Transcript Document management using SharePoint

HEQC’s Quality Systems
Restructuring Project (“Finnish
Project”).
UFH presentation of Project
Outcomes and Impact
October 2008
Presented by: Kuselwa Marala
PRESENTATION OUTLINE
•
•
•
•
•
Background
Project Intended outcomes
Output and Impact
Challenges
Conclusion
The University of Fort Hare,
Eastern Cape
University of Fort Hare campus locations
PROJECT BACKGROUND
• Start
– Hectic: delays in appointment
– Revised delivery time-schedules
– Groundwork between July to December
2006
– Started in earnest in January 2007
INTENDED OUTCOMES
Phase 1: Development of a Quality Plan
• Analysis of Business Processes
– Alignment of policy with practice
– Review against perceived ‘best practice’, and
made amendments where deemed essential
– Identified gaps
Phase 1: Development of a
Quality Plan
• Captured and posted on the QMS in the
Intranet
– Process maps
– Policy documents
– Procedure documents
The process maps captured are what we
thought was ideal and aligned to policies
QMA Document management system
 Under policies
you will get 3
subfolders
Click the
folder
Financial
Policies
 If you want
to read the
document you
can click OK
 If you want
to edit the
document
click on edit
then click OK.
Introducing a New Qualification
Process for the Accreditation and Implementation of a New Programme/Qualification
Inter-Faculty
Process
Complete SAQA
Qualification Form and
Programme Application
Form (DoE) (refer to
CESM Categories and
Course Level Definitions)
A revised ‘user
friendly’ process
map that takes
you through the
internal and
external
processes
External Units /
Peer Review
Central Academic
Planning
Committee (CAPC)
Registrar
External Bodies
Complete New
Module
Registration Forms
Process Map and
all relevant
forms will be:
Peer Review of
New Modules (x2
Institutions)
QA C’ee check
programme alignment
to vision, mission and
goals and endorse
process to begin
Take all forms and
Clearance
Certificate for
review and sign off
TLC Review
and Sign Off
Completed
Clearance
Certificate tabled at
QA C’ee
Faculty Board
Approve
Dean
Tables at
CAPC
Registrar seeks
DoE funding
approval
Library
Review and
Sign Off
QMA Review
and Sign Off
DoE Approve
Initial
Clearance
Approved
Chair of CAPC
(University Planner)
Submission Report to
Senate
2. Put on UFH
Intranet
Where applicable,
professional body
approval must be
sought before
undertaking the
HEQC application
process
Together with
Programme Proposer
Complete HEQC Online Application for
Accreditation
Faculty
Submission to
Senate
HEQC Approve
Application for
SAQA Registration
on NQF (with
support from QMA
Unit)
Complete Module
Prospectus Forms
and commence
implementation
Institutional
Approval
Internal
Registration
1. Sent to Faculty
QA Committee
Members
Complete ITS
Forms for
Registration of
Academic
Structure
SAQA Register on
their Web-based
Database
 Just what
you want with
the document
management
system.
 Note: if you
are working on
a document no
one can open
or work on
it.(Safe and
Powerful)
The immediate impact of this
process
• Time- saving gains for the QMA Unit as
colleagues with queries on policies,
processes and procedures are referred to
the intranet as a source of initial reference.
• A number of colleagues have reported that
this has been an empowering experience
as they are able to educate themselves at
their pace by visiting the QMA site
Phase 1 Impact Continued
• It has enhanced the induction of new staff
members
• Given the potential that this holds for the
improvement of our quality systems the
UFH Management has resolved to build
on this system a Document Management
System
•Single point of access
•Work
flow processing
•Versioning
control (Backup)
•Browser-based collaboration
•Document Management Platform
•Host web portals
•Access shared workspaces and documents
Storage
http://sps.ufh.ac.za/qma
Phase 1 Outcome (1)
• Quality Policy that serves to regulate the
use of the system
• It was adopted by Senate on 01 November
2007 and Council on 23 November 2007
Phase 1: Outcome (2)
• However, it is the QMA Unit’s view that for
this to have impact, further training on the
policy is essential.
• This should help to bridge the gap
between the policy at theoretical level as
well as policy at implementation level.
Phase 2: Diagnostic Analysis
and Review
This phase entails two activities:
1. Capacity development of institutional
staff to conduct internal self evaluations
2. Developing Programme Evaluation
tools and Piloting these
The immediate impact of the
self-evaluation process
• A sharpened insight of self-knowledge as
an institution (UFH, Alice & Bhisho +
former RUEL)
• The innovative model (Internal auditors
audit faculties). Audit Reports and
interventions are tabled at the Audit
Committee
Activity 2: Programme
Evaluation
The following programmes were evaluated:
1. B Sc Crop / Agricultural Science and
2. B Sc
In-depth discussions of the report with the
Faculty, IQAC as well as Senate.
The impact of this pilot
• TWO evaluation tools instead of the
intended ONE were developed
(Programme & Faculty)
• The generation of lots incisive discussions
on the core business of the University.
The impact of this pilot
Continued
• The training of Faculty Quality Assurance and
Teaching and Learning Committees on the use
of the developed electronic evaluation tools that
are posted in the QMS
• The academic programme evaluation tool had
been rolled out for use to the rest of the UFH
community.
• Pro-active academic leaders to take the initiative
of conducting their programme evaluation
outside the University evaluation cycle
Phase 3: Development of a
Detailed Implementation Plan
• Limited progress in the development of a
consolidated improvement plan for
implementation at institutional systems
level.
• This is due to limited human capacity
issues within the QMA Unit. Currently, this
stands at 1 Manager and 2 Administrative
support staff servicing THREE campuses
Phase 3: HOWEVER
• For the Office of the Registrar and the
Library this is already work in progress as
their improvement plans have already
been developed AND are being
implemented
• Some individual leaders in their respective
Units have started developing some
quality improvement plans for the issues
that have emanated from the selfevaluations.
Phase 3: AND of CAUSE
• Some are waiting for the QMA Unit to say
what must be done!!!!!!!
CHALLENGES
• QMA Unit Human capacity
• QMA Unit engaged in a number of
projects and working with the same
stakeholders who view us as over
demanding of their time
• Competing demands for attention by UFH
community. Juggling.
• Logistics
• Resources allocation for needed
improvements
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
• Dr. Herman Du Toit of HEQC
• Mr Dave Reevell of Revworth
Consulting
• Mr Lovemore Nalube, ex-UFH
Webmaster
• Mr Lwazi Mbambo, TSC at UFH
• QMA Unit Colleagues: Cuzi, Maria &
Cleo
• FINNISH FUNDERS
Thanks for listening..
Any questions?