There is a strong overlap between CDIO and Dr. Deming’s System of Profound Knowledge, including his 14 points for management, except for one crucial aspect. In CDIO Standard 12 – Program Evaluation - it is a strong drive for monitoring “program’s progress toward attaining its goals”. Dr. Deming warns that without a clear common understanding of the difference between common cause of variation (random noise) and special cause of variation (signals) using control charts and SPC-thinking (Statistical Process Control) monitoring tend to drive over-reaction to fluctuations, that is, tampering. That in its turn according to Deming, prevents a shift from focus on individual course follow-up to an aggregated dialog on system development, that is CDIO implementation on programme and multi-program level. This study second Dr. Deming’s warning. Course quality monitoring data used to trigger standard course development from 451 course evaluation surveys, from 128 courses given in four different programmes on both basic and advance level over 5 years, have been analyzed relative the definitions of common vs. special cause of variation. More than >98% of the variation in the trigger parameter stems from common cause of variation. Therefore, more than 60% of the 41 Action Plan started (9% of all courses) were done so from false alarms. The general strategi when a process is stable and predictable, that is, only varies due to common cause of variation, is to zoom-out to seek explanations to underlying patterns in the noise. In the noisy course survey data interesting patterns on course roles linked to CDIO Standards are identified. It helps shifting from individual course follow-up, driving blame game, to an aggregated dialogue on program development.
