Transcript Ei dian otsikkoa

An audit process as a tool for
quality assurance at the University
of Helsinki
EAIR Forum Copenhagen 2008
26.08.2008
Aimo Virtanen
Quality Manager
Helena Immonen
Quality Specialist
University of Helsinki
Organisation of the University of Helsinki
University of Helsinki in brief
 The main tasks include research, teaching and interaction
with society
 Bilingual (Finnish and Swedish), teaching also in English
 11 faculties
 38,400 undergraduate students, 47,000 continuing
education and Open University students
 7,900 employees, 3,900 of whom researchers and
teachers
 Funding 546 million euros
Operations Management &
Quality Assurance = Management System
MISSION
VISION
Strategic plan – GOALS
QUALITY ASSURANCE
• evaluation & reviews
• reporting
• feedback (customers, students)
• AUDITS
• external
• internal (optional)
UH Management System
 Operations management  steering by results
 Process management
 Operations manual (Quality manual)
 Process of quality assurance & development
Processes of Operations Management
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
4. Follow-up and
assessment
1. Strategy
formulation
OPERATIONS
MANAGEMENT
3. Strategy
implementation
2. Strategic
alignment
Pressures from outside the University
 Through quality work, the aims are to
 react
to national and international competition
 have relevant measures for results
 ensure transparency of activities and results
 guarantee a coherent European Higher Education
Area
 respond to the expectations of the Ministry of
Education and FINHEEC
Pressures from inside the University
 Through quality work, the aims are to
 make
university activities and results visible
 have data that will enable comparisons between units
 improve the processes fit for purpose
 assure uniform practices to the students
 facilitate working processes.
Quality Policy of the University of Helsinki
Quality Assurance Organisation at the UH
ViceRector
Rector
Quality
Assurance
Steering
Group
Quality
Manager
Experts at other
operational sectors
Quality
Specialist
Contact persons
at the faculties
and independent
institutes
The Quality Assurance System of
the University of Helsinki
Feedback
(evaluations, audits,
reports, customer
feedback)
Stakeholders, Society
University
Faculty
Department
Processes
Strategic
Objectives
• Research
•Teaching
•Societal
Interaction
• Administrative
and support
services
Operations
Management
Input,
Resources
Results
Audits of Institutional Quality Assurance
Systems (QAS)
 The Finnish model is an audit system, fulfilled by
FINHEEC (Finnish Higher Education Evaluation Council)
 Each of the 20 universities and 28 polytechnics must be
audited until 2011
 A passed audit will produce an acceptance for six years;
an alternative being a re-audit after two years
 The QA system must cover all activities
 The main responsibility for QA rests with the HEI - each
institution determines independently the objectives,
organisation, principles, methods and development of its
own system
( Audit manual of FINHEEC: http://www.finheec.fi/files/102/KKA_406.pdf)
What is important in the FINHEEC audit?
Comprehensiveness, functionality,
communicative performance,
transparency and effectiveness
 The audit focuses on the whole University or HEI and on
all activities
 The audit evaluates how well the quality assurance
system works as a tool for quality management and
enhancement
 The audit assesses the processes used to control and
develop the quality of activity – it does not take a stand on
the objectives of the activity or the results as such.
Auditing targets – Implications at the UH (1/2)
(Audit manual for 2005-2007 of FINHEEC 2006,
http://www.finheec.fi/files/102/KKA_406.pdf)
1. Objectives, overall structure
 The UH quality assurance
and internal coherence of the
system has been built as a
quality assurance system
whole
2. Documentation
3. Comprehensiveness of quality
assurance:
 Operations manuals with
the same main structures

Degree education
at the university level,

Research/R&D
faculty level and

Interaction with and impact on
society, and contribution to
department level
regional development

Support and other services

Staff development
 QAS encompasses all
activities at the UH
Auditing targets – Implications at the UH (2/3)
4. Participation of staff,
 Each University community member
students and external
is responsible for the quality of the
stakeholders in quality
University in his/her activities
assurance
 Quality training and many kinds of
briefings
5. Interface between the
quality assurance
system and
management/steering
 Quality system was mainly built up in
teams with students
 Difficult to take along the external
stakeholders
 Integration of QA and operations
management
 The steering process is the most
important quality assurance process
Auditing targets – Implications at the UH (3/3)
6. Relevance of, and access to, QA
 Versatile data systems,
information within the HEI
some problems e.g. in
7. …information for external
choosing and utilising
stakeholders
8. Efficiency of QA procedures and
relevant indicators
 Access to the Annual
structures and their effect on the
report and official
development of activities
statistics in the UH
9. Use of information produced by
websites
the QAS as a tool for quality
management and enhancement in
education and other activities
 Follow-up, assessment
10. Monitoring, evaluation and
and improvement in the
continuous development of the
quality assurance system.
steering process
Audit process phases (1/3)
1. The HEI’s registration for an audit
2.
3.
An audit agreement signature between the HEI
and FINHEEC (UH May 2007)
The compilation of the audit data and other
materials (UH by 15th September 2007)
Basic materials for an audit among others:
• A brief written description of the HEI and its QAS’s
present state and history
• Quality manual(s)
• The HEI’s own SWOT analysis of its QA system
• Description of the links between the QA system
and the management system
Evidence and samples chosen by the HEI to substantiate
the performance of the QA system
Audit process (2/3)
4.
A meeting to prepare an audit visit
(UH in Oct 2007)
5.
The audit group’s visit in the HEI (UH 26th to
30th November 2007)
• A well-planned, structured programme of
• a site-visit made by FINHEEC
• 9 auditors + 3 secretaries
• 44 audit interviews
• 330 interviewees (the academic and other staff
and students and representatives of stakeholders)
Audit process (3/3)
6.
7.
Preparation of an audit report (UH December 2007
to March 2008)
The results are published, followed by a feedback
meeting (UH March 2008)
The audit report, consisting of
• the main findings in the major fields of activities
• strengths and good practices of the QAS
• recommendations for developments
Evidence and samples chosen by the UH
The UH collected examples on good practices from the
faculties and independent institutes, grouped according to
the FINHEEC’s criteria (10 counts mentioned above)
 Examples:

International evaluations of administration (reported 2005)

A Teaching Evaluation Matrix as a tool of self-evaluation for
faculties and departments (the latest version and guidelines
2007)
The benefits of the audit for the UH (1/2)
 Increased awareness on quality assurance
 Acknowledge of the long term quality work at the University
(evaluations, feedback systems, strategy work and
operations management)
 The audit as a possibility for development: “We shall do it!”
– increased community spirit
 A strengthened consciousness of good practices both in
the core and support activities
The benefits of the audit for the UH (2/2)
 Pinpointing several fields for development – an excellent
support for improvements - new initiatives for
development projects
 Support to the University’s internationalisation and
relationships with stakeholders
 An objective certificate on high level quality assurance
Feedback survey
 Arranged to those being interviewed
 62 % of the interviewees agreed that the audit motivated
to invest in the reorganising of the QAS
 56 % answered that the audit was evidently useful in the
development of the processes and the activities of their
own unit
Further information on the QA at UH
 Quality and evaluation: http://www.helsinki.fi/evaluation/
 Quality system:
http://www.helsinki.fi/evaluation/quality_system.html
 Auditing: http://www.helsinki.fi/evaluation/auditing_2007.html
 Operations manual (short version / summary):
http://www.helsinki.fi/evaluation/operations_manual/index.html
 University Strategy:
http://www.helsinki.fi/evaluation/material/strategic_plan_20072009.pdf#page=6
 Websites of FINHEEC: http://www.finheec.fi/?l=en&s=1
 An Audit Manual of FINHEEC (english version):
http://www.finheec.fi/files/102/KKA_406.pdf
 An Audit Report of UH (with English summary):
http://www.finheec.fi/files/88/KKA_208.pdf
Suggestions for discussion
 Is there real commitment?

Management, teachers, researchers, administrative staff and
students
 Perceptions of using the audit model?
 Quality assurance system’s support for University
management?