day that Group B’s. If you plotted one group by itself, you would have a run chart.

CONTROL CHARTS

The sixth tool is the control chart. Dr. Ishikawa wrote “the purpose of a control chart is to

determine whether each of the points on the graph is normal or abnormal, and thus know the

changes in the process from which the data has been collected.”

He also wrote “we draw limits on the graphs to indicate the standards for evaluation. These

lines will indicate the dispersion of the data on a statistical basis and let us know when an

abnormal situation occurs in production.” Control limits do provide a method for people to

look at the same data set and make the same conclusion.

15
Five control charts are introduced in the book: X-R, p, np, c and u control charts. A X-R

control chart from the data in the book is give in Figure 7.

Figure 7: X-R Chart Example

The following rules are suggested.

Runs

A run is defined by a series of consecutive points on one side of the centerline. “If a run has

a length of 7 points, we consider there is an abnormality in the process.” He also says that

there are out of control situation if 10 out of 11 or 12 out of 14 points lie on one side of the

16
average. The centerline for the X control chart is the average. Interestingly, it is

recommended that the median be used for the R, p, np, c and u control charts.

Trends

According to the book, if there is trend of seven points in a row up or down, there is an

abnormality in the process.

Periodicity

Periodicity occurs “if the points show the same pattern of change over equal intervals.”

There is no test for periodicity. You just have to look at the chart and make a decision if it

exists or not.

Hugging of centerline

To determine if the data “hug” the centerline, the chart is divided into four zones. A line is

drawn between the centerline and the upper control limits and the center line and the lower

control limit. So each line is 1.5 sigma from the center line. If most of the points lie between

these two lines, there is an abnormality in the process. He does not define “most.”

Hugging of control limits

There is also a test to determine if the points hug a control limit. The chart is divided into six

zones, three on each side of the centerline. This is the same as for the common tests for

zones A, B and C. However, this test just focuses on zone A. There is an abnormality if 2 out

of 3 consecutive points are in zone A or beyond. This is the same as the common Zone A

test. However, he adds two more. If 3 out of 7 points or 4 out of 10 points are in zone A are

beyond, there is an abnormality present.

A scatter diagram is the seventh basic tool. According to Dr. Ishikawa, when you talk about

the relationship of two types of data, you are talking about one of the following usually:

a cause and effect relationship a relationship between one cause and another relationship

between one cause and two causes

A scatter diagram shows the relationship between these two types of data. Figure 8 shows a

scatter diagram for the data on conveyor speed (cm/sec) and severed length (mm). The

scatter diagram plots paired samples of data. For example, when the conveyor speed was 8.1,

the severed length was 1046.

Figure 8: Scatter Diagram Example

18
The scatter diagram is trying to determine if there is a positive, a negative or no correlation

between the two data sets. If there is a positive correlation, increasing one variable increases

the other. If there is a negative correlation, increasing one variable decreases the other. If

there is no correlation, changing one variable does not impact the other variable.

This scatter diagram shows a positive correlation between conveyor speed and severed

length. Severed length increases as conveyor speed increase.

19
2.0 INFLUENCE OF ISHIKAWA’S POSTULATES OF QUALITY
Planning- In recent applications some major airport security teams discovered to be using the

Fishbone Diagram not as a problem-solving tool but instead as a planning tool. This was

never the intended design of Ishikawa’s model. They use it to plot out how a passenger can

board a Plane with a weapon. So, as to the way the diagram is set up, they layout the possible

ways a passenger can board with a weapon as the “bones” of the fish. They will involve the

security experts at that particular airport and think through the potential issue before it

happens. Since the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, this has been a growing use for

the Fishbone Diagram. The application of this method is a great way to analyze how your

company controls the quality of its products

Quality through Leadership

Market-in quality: Ishikawa emphasized quality as it contributes immensely to business

competitiveness. This is because it ensured than an organization evaluated products and

services according to customers’ acceptability. Ishikawa argued that in order to achieve

quality work, the top management requires hands on leadership thus quality should be viewed

as the first basic operating principle of an organization (Evans & Dean, 2003).

He focused the world on defining quality from the view of the customer rather than the

internal perspective of the company. His emphasis on the business customer was unique at

the time because most quality efforts focused on industrial quality control and internal

applications for manufacturing. Ishikawa created customer focus within the quality

movement, and today, this is the fundamental starting point of quality.

Worker involvement: Ishikawa was the father of quality control circles. He believed all

workers must be involved in quality improvement through teams to enhance the capability of

individual workers and improve work processes.

20
Presently most organizations consider work as both corrective and preventive action to

uncover and resolve problems downstream from the customer engagement point. This is the

most cost effective way to operate. To be able to perform these tasks, workers must be trained

in basic problem solving tools and quality control methods and work in cross functional

teams to resolve process problems that cross the functional boundaries of workgroups.

Ishikawa emphasized teaching workers about the basic quality tools to equip them with the

ability to be self-regulatory in their work environment. This supported both the quality

improvement and productivity emphases in Japanese management. Ishikawa’s unique

conviction that workers had the ability to make creative contributions to improve the

performance of their work arose out of his direct experience with Japanese workers in

improving chemical work processes and grew with each subsequent exposure to the frontline

workers of the gemba (workplace). Today, we think walking around the workplace and

involving employees are natural aspects of good management, but we should really be

thanking Ishikawa for his convictions.

Quality begins and ends with education: To understand the true meaning of Ishikawa’s

teaching about education, it is essential to recognize how he differentiated between education

and training. He believed training improves skills and competence, and education builds a

person’s character and develops a deeper level of understanding. Ishikawa put his ideas

together into a systematic perspective of quality that is pervasive today:

Education accelerates life experience and enables people to understand truth. Ishikawa taught

that the next step in each work process is the customer, who deserves attention, and processes

should be analyzed to uncover the facts and data about performance from the viewpoint of

the customer.

21
Customer oriented quality requires breaking down functional boundaries that inhibit the flow

of detect free products to the market. Education transforms workers into informed skeptics.

Education creates understanding and a willingness to doubt because doubters have

confidence in their ability to find the truth. If members of a management team provide

education for their workers, the workers can collectively determine the best way to manage

the work processes and produce the outcomes required by customers. Universal worker

education in basic

22
3.0 CRITIQUE OF ISHIKAWA QUALITY MANAGEMENT THEORY
The critics of Ishikawa on quality control were related to the greatest strength of the fish bone

diagram and the quality circle as stated below;

 That Brainstorming in quality circle produces irrelevant potential causes along with

relevant ones, resulting in time and energy drain.

 Quality circle results are often based on opinion as on fact and evidence.

 A very large space for working out the diagram is needed for complex problems with

many branching bones.

 The complex interrelationships of multiple factors are difficult to show on a fishbone.

 On the other hand, the fishbone works best when its completed by a team, if the team

does not agree on the central why question or if the why question is not the question

that should be analyzed, then the organizer will never really solve any problems.

 A fishbone diagram does not single out the rout Couse of the problem. Graphically

speaking all causes look equally important. Sometimes effort is wasted in identifying

causes which have little effect on the problem.

 A fishbone diagram is based on the opinion rather than evidence. This process

involves a democratic way of selecting the cause, I.e. voting down the causes, which

may not be an effective way of identifying causes.

 If the discussion is not controlled properly it may deviate from the objective. The

worthiness of a fishbone diagram is dependent on how you develop the diagram, if the

participants are not experienced, less involved and not more knowledgeable the

diagram will be very clean and you might not be able to identify the root cause of the

problem
23
4.0 CONCLUSION
Ishikawa defines quality as being the development, design, production and service of a

product that is most economical, most useful, and always satisfactory to the customer. He

argues that quality control extends beyond the product and encompasses after-sales service,

quality of management, quality of individuals and the company itself.

Ishikawa is one of the six most influential economic personalities in the realm of business

quality. He is best known for his Fishbone Diagram theory; this quality tool diagram which

identifies the possible causes and effects of a problem. Ishikawa constructed the idea that

customers are the only reason why business exists. Now thanks to Ishikawa, Japan are no

longer looked at by the world as producing products with poor quality, in fact it’s just the

opposite. Today Japan makes some of the best quality products that the market has to offer.

All companies can add value to their business by using the principles that Ishikawa created.

In the long run they would most likely save the company money and lead them to have a

superior product.

24
REFERENCES
Chaston, I. & Mangles, T., “E-commerce and small UK accounting firms: influences of
marketing style and orientation,” The Service Industries Journal, 21(4), (2001), 83–99.

Evans, J. R., Dean, J., & J.W. (2003). Total quality: Management, organization, and strategy
(3 ed.). Mason, OH: Thomson South-Western.

Hayes, R. H., “Challenges posed to operations management by the new economy,”

Ishikawa, K. (1985). What is total quality control? – The Japanese way. New York,
Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Ishikawa, K. (1990). Introduction to quality control. Tokyo: 3A Corporation.

Johnson, M. E., Whang, S., “E-business and supply chain management: An overview and
framework,” Production and Operations Management, 11(4), (2002), 413–423.

Molla, A., “E-Commerce Systems Success; An Attempt To Extend And Respecify The
Delone And Maclean Model of IS Success,” Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, 2(4),
(2001), 131-141.

Venkatraman, S. (2007). A framework for implementing TQM in higher education programs.

25