Barrel-Style Outcomes Assessment
A few years ago, the New York Times published an interesting article titled, “Packing Technology Into The Timeless Barrel.” It’s a story I still return to from time to time. The article highlights Independent Stave, the world’s largest barrel manufacturer.
Once upon a time, United States-based wineries placed orders for French oak barrels believing that American oak barrels were inferior because, if we are telling the truth, they were. Part of the problem was the quality of wood used to make the barrels which contained “imperfections because of frequent forest fires and arboreal diseases.” Many of the American cooperages were low tech and produced poor quality barrels. However, the sudden “bourbon boom of the last decade” brought a “technological revolution to American barrel-making.” American cooperages focused on using technology to increase the quality of the barrels they produced in order to take advantage of the growing demand.
Cooperages leveraged technology to reinvigorate the craftsmanship of barrel-making. Through the advancement in technology, custom barrels are now created to deliver specific flavors desired by the craft market. Back in the day, “merchants would burn their barrels’ insides to sterilize the surface and remove errant smells or flavors. Somewhere along the way, customers noticed that wines and spirits that spend a few months in a barrel lost some of their edge and took on a pleasant color and flavor. Barrel aging was born.”
The story of Independent Stave is unique. Initially, they focused on making the staves that were then used to make barrels but did not make the barrels themselves. Then in 1935, the Federal Alcohol Administration Act was passed which required all American whiskey to be aged in new barrels. A new consumer market appeared, and Independent Stave stepped up to meet the need.
Independent Stave worked to put quality control systems in place, duplicated methods that the French employed when making their barrels and reviewed internal policies and procedures to find more efficient processes. with forestry experts to develop “more sustainable harvesting practices, which also made the business more efficient and brought in higher-quality logs.” They also decided to use science to their advantage which started with a “series of organic-chemistry symposiums” to seek feedback from industry professionals and academic researchers and partnered with universities who had strong wine and spirit making programs. “Instead of guessing how much to toast a barrel, operators use lasers and infrared cameras to monitor the temperature of the wood and the precise chemical signature that the heat coaxes to the surface—all subject to the customer’s desired flavor profile.” Independent Stave was able to refine their processes and seized an opportunity to meet the needs of a rapidly growing industry, and put craftsmanship back into barrel making.
Higher education is facing a similar shift in the student population, but this shift is also offering institutions a chance to maximize their opportunities. Much like Independent Stave, institutions must rely on their strategic planning processes and monitor these efforts, but most importantly focus on their outcomes assessment to assure they continue to serve students well. With today’s technological advances, institutions can collect more data than ever that provides background on individual student’s potential success rate based on a variety of external factors. The question remains, are we listening?
Independent Stave took three big steps that allowed them to reinvigorate their product and meet the needs of a rapidly growing industry. Higher education can apply these same three steps to determine how well they too are meeting the needs of a changing student population.
Step One – Research the Competition: Independent Stave discovered that French coopers “dried their wood for up to three years, while Americans tended to stop at a year.” They also “applied small flames to the inside of their barrels to lightly toast them, turbocharging certain flavors.” Meanwhile, American coopers would burn their barrels to such a degree that any liquid aged inside took on a “charred, intensely vanilla flavor.”
For institutions, researching the competition is equally important to determine what others are doing well or, conversely, what they do less well that maybe could be improved on. So often institutions tend to follow commonly accepted patterns that may yield positive results but are minimally meeting students’ needs. Meaningful improvement requires taking a step back and evaluating “the way we’ve always done it.”
Step Two – Scratching the Back of Others: In addition to researching its competition, Independent Stave knew that it needed a great deal of feedback and data. Instead of investing excess capital in building proprietary data analytic tools, they went the “old-fashioned” route. They sought out conferences, trade shows, and universities to absorb the knowledge these professionals and academic researchers could provide on the subject. They built relationships.
Higher education institutions tend to act as singular communities that are completely self-sufficient. The problem with this approach is that they miss out on the wealth of knowledge available from seeking external advice and perspective. The smartest people are those who understand that learning never stops. Institutions should seek feedback from internal and external stakeholders in an effort to improve their programs and services.
Step Three – Giants in the Market: Independent Stave did not experience success overnight nor have they stopped following the processes that have resulted in improving their barrels. They used their research and data to implement significant operational improvements. They understood the importance of sustainably harvesting quality logs used for their barrels. They invested in technology, not just for technology’s sake, but to better understand the industry and the consumers who would use their barrels.
Higher education institutions share common goals and often share student populations. The quality of the programs offered is what sets each institution apart and separates the good players from the bad ones. Many higher education institutions are seeking innovative ways to serve students and meet their needs. We should look to these institutions to see what works and how these efficiencies can better serve all students. To do this requires consistent internal reflection and evaluation.
There are approximately only fifteen cooperages in the United States compared to the thousands of higher education institutions, but the principles of sustainability apply regardless of the industry. Those organizations and institutions that pass the test of time are also those who dig deep and always seek ways to improve their operating efficiencies and products they deliver. Quality improvement should not be a result of accreditation or regulatory requirements. It should be important to every institution for the very basic fact that we want to deliver quality programs that continue meeting the needs of students.
“You can’t just computerize it. You can use some automation, but in the end, every barrel is going to be a little different.”
– John Boswell, Independent Stave
