•

Towards new quality management systems in merged institutions…

THE UJ QUALITY PLAN: 2005 - 2008

Anci du Toit

on behalf of

Gerrie Jacobs

QUALITY CHALLENGES : FIRST MERGER YEAR

Interim Council, MEC, Deans, HoDs Interim Vision, Mission and values – no strategic direction Inherited QA policies, structures and practices Merger dynamics/loyalties to former QA systems Compromise not reached in the 1 st merger year ‘Comprehensive’ university?

Lack of security

ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE UJ QUALITY PLAN

Feb 2005: UJ joined

SA-Finland

project (via HEQC)

UJ QUALITY PLAN

: Senate-approved May 2005 (tedious lobbying and change management process) Four Quality

Project Teams

(QPTs): QPT1: Quality management

structures

(all levels) QPT2: Analyse inherited and develop new UJ

policies

QPT3: Single

strategic plan

(incl. vision & mission) QPT4: New

academic programme structure

(APS) Steercom & representative

soundboard

(USB)

STRATEGIC GOALS

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

A reputable brand

Excellence in teaching and learning

Internationally competitive research An engaged university Maximize intellectual capital Institutional efficiency and effectiveness

7.

8.

Culture of transformation Competitive resourcing

9.

The preferred student experience

10.

Focus on the Gauteng city region

GOAL 2: EXCELLENCE IN TEACHING & LEARNING

To promote and sustain excellence in teaching and learning by quality assurance practices and actively developing and implementing cutting edge teaching, learning and assessment strategies.

Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) 1.

Learning excellence;

2.

Teaching excellence;

3.

Relevance/impact/diversity of programmes;

4.

Cutting edge teaching and learning strategies;

5.

Lifelong learning

METRICS?

METRICS

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Degree credit success rates Student satisfaction with teaching

HEMIS data Surveys

Employability

Graduate & employer surveys

Impact: innovative teaching & learning Participation in lifelong learning programmes

Existing database to be customised Impact studies Attainment of critical learning outcomes by students ?

Assessment of outcomes per programme/major?

QUALITY PROJECT TEAM: QUALITY STRUCTURES DVC

: Strategic & Instit Planning & Implementation (incl. QA)

OIE

: Mission is not just an empty promise (QA + Planning)

Quality Task Team

: Steered QA and Planning in 2005 Two standing

Senate committees

in 2006 (SQC & SAPC) End of 2006:

ONE

Academic Planning & Quality Committee 2008: Senate Quality Committee –all strategic goals HE policy analysis, Link QP and all functions of University (Plan & Policy) Appropriate resources utilisation National & Prof Body reviews

Faculty

Quality Committees (FQCs) established (diverse)

QUALITY PROJECT TEAM: PROGRAMME REVIEWS

Phase in the merger where

talked to each other Tyre Hits The Road

– academics about the institution’s core business

Purpose

: In-depth investigation of all programmes to: promote the quality of programmes (HEQC programme criteria) align programmes with the new UJ vision, mission and strategic goals establish a new Academic Programme Structure (APS) for UJ

Decisions

taken regarding each programme:

C =

continue unchanged ; or

C =

consolidate with another programme(s) ; or

C =

effect (substantial) changes ; or

C =

cancel or discontinue and phase out

CONDUCTING PROGRAMME REVIEWS

NEW APS!!

INTERNAL Peer review ADJUST PORTFOLIO ( Electronic template ) PWG & SENATE SELF-EVAL PORTFOLIO (per programme group – most HEQC criteria) REPORTING (Per programme and module - Forms 1 +2) EXTERNAL Peer review

PROGRAMME REVIEWS

(3) MASSIVE

venture!! : Quality “ tsunami ” or “ massacre ”? Some numbers:

9

faculties offering

1477

programmes ( Form 1s )

36

capacity building workshops (using an electronic template)

28 000

modules in OBE format (

3456

Form 2s reviewed) – Phase 1 External peer reviews, template and paperwork  close to

R3,5 million R349,194

SA-Finland project money – to 9 faculties (R38,800 each)

R98,000

due in 2008  also payable to faculties

R140,000

forthcoming  research on impact + capacity building See

PRODUCT!: UJ Academic Programme Structure +

A quality

ethos

& quality

“champions”

in faculties…??

LONGITUDINAL RESEARCH: QUALITY PERCEPTIONS 2 questions: To what extent do FQCs perceive -

QA and QPromotion as indicators of effectiveness and themselves as “ true owners ” of quality matters?

PROJECT FINDINGS

(1999, 2002, 2005 & 2008) QA/QP climate changed: Quality

must be shown

to exist

1 st

research question?  ; 2

nd

question? –  

???

QA “

champions within

appointed  ” the faculties 

Quality Associates

SA-Finland funding utilised (

Thank you!

)

EXPECT

QA & QP from academic leaders?

Difference:

Lady

and

Flower girl

(Eliza Doolittle, My Fair Lady )

Aftermath of the programme reviews Research • Role of PRs in establishing Quality Management Structures • • FOTIM, AUQF Quality Structures at Faculty level – Fotim Quality management at faculty level – Fotim, AIR •

Programme Reviews: A question of value - Transformational value – Role in QM System established?

- Institutional Quality Awareness - Acceptance of responsibility THANK YOU HEQC!

UJ and NMMU: SANTED project – comprehensive universities • Collaboration Edge Hill University, UK

QUALITY PROJECT TEAMS: POLICIES AND PLANNING New UJ policies

: Task Teams developed more than 20 policies thus far – still a few to go, e.g. Policy for Quality Promotion – submitted to Senate UJ Quality Promotion Plan

Challenge

: Institutional participation and buy-in

UJ strategic plan

: Immense amount of work done in strengthening institutional mission attainment

Challenges

: Strategy management support and monitoring progress wrt the goals of the plan

LESSONS LEARNT

• • • • • • • • • Coordination and support at management level crucial Interim management detrimental – lack of decision-making powers Profound effect of merger politics Strategic planning – Goals, KPIs, Metrics, Actions NB QM structures – only once MEC established, Strategic plan developed and responsibilities assigned Faculty Q structures mirror institutional Q structures Programme reviews was a MAJOR challenge Lack of capacity Loyalties to existing policies and practices – healing in end – HE QM, Curriculum development – detrimental effect

IN CONCLUSION

“Fastest” post-merger focus=

Quality planning

 SA-Finland project main contributor!!

We’re building a new, bigger plane, while simultaneously trying to fly it 

quality

&

identity dialogues

lag behind, but QA

awareness

excels… QM cycle implementation takes

time

 in merged HEIs

PROLONGED FINLAND INVOLVEMENT

?

“Training” of QA practitioners Coherent curriculum development (a new HEQF waits…) Impact analyses (student learning scorecard), etc., etc.

Thanks HEQC (Herman) & DoE, CEPD & Fins!

We’re still enjoying it here!

Mukavaa olla täöllö !!