report benchmarking of hochschule für technik und

Report Benchmarking of Hochschule für Technik und Wirtschaft Berlin and Helsinki Metropolia University of Applied Sciences 11.—12.10.2012

Table of Contents

1 The Benchmarking Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Aims and Results of the Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5Project Plan and Realization of the Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

2 Description of HTW Berlin and Metropolia UAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

2 .1 Hochschule für Technik und Wirtschaft Berlin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 .2 Helsinki Metropolia University of Applied Sciences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 .3 Strategic partnership between HTW Berlin and Helsinki Metropolia UAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

3 Quality Assurance and Development in HTW Berlin and in Metropolia UAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

3 .1 Hochschule für Technik und Wirtschaft Berlin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 .2 Helsinki Metropolia University of Applied Sciences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153 .3 Discussion and recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

4 Benchmarking topic: The teaching staff — task planning, the system for salaries and incentives, HR development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18


5 Benchmarking topic: Quality of teaching and learning - feedback processes, teacher development . . . . . . . . . . . . 22


6 Benchmarking topic: Feedback from society, media, industry and other stakeholders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32


7 RDI/Other topics of Common Interest and plans for further co-operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34


8 Self-/cross-evaluation model in Helsinki Metropolia UAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

9 Conclusions and recommendations from HTW Berlin and Metropolia benchmarking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

10 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

11 Appendices (not included in the preliminary report) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

12 Contact information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

4

The main results of the one-year HTW Berlin and Helsinki Metropolia UAS

Benchmarking Project are summarized in this report . This information will be

used as a background material in the Benchmarking Symposium organized in

Berlin on 11–12 October 2012 . The comprehensive materials compiled during

the project have been translated and distributed for the use of the relevant

staff in the two institutions . Part of the documents are enclosed in the

appendices of this report .

The aim of the Berlin Benchmarking Symposium on 11–12 October

2012 is to draw the final conclusions of the benchmarking project and to

make recommendations for quality development in the two universities .

Subsequently, the final version of this report will be provided to the staff in the

universities .

The Benchmarking Project was made possible by the strong commitment

to co-operation confirmed by Metropolia President Riitta Konkola and HTW

Berlin Vice-President Professor Dr . Matthias Knaut .

The results of the project are based on the valuable work of several HTW

Berlin and Metropolia experts . In HTW Berlin Dr . Matthias Knaut and Dr . Heike

Zillmann have been the key persons and most involved with the project . In

Metropolia Dr . Tuire Ranta-Meyer has been actively developing the strategic

partnerships, especially between Germany and Finland . Dr . Juha Lindfors has

been responsible for the Benchmarking Project and Ms . Anitta Liinamaa has

assisted him as a project manager .

We acknowledge the contributions of Ms . Daniela Englisch, Ms . Bärbel

Sulzbacher, Mr . Markus Utrio, Mr . Pekka Laaksonen, Ms . Ulla Kelavuori, Ms .

Marjaana Karppinen, Mr . Heikki Valmu, Dr . Robert Arpo Ms . Arja Hannukainen

and Ms . Anna-Maija Vesa . Finally we sincerely thank the Finnish Higher

Education Evaluation Council FINHEEC for the financial support, which made

the project possible .

On behalf of the Benchmarking Project

Matthias Knaut, Heike Zillmann, Anitta Liinamaa, Juha Lindfors,

Tuire Ranta-Meyer

0 Foreword and acknowledgements

5

Summary (auf Deutsch, suomeksi):

HTW Berlin und HAW Metropolia haben im Jahr 2011 einen

Vertrag über die strategische Partnerschaft unterzeichnet .

Ein Feld der Zusammenarbeit ist die Qualitätssicherung

und Entwicklung der Aktivitäten der Hochschule . FINHEEC

(The Finnish Higher Education Evaluation Council) hat

im Jahr 2012 der HAW Metropolia finanziellen Zuschuss

für die Evaluation gewährt, der zu Benchmarking und

internationalen Evaluation in zusammen mit HTW Berlin

gewählten Zielen eingesetzt wird .

HTW Berlin ja Metropolia Ammattikorkeakoulu solmivat

v . 2011 sopimuksen strategisesta kumppanuudesta,

jonka yhtenä toiminta-alueena on korkeakoulun toiminnan

laadunvarmistus ja kehittäminen . Metropolia sai vuodelle

2012 Korkeakoulujen arviointineuvoston arviointitukea,

joka käytetään HTW Berlin’in kanssa yhdessä valittujen

kohteiden benchmarking’iin ja kansainväliseen arviointiin .

Aims and Results of the Project

The first aim of the project was to develop the quality

assurance and the self-evaluation processes in

Helsinki Metropolia University of Applied Science . The

benchmarking project also gives ideas and practical help

in developing the institution’s tools for self- and peer

evaluation . The international benchmarking partner in the

project is Hochschule für Technik und Wirtschaft Berlin

(HTW Berlin) . The benchmarking results will also benefit

the expertise in HTW Berlin in the evaluation of practices

and operations . In addition to direct benchmarking

objectives the project enhances the strategic cooperation

between HTW Berlin and Metropolia UAS to a higher level

1 The Benchmarking Project

– both in quality management of higher education and in

multifaceted collaboration . .

HTW Berlin and Metropolia UAS also started developing

their respective self- and peer evaluation models within the

project . The goal of Metropolia is to strengthen its quality

assurance system according to the feedback received from

the 2011 audit by the Finnish Higher Education Evaluation

Council FINHEEC . The council will perform a follow-up

audit of Metropolia in 2015 or 2016 as an international

evaluation . The collaboration with HTW Berlin gives

Metropolia UAS valuable experience in international quality

management and assessment .

After the project HTW Berlin and Metropolia UAS will

proceed in their strategic cooperation in jointly agreed

areas . The institutions will share their know-how and best

practices and strengthen their international cooperation in

the spirit of the strategic partnership agreement signed in

November 2011 .

Project Plan and Realization of the ProjectThere were four main targets in the project:

• Benchmarking of the specified evaluation themes

through organizing auditing visits and benchmarking

seminars

• Documenting, analyzing and reporting the results

• Recognizing and identifying in the two universities

the design, documentation and use of the self- and

peer evaluation models for the quality assurance of

teaching, research and knowledge transfer

• Making suggestions to improve Metropolia´s self-

evaluation system

6

The process of benchmarking proceeded in several steps:

• Setting and specifying the evaluation targets or topics

• Recognizing the key experts in both universities for

each evaluation topic, familiarizing the experts with

the practices used in both universities

• Sharing the materials, forms, administrative

instructions and information systems of the evaluated

topics in both institutions (working methods and

practices, indicators, results)

• Translation of essential materials and operation

instructions into English, German and Finnish

• Organizing benchmarking sessions and seminars in

both institutions and documenting the results

• Sending a description of the discussed topics to the

partner university

• Analyzing other institution’s operative practices and

evaluation results

• Recognizing best practices and recommendations for

improvement

• Producing a final report for the benefit of

development in both universities

• Evaluating the benchmarking process and what was

learned in the project

The following topics were chosen for benchmarking and

self-evaluation during the planning stage of the project:

a) The management of tasks, systems for salaries and incentives for the teaching staff

This benchmarking theme includes topics within the

Human Resources (HR) process of HTW Berlin and

Metropolia UAS; e .g . comparison of the HTW Berlin

Besoldungssystem for professors and other teaching

staff with the teacher’s salary system of Metropolia UAS,

different incentives for staff, and HR development in

general . The benchmarking theme is dealt with in Ch . 4 of

this report .

b) Quality assurance of teaching and the systems for student feedback

Both universities identify the quality of teaching and

learning as a main factor for success in higher education

and a prerequisite for innovative research . It is most

important for the HEI to get comprehensive and reliable

feedback from students at different stages of their studies

and also after graduation . This benchmarking theme is dealt

with in Ch . 5 of this report .

c) Feedback from society, media, industry and other stakeholders

In the 2011 audit of Metropolia’s quality assurance system

by FINHEEC, one important recommendation to Metropolia

was to strengthen its processes of feedback from different

stakeholders . Universities in Germany get regular feedback

from media and industry through independent research

organization evaluations, which are published by the media .

This benchmarking theme is dealt with in Ch . 6 of this

report .

In the project plan HTW Berlin and Metropolia UAS agreed

on benchmarking also other topics when seen beneficial

during the project or after its completion . In the course of

the project the partners decided to benchmark also their:

d) RDI activities, support functions and project management

RDI (research, development, innovation) is a core activity

for both universities . RDI projects offer great possibilities

for strategic international partnership . Therefore it is

7

necessary to explicate in detail the main areas of RDI activities plus the processes supporting its performance in both

universities . This benchmarking theme is described in Ch . 7 of this report .

e) Quality management system

The concise descriptions of the quality management systems in the two universities are given in Ch . 3 of this report .

The Project Group included

• Matthias Knaut, Vice President of HTW Berlin

• Heike Zillmann, Head of Central Unit HE/QM of HTW Berlin

• Juha Lindfors, Senior Adviser, Helsinki Metropolia UAS

• Tuire Ranta-Meyer, Director, Helsinki Metropolia UAS

• Anitta Liinamaa, Senior Lecturer, Project coordinator, Helsinki Metropolia UAS

The project has proceeded in the following manner:

November–December 2011 Decision on the project funding and project start

Refining the project plan and the themes for self-evaluation and

benchmarking

January–February 2012 Scheduling the benchmarking visits

February–June 2012 Self-evaluation of evaluation targets

Benchmarking visits to Helsinki and Berlin, Benchmarking

Symposium in Helsinki, May 21 .–22 ., 2012

July–September 2012 Analyzing and documenting the evaluation and benchmarking

results

October 2012 Benchmarking Symposium in Berlin, October 11 .–12 ., 2012,

Benchmarking report to the Steering Group and FINHEEC by

31 .10 .2012, Presenting the results to university staff

End of 2012 Finalising the documentation and presentation in FINHEEC

8

2 Description of HTW Berlin and Metropolia UAS

2.1 Hochschule für Technik und Wirtschaft Berlin

HTW Berlin is one of Germany´s largest universities of

applied sciences . It offers degree programmes in the fields

of technology, computing, economics, culture and design .

HTW Berlin enjoys a good reputation as an especially

innovative university of applied sciences, and has been the

recipient of a number of awards for its reforms in the areas

of university administration, comprehensive education,

consulting and service , business start-ups, and also for

its special commitment to promoting gender equality and

efforts towards barrier-free accessibility .

HTW Berlin in brief

• Students: 11 811 of which 1385 international degree

students

• Graduates in 2010: 2140

• Staff: 530 of which 270 professors and 260

employees in the areas of technology, service and

administration, 700 adjunct lecturers (per year)

• 74 degree programmes- 3 of them in English

• Annual budget: approximately 54 .7 M€ of which 43

M€ from the state of Berlin, 4 M€ from commercial

proceeds and 7 .7 M€ from third party funding

• Operating premises in 2 locations: Treskowallee

campus and Wilhelminenhof campus

Strategic goals and objectives of HTW Berlin

The basic goals and requirements of academic activity at

the HTW Berlin are represented in ten principles:

• Social and environmental responsibility

• Interdisciplinarity

• Cooperation

• Performance

• Quality

• Transparency and openness

• Equality

• Internationality

• Knowledge transfer

• Critical discourse

According to the HTW Berlin university structure and

development plan 2012 :

The objective of the HTW in the area of teaching and

learning is to design the curriculum so that it perceptibly

better than at other universities

• successfully prepares the students for the labor

market

• successfully guides the students for independent

learning

• equips the students with foreign language and

intercultural skills

• guides the students to societal engagement and able

to teamwork

2.2 Helsinki Metropolia University of Applied Sciences

The Helsinki Metropolia University of Applied Sciences,

Finland’s largest university of applied sciences, educates

the professionals of tomorrow in the fields of culture,

business, health care and social services and technology .

Metropolia in brief

• 16 000 students of which 900 foreign degree students

of 90 nationalities

• 2 100 Bachelor’s and 195 Master’s graduates in 2011

9

• Staff 1 200; 650 teaching staff of which 22% qualified

for research

• 68 degree programmes — 15 of them in English

• Annual 2012 budget 120 M€

• Operating premises in 20 locations, plans to

concentrate on four campuses

• Owned by the cities of Helsinki 42 %, Espoo 27 %,

Vantaa 26 %, Kirkkonummi 4 %, Kauniainen 1 %

• RDI total volume in 2011 was 11 .2 M €

Metropolia objectives 2014

• Finland’s best graduation rate in target time

• Flexible processes to enhance renewability

• Best teaching in Finland

• Best working place in higher education

• Sought-after partner

• Experts with new ideas in Helsinki Metropolitan

region

• Financial independence

Values for Metropolia

• High quality — our target

• Expertise — our passion

• Transparency — our operating policy

• Community spirit — our source of strength

2.3 Strategic partnership between HTW Berlin and Helsinki Metropolia UAS

The two institutions have established in 2011 a strategic

partnership for the purpose of strengthening their

collaborative links with the following objectives:

• to share information and expertise in the field of

higher education

• to further advance co-operation between the two

institutions

• to strengthen the role of both institutions by

improving wellbeing in the society, the quality of

urban life and the sustainability of environment in their

own regions

• to further promote and support internationalisation of

the two institutions

• to contribute to the objectives of the European

Union in the field of education, training, research and

innovation, culture and art

The areas of collaboration have been defined in the

following way:

a. Research

1 . Parties will promote and increase the exchange of

information, staff and students in the area of research;

2 . Parties will exchange publications and other materials

of common interest;

3 . Parties will promote collaborative research projects

and programmes;

4 . Parties will encourage the development of joint

academic activities such as courses, conferences,

seminars, symposia or lectures .

b. Education

1 . Parties will keep each other informed on the study

programmes they have developed and will seek

to use each other’s expertise to develop new

programmes;

2 . Parties will promote joint study programmes such as

master´s programmes, bachelor´s programmes and

non-degree programmes .

10

c. Staff

1 . Parties will increase the exchange of research and

teaching staff;

2 . Parties will exchange expertise in order to support

each other in developing new organisational

strategies;

3 . Parties will share expertise in order to support each

other in addressing organisational, managerial and

financial challenges .

d. Students

1 . Parties will increase the exchange of students;

2 . Parties will promote cooperation between student

associations at their universities .

e. Capital Area

1 . Both parties have strong roots in their metropolitan

areas and each plays a substantial role in the

economic, social and cultural life of its city and

region . They will collaborate to disseminate,

implement, exploit and/or commercialise knowledge

in these regions . Parties will promote and support

entrepreneurship and innovation in their respective

regions .

2 . Parties will seek to work together in developing urban

solution, wellbeing in the society, artistic and cultural

activities in their respective regions .

f. Social responsibility

Parties will work together as socially responsible partners

and exchange knowledge and experiences regarding social

responsibility issues including efficiency of operations

and the impact of operations on the environment, and on

the key stakeholders: students, staff, and both public and

private sector .

g. Internationalisation

1 . Parties will collaborate on programmes designed to

improve awareness of international developments in

higher education programmes .

2 . Parties will keep each other informed on their large-

scale international partnerships and projects .

FHTW Berlin and Metropolia UAS jointly run the

international master’s programme ConREM - Construction

and Real Estate Management . It is designed for

professionals who wish to manage international projects

for building, construction and real estate in the future .

Specialization studies in Metropolia are a part of the

programme .

12


Der Prozess und die Organisation der Qualitätssicherung

an der HTW Berlin und an der HAW Metropolia werden

in diesem Kapitel beschrieben . In den Systemen gibt es

nationale und hochschulbedingte Unterschiede, aber es

gibt auch viele ähnliche Ziele und Funktionsweisen .

Luvussa kuvataan laadunvarmistuksen prosessi

ja organisointi HTW Berlin’issä ja Metropolia

Ammattikorkeakoulussa . Järjestelmissä on kansallisia ja

korkeakoulukohtaisia eroja, mutta myös paljon samoja

tavoitteita ja toimintatapoja .


HTW Berlin has given the quality assurance and

development much attention . This emphasis has paid off

in recent years: performance-based allocation of funds

from the State of Berlin has risen steadily . All study

programs in HTW Berlin are accredited so that they meet

the essential requirements of the Berlin Higher Education

Act, the Ministry of Culture and the European Standards

and Guidelines for Quality Assurance . On the university

level and within the departments the study programmes

and the success balances for students and alumni have

continuously improved and developed . Internal and external

evaluations with applicants, students and graduates are

regularly carried out . Included in the evaluation are also the

teachers and other staff .

Two major projects are currently focusing on quality

management: firstly, the preparation of the system

accreditation (QPrix) through the establishment and

3 Quality Assurance and Development in HTW Berlin and in Metropolia UAS

expansion of a HTW-wide quality management system, on

the other hand, the process optimization and development

of an integrated campus management system based on

the software HISinOne . Both projects will be implemented

successfully by 2014 .

1. Accreditation and Clearing

The aim of a program (re) accreditation procedure is based

on the self-documentation of the university / the program

and the on-site visit by a review panel for assessment and

observation (accreditation) of the quality of the program .

The accreditation body in this process offers the degree

programmes counseling and assistance in the preparation

of documentation, on-site inspections and communication

with the accrediting agencies . The Central Unit for

Development and Quality Management within the HTW

pays attention to the formal compliance with all criteria in

the process .

The clearinghouse supports professors in designing new or

modifying existing systems of about the study . Along with

personal advice, the clearinghouse provides documents

shortly to assist in the development of systems for

download .

2. Evaluation

Evaluation as a tool for quality assurance of teaching and

learning is anchored at the HTW Berlin . Since the winter

semester 1998/99, the University conducts regular course

surveys, graduate and alumni surveys, first semester

surveys, and interviews with teachers . This is done

with the help of EvaSys, an effective tool for large-scale

implementation and evaluation of surveys . The results

of the surveys are the basis for targeted counselling and

systematic human resource development .

13

3. Statistics, ratios, capacity issues

The Central Unit for Development and Quality Management

provides the university management, the departments and

structural units of HTW for their work the required statistics

and indicators (eg . for the production of educational

reports) of applicants, students and graduates . The Unit is

also responsible for capacity issues and the calculation of

the curricular standard values of the degree programmes .

4. System Accreditation (Project QPrix)

The design, introduction and implementation of an

integrated and sustainable management system for

quality teaching and studying at the HTW Berlin is the

main objective of the project QPrix . This includes the

development and implementation of principles for a quality

management - including a quality assurance concept for

the HTW . As part of the accreditation system is designed

to make compliance with the formal requirements and

the functioning of a university-wide quality management

system certified to 2014 .

The aim in the program accreditation of individual study

program or a bundle of related programs is to ensure that

they meet minimum standards and achieve self-set goals .

In the system accreditation the internal quality assurance

system in the area of teaching and learning is reviewed by

an external accreditation council .

In the case of program accreditation the realization

of qualification targets in a degree program and the

competence profiles of graduates are confirmed . The

system accreditation confirms that an efficient and

effective quality assurance system for teaching and

learning is available at the university, and at the same time

also the degree programs are accredited . The system

accreditation does not check each program, so the cost is

minimized in total .

Both in the program accreditation, as well as in the system

accreditation the target is to improve the quality of all

degree programs . A distinction must be made between

Europe-wide, nation-wide, country-specific and university-

specific decisions . Decisions of the Accreditation Council

and the University Rectors’ Conference, requirements of

the Ministry of Culture and the Standards and Guidelines

for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education

Area (ESG) .

The process of System Accreditation in the HTW Berlin

proceeds in three steps:

(1) inspection system, (2) feature random sample, and (3)

program random sample . Each step includes the creation of

a documentation and the commission by a reviewer group .

Step 1: System Assessment

The HTW Berlin submitted its application for admission

to the process of accreditation by the agency system for

quality assurance of degree programs (AQAS) in April

2012 . After preliminary examination to meet the admission

requirements of the system accreditation of the HTW, the

Accreditation Commission agreed at its meeting on 7 May

2012 and opened the application to enable the procedure .

The HTW is now invited to submit up to August 2012 a

self-documentation of the university . In it, the control and

decision-making structures, the rules, the profile, the study

offer, the quality objectives and the quality assurance

system of the university in terms of teaching and learning

are described in more detail .

14

The procedural rules for the system accrediting agency

for quality assurance of degree programs (AQAS) provide

that thereafter for the actual assessment process, a review

panel (consisting of three members with experience in the

field of higher education governance and the institutions’

internal quality assurance, a student member experienced

in high school self-management and accreditation as well

as a member of the professional practice) is appointed by

the accreditation agency .

The review process includes (1) two inspections (System

Evaluation), (2) ”one to all bachelor’s and master’s degree

programs extending comparative analysis of relevant

characteristics of the study design, the implementation of

programs and quality assurance” (feature random sample),

and (3) in-depth evaluations of three courses (sample

program) .

Step 2: Feature sample

The characteristic sample as part of the system

accreditation is primarily to ensure that requirements of

the Ministry of Culture and the country-specific guidelines

and criteria of the Accreditation Council for accreditation

of degree programmes in all degree programs at the

university are met . The characteristic sample includes at

least three features (listed below) . Two will be selected by

lot, the reviewers’ group puts one feature .

Features are

• definition of qualification targets

• compliance of regulations for credit systems and the

modularisation of study programs

• definition of access requirements, credit transfer in

externally provided services and selection

• student workload

• contentual, physical and human resources, taking

account of integrating structures

• study organization and coordination

• module-related and competency-based testing

system (test effort and test forms) and sufficient

information on this as well

• professional and technical consultancy

Step 3: Program sample

As part of the sample program, the effectiveness of

the quality management system is checked through a

results-oriented evaluation of the quality of (three) degree

programmes and quality assurance .

In the third quarter of 2014 the accreditation decision is

made by the accrediting agency . There are four possible

choices: (1) Accreditation without conditions (the system

of accreditation is pronounced), (2) Accreditation with

conditions (the system of accreditation is granted, the

existing deficiencies must be remedied within nine

months), (3) Stay of proceedings (the Process quality is

present with defects, the program quality is comprehensive

or defects exist, and the suspension of the procedure is

even possible) or (4) Rejection (process and program quality

does not meet the requirements) .

After half of the accreditation period — after three years —

the agency makes the so-called half–time spot evaluation

of degree programs . According to present plans to the

system accreditation at the HTW Berlin is to be completed

in 2014, the half-time sampling would take place in 2017 .

15


High-quality results with consistent ways of working —

“The Metropolia way”

Metropolia’s ambitious goal is that, by 2014, it has become

the most esteemed university of applied sciences in

Finland and the learning community with the best ability

to renew itself . All of Metropolia’s activities are based on

its strategy and mutually defined values that steer the

operations towards the goals outlined in the strategy .

Therefore, all operations must be competitive and of high-

quality .

Metropolia systematically evaluates the implementation of

its strategy, its own operations and the achievement of its

goals . Operations are developed and improved based on

results obtained from the evaluation and feedback system

so that

• Metropolia meets the customers’ needs and fulfils its

customer promises,

• Metropolia’s operations are in accordance with its

values,

• everybody is committed to Metropolia’s strategy and

ways of working,

• the development of operations and its results are

regularly communicated internally and to external

stakeholders, and

• students, staff and stakeholders engage in dialogue

on feedback received and the development of

operations .

Developing high-quality and competitive operations is

part of Metropolia’s joint and goal-oriented day-to-day

operations that aim at higher quality, continuous learning

and tolerance of on-going processes . The elements of high-

quality and competitive operations, and the objectives and

principles concerning them, apply to all of Metropolia’s

units .

Metropolia aims to differentiate itself from other

universities of applied sciences with high quality and

innovation in operating concepts . Metropolia promises to

become known for its good atmosphere and a passion

for actively doing things . The methods for reaching

Metropolia’s high-quality operations are described in the

quality document entitled “The Metropolia Way” .

Metropolia systematically evaluates the implementation of

its strategy, its own operations and the achievement of its

goals . Operations are developed and improved based on

results obtained from the evaluation and feedback system .

This way Metropolia will be able to cater to its customers’

needs . The management and staff are committed to

Metropolia’s strategy and ways of working . Operations

are developed in cooperation with the staff, students

and stakeholders . The objectives and working methods

of high-quality and competitive operations apply to all

of Metropolia’s units . Different units may have different

practices that must be appropriate and well-founded, and

must reflect commonly agreed values and Metropolia’s

strategy .

The achievement of Metropolia’s basic mission, and

the development of operations, their quality and

competitiveness, are based on the principles of the PDCA

cycle for continuous development (Plan — Plan operations,

Do — Implement the Plan, Check — Measure and monitor

the processes and what has been achieved, Act — Act and

develop based on feedback) .

16

Quality is controlled using the principles of the

PDCA cycle for continuous development, which are

implemented through a comprehensive quality assurance

and development system based on clear divisions of

responsibility and combining all organisation levels . The

comprehensive quality assurance system generates

information on the fulfilment of Metropolia’s strategy and

its goals, changes that have occurred or are expected

in the operating environment and the needs of working

life . It enables consistent processes and ways of working

in functions that are essential to strategy and in the

development of these functions .

The comprehensive quality assurance system consists of :

• defining Metropolia’s operations and the principles

and ways of developing them in accordance with the

PDCA cycle

• defining Metropolia’s organisation and distribution of

responsibilities and tasks

• common documented ways of working, core and

support processes, and information systems and

feedback channels supporting them

• guidelines and descriptions available to everybody .

FINHEEC Audit in 2011

Finnish Higher Education Evaluation Council (FINHEEC) has

audited Helsinki Metropolia University of Applied Sciences

and Helsinki Metropolia has passed the audit on 14 June

2011 .

FINHEEC decided, based on the audit group’s proposal and

report, that the quality assurance system of the Metropolia

University of Applied Sciences meets the criteria set by

FINHEEC for quality assurance systems as a whole and the

quality assurance of its basic tasks . The audit certificate

is valid for six years .The audit was based on preliminary

auditing material provided by Metropolia and an auditing

visit that took place in Helsinki and Vantaa on 5–7 April

2011 .

The audit group states that the strength of Metropolia’s

quality assurance system is that it is clearly strategy-based

and this point of departure has been largely incorporated

into the HEI’s activities .

The HEI’s operations are organised through the Metropolia

Ltd . Board of Directors, Management Team and strategic

teams . The guiding principle of Metropolia’s quality

assurance system is based on strategy and the principle of

continuous development (the PDCA cycle) .

The audit group identified as best practices, for example,

the internal training for supervisor and management

training, known as the Metropolia Academy, by which

the strategy and quality assurance work has quickly been

introduced and implemented in the operational units, as

well as the balanced scorecard . The balanced scorecard

which supports the strategic action plan and budget has

been broadly adopted on all levels of the HEI .

The audit group presents, for example, the following

recommendations for development:

The HEI should pay attention to clarifying the overall

system of quality assurance, so that the system can be

evaluated and developed in a systematic manner . For

example, defining responsibilities, linking processes more

visibly with the overall quality assurance system and

creating a systematic method of evaluating processes

17

is still underway . The overall quality assurance system can be clarified, for

example, by introducing a special quality assurance manual .

The HEI should critically review the linking of quality assurance with strategic

goals . Linking the overall quality assurance system with the strategy involves

the challenge relating to the comprehensiveness of the quality assurance of

basic operations particularly when updating the strategy and when redefining

focus areas .

Metropolia will have its second-round FINHEEC (international) audition in

2015–2016… . Then the audit procedure will focus more closely on the quality

management of degree programmes . Samples of degree education will be

selected by the institution and one degree programme is selected by the

audit team . Institutions that pass the audit will receive a quality label valid for

six years . A description of the second-round audit in Finland as well as the

audit targets and criteria have been published in “Audit manual for the quality

systems of higher education institutions 2011–2017 (FINHEEC 2011, ISBN

078-952-206-184-3 pdf) .

3.3 Discussion and recommendations

The report was discussed in the HTW Berlin - Metropolia seminar of October

11 .–12 .2012, and each university will use the benchmarking results in their

further work in developing organization, processes and practices .

18


Als erstes Ziel des Benchmarking-Projekts wurden die

Leistung des unterrichtenden Personals — Professoren

der HTW Berlin und Lehrkräfte der HAW Metropolia

-, Anweisungen, Systeme und Best Practices für ihre

Aufstellung und Realisierung sowie Besoldung und

Auszeichnung verglichen .

Hankkeen ensimmäisenä benchmarking-kohteena on

vertailtu korkeakoulujen opetushenkilöstön — HTW

Berlin’in professorien ja Metropolian opettajien — työn

suunnitteluun ja toteutukseen sekä palkkaukseen ja

palkitsemiseen liittyviä ohjeita, järjestelmiä ja hyviä

käytänteitä .


For its teaching staff the HTW Berlin has the following HR

processes and good practices of special interest:

1. System for professors’ salaries

• Since 2005 no automatic increases will be based on

service years

• Starting salary for a young professor about 3 900 e

• Every three years a professor can apply for a

salary increase (e .g . 300–500 e) through show of

performance (leistungbezüge)

• Superior (manager) can recommed but not decide on

a salary raise

• Evaluation is based on pedagogical merits, student

feedback etc . (70 %) and R&D merits (30 %)

4 Benchmarking topic: The teaching staff — task planning, the system for salaries and incentives, HR development

• Evaluation by peers (the academic council of five

professors), decision by presidents

2. System for recruiting new professors

• Fixed number of full-time professors (270)

• Evaluation of candidates and selection for

professorship by peers (the academic council of five

professors), decision by presidents

• New professor is allocated extra hours for preparation

of teaching

• Three years of industry experience required for a new

professor nomination

3. Sabattical and working outside of university

• One sabattical leave of one semester with full pay

after seven semesters of work

• Still used less than expected e .g . in engineering

• Bywork (secondary occupation, own firm) allowed for

professors unless there is a conflict of interest with

HTW, used more in culture and design, business —

less in engineering — increases HTW relations to

companies, bonus-system


For its teaching staff Metropolia UAS has the following HR

processes and good practices of special interest:

1. Personnel assessment and personal development discussion with superior once a year

1st part: Personal development discussion (1–3 hrs)

• Every spring, 80–100% coverage

19

• Assessment of the previous year, tasks and plans for the next year

• Can agree on conferences and other visits, training, support etc .

2nd part: Total assessment of task and performance

• basis for salary increses (typically 50–200 e/month), limited total amount

(about 0,5 % of total salaries)

2. Yearly planning of teacher work:

• 100 principal lecturers (equivalent to professor)) and 650 senior lecturers

• Finland has collective agreements (PTYOTES): teacher’s worktime is

1600 hrs/yr,

• Teacher’s yearly plans are open for all personnel to see

• Incremental system (built upon from small units or tasks) , plans to shift

to larger entities in 2013-2014

• Teacher work hours determined from student workload (1 ECTS:

typically 24 hrs teaching + 24 hrs preparation)

• Not always flexible enough for changes

• Focus on contact/lecture hours

Human Resources management in Metropolia UAS is based on Metropolia’s

HR Strategy and it has the following elements

• Resources: statistics, forecasts, HR planning and recruitment

• Terms of employment: contracts, compensations, collective agreements,

employer-trade union contacts

• Competence management: knowledge mapping, competence

development and training, personal appraisal and development

discussions

• Wellbeing: health and safety, equal opportunities program, recreation

and team spirit building, other benefits

The central ideas in Metropolia HR are:

1 . Competence challenges are regocnized and qualified with Metropolia’s

strategy setting the goals . Even an approximate competence map

clarifies and systematizes competence management

2 . Various tools are used for competence development and management:

20

• HR soft-ware (launched in 2009)

• Appraisal and development discussions

• Personnel training and course calendar

• Competence map: core competencies on

corporate and cluster level

• Knowledge mapping and competence gaps,

Competence evaluations

• Personal development programs (70–20–10

-model)

• on-job learning (70 %)

• coaching , mentoring , facilitation (20 %)

• internal and external training [Peer forums and

Metropolia Academy] (10 %)

All teachers to complete pedagogical training of 60 ECTS

credits in one of the Teacher Training Universities in

Finland .

Metropolia Academy has several programs for competence

and personal development inside the university:

a) Induction for new employees (2 days)

b) Metropolia Academy for All Employees (3 days):

Values and strategies, appraisal discussions

c) Metropolia Academy for Managers (7–13 days):

Values and strategies, appraisal discussions,

Continuing manager training

d) Metropolia Academy for Teaching Staff (10,5 days )

e) Peer Forums for Managers, Specialists, Secretaries

and Assistants

f) Additional competence development: Internal and

external training, on-job learning (job rotation etc .)

Metropolia Academy for the teaching staff has typically

30 teachers from all degree programmes and schools as

participants .The main goals of the Teacher Academy are:

• To act as a forum where teachers can develop

Metropolia´s learning environments and learning

methods

• To support each participant’s personal development

as teachers, tutors and facilitators

• To create and build common Metropolia way and style

of teaching

The time-table for the Teacher Academy is:

• Orientation period

• Self study and seminar (1,5 days)

• Training and workshop period

• Self study and seminars (9 days) in six theme groups

and with expert session

• Teacher’s own development project


The report was discussed in the HTW Berlin - Metropolia

seminar of October 11 .–12 .2012, and each university will

use the benchmarking results in their further work in

developing organization, processes and practices .

22


Die Qualitätssicherung und -entwicklung der Ausbildung

sowie die Feedback-Anfragen an Studenten wurden als

zweites Benchmarking-Ziel ausgewählt . Als Grundlage

werden die pädagogischen Ambitionen der Hochschulen

sowie das Verfahren der Lehrerausbildung beschrieben .

Hankkeen toisena benchmarking-kohteena on on

ollut koulutuksen laadun arviointi ja kehittäminen sekä

opiskelijoille osoitetut palautekyselyt . Pohjatietoina

kuvataan korkeakoulujen pedagogisia tavoitteita sekä

opettajakoulutuksen käytäntöjä .


1. Quality projects

At the HTW Berlin there are several projects on quality

assurance and development: QPrix system accreditation,

excelLuS and Campus-Management HISin One .

Objectives of the Project excelLuS (Quality development in

teaching and learning)

• improving the quality of teaching (educational

supportive, educational activities, developing self-

assessments, developing e-learning tools and student

macro projects)

• strengthening of quality management (centralized

and decentralized / departments for construction of a

quality management system)

• improvement of study-related services (developing

career services: internship placement and alumni

mentoring network, staff development and training)

5 Benchmarking topic: Quality of teaching and learning - feedback processes, teacher development

• Objectives of QPrix system accreditation

(development of quality management system)

• obtaining a higher university autonomy while

strengthening the self-responsibility and

accountability

• further professionalization of the university’s internal

procedures

• allowing for greater concentration of all those involved

in teaching (professors, teachers and LKBA (=

Lehrkraft für besondere Aufgaben) on the core activity

of teaching and learning

Objectives of Campus-Management HISinONE

(Optimization of the campus management processes)

• improving the campus management with the best

possible service and high efficiency and reliability for

all users / user groups

• ensuring full implementation of legal frameworks and

framework of the HTW Berlin

• establishment of an integrated campus management

system and laying the foundations for extension to

resource and research management

2. Strategic objectives of the HTW Berlin

The basic goals and requirements of academic activity at

the HTW Berlin are represented in 10 principles: 1 . Social

and environmental responsibility, 2 . Interdisciplinarity, 3 .

Cooperation, 4 . Performance, 5 . Quality, 6 . Transparency

and openness, 7 . Equality, 8 . Internationality, 9 . Know-how

transfer, 10 . Critical discourse .

According to the university structure and development

plan 2012 is said: The objective of the HTW in the area of

teaching and learning is to design the curriculum so that it

perceptibly better than at other universities

23

• successfully prepares the students for the labor market

• successfully guides the students for independent learning

• equips the students with foreign language and intercultural skills

• guides the students to societal engagement and able to teamwork

Principles for structural reform in 2015 in teaching and learning (AS-decision 28 .06 .2010) directs the activities at the HTW

Berlin .

Quality management of the HTW Berlin

• Reform statutes AMBI . 09/2009

• Principle of subsidiarity: what is locally regulated and organized, is not necessarily centrally controlled

• Autonomy and accountability apply to university as a whole and together with the departments and degree programmes

PDCA (plan-do-act-check) — Model HTW Berlin

Plan – Quality planningStrategic objectives / measures (e .g .):• mission statement (Model guideline)• laws, acts, regulations, framework• higher education development plan • financial planningOperational objectives / measures (e .g .):• establishment and termination of degree programs• creation and modification of regulations for degree programs• new measures to improvement of the orientation phase• new tutorial formats• gender equality in teaching

Do — Quality implementing Information: • general student counseling • first semester introduction daysTeaching (in particular):• sciencificity• application reference • didacticsStudies (in particular):• course management• exam management • eLearning platformService (for example): • specialized student consulting • mentoring• buddy program • career services & living counseling• employment and training policy

Act — Quality improvementReflection and revision (e .g .):• strategy papers (such as ”structural reforms in 2015 in teaching

and studying”) • agreement of goals and objectives• intervention calls• professorshipsDocumentation (e .g .)• orders and principles• procedures• protocols and decisions• key ratios, evaluation results • (teaching) reports

Check — Quality controlMonitoring compliance with internal and external requirements:Surveys (e .g .): • student evaluation of teaching • ”Study Quality Monitor ’• teacher and employee surveys• alumni surveysProcess data analysis (e .g .): • entrance measures• work load• suspension rates • success ratesQualitative and discursive evaluation formats (e .g .):• external evaluation• accreditation• advisory committees• benchmarking

24

System accreditation

Programm eaccreditation Object: degree programSubject: examination of an individual degree program in terms of achieving the desired learning results and its overall conceptionCertificate: For each degree program: confirmation of the realization of qualification goals in a degree program and the associated competence profiles of graduates

System accreditation Object: quality assurance system in teaching and learning;Subject: examination of the control system for teaching and learning, while random testing of programsCertificate: For the system: Confirmation that an efficient and effective quality assurance system for teaching and learning is provided;

Legal Basis of the system accreditation

National and EU decisions

• Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the

European Higher Education Area (ESG)

• Resolutions of the University Rectors Conference

(HRK)

• Common structural guidelines for the accreditation of

Bachelor’s and Master’s programs (KMK)

• Decisions of the Accreditation Council (AR)

Procedural rules for system accreditation

• discussion on essential contents, the process steps

and criteria

• submission of an application with brief descriptions

of the institute and its management and quality

assurance systems for teaching and learning

• preliminary investigation by the agency, whether

the admission requirements for higher education

accreditation system have been met

• development of a documentary by the university,

presenting especially the internal management and

decision-making structures, the model guideline and

the university’s profile, study offer, the defined quality

goals and the system of internal quality assurance in

the field of teaching and learning

• appointment of a review panel

• initiation of the review process: (1) two inspections,

(2) comparative analysis of relevant characteristics

of the study design, the implementation of degree

programs and quality assurance (feature random

sample), extending to all bachelor’s and master’s

degree programs, and (3) evaluations of three degree

programs (program sample)

Criteria for the system accreditation

1 . Education profile

2 . Control in teaching and learning

3 . Internal quality assurance system

4 . Reporting System

5 . Responsibilities

6 . Documentation and transparency

Feature samples, system accreditation

1 . Definition of qualification targets

2 . Compliance of framework for the introduction of

credit systems and the modularisation of degree

programs

3 . Definition of entry requirements, credit transfer in

externally provided services and student admission

4 . student workload

5 . contentual, physical and personal equipment, taking

account of interconnection structures

6 . study organization and coordination

25

7 . module-related and competency-based testing system (audit effort and audit forms) and sufficient information about

this

8 . professional and technical study quidance

4. Quality assurance

Quality measurement in the Student Life Cycle: Key figures and statisticsv

Quality measurement in the Student Life Cycle: Quantitative questionnaires

26

Quality measurement in the Student Life Cycle: Qualitative, communicative interviews

• oral feedback in the forums (FBR, AS, Board of Trustees, KSL, ASTA, StuPa

• special formats (meeting with the dean, FB Verwaltungsltg ., degree program meetings, SG general assembly)

• oral feedback in guidance and at events (alumni brunch, courses, study guidance)

• written feedback evaluation (questions / statements / responses of students in quantitative evaluations, teacher

evaluations)

Quality measurement in the Student Life Cycle: External Evaluation

• program accreditation / system accreditation

• councils

• university /degree program alliances (HAW-Tech)

• Study Quality Monitor (HIS)

• rankings (CHE, Wirtschaftswoche, Junge Karriere, IZ Immobilienzeitung, center of excellence woman and science

(CEWS)

• peer evaluation (HIS, VDMA)

Quality development in the context of subsidiarity: Autonomy + accountability

• Performance report HSL - High school land contract

27

• Teaching reports FB – target agreements

• Teaching reports of degree programs to dean

• Intervention calls

5. HR development

HR development: teachers

• training for newly employed/appointed (10 events, 1

year, didactics, law, examinations, gender

• BZHL (free training offered by the Berlin Centre for

University Teaching)

• W-grade - performance-based pay for newly

appointed (crucial teacher evaluations, or research,

international activity, macro projects, gender . . .)

• training of W-grade commission chairmen by the

president (1 x per year)

• target agreements - performance-based remuneration

for LKBA (crucial teaching evaluation)

Staff development: Staff

• contract of employment, performance-based pay

(agreed targets or systematic performance evaluation)

• staff interviews

• staff training

• management assessment

• management feedback

• staff questionnaires

• age-appropriate personnel working


The pedagogical policies of Metropolia UAS have been

formulated in a strategic team “Paras opetus – Best

Teaching” on pedagogical development . The team has a

teacher member from each school(11 members) . Helsinki

Metropolia UAS has set seven stragegic goals, one of them

is to achieve the best education in universities of applied

sciences (measured by the national graduate questionnaire

OPALA) .

The activities of the pedagogical development strategic

team have focused in 2011–12 on:

• Pedagogical strategy, guidelines

• Competence-based curricula

• Theme year of teaching:

• Events in all campuses,

• Carrying a torch of best practices

• Teacher of the year award

• Continuous professional development

• Required teaching certificate: basic studies

coordination

• Metropolia Academy for teachers

• New learning environments,

• including e-learning

• New campus building project

• Quality and assessment

• Internationalization:

• Partner co-operation

• Export of education services

• International BSc and Master’s programmes

• Creating opportunities for teachers’ career

development

Metropolia’s pedagogical vision:

Metropolia offers a dynamic learning environment that

produces highly-skilled international professionals who are

sought after by employers, under the principle of lifelong

learning . We are building a research and development

based operating culture that works on the principle of

28

continuous development . Innovations for workplaces and

society are created as part of the studies .

In Metropolia’s strategy for 2011–2014 there are four

main policies on pedagogy: Community spirit, Developing

and creative expertise, Open and international networks,

Continuous development: quality, evaluation and feedback .

For each policy the operating methods and strategic actions

are also described .

Community spirit

• We operate with a strong community spirit .

Metropolia offers an environment where the staff,

students and partners are able to develop their

competence and create something new .

• We discuss our views and experiences in various

interpretation forums . Openness, an encouraging

atmosphere and well-being form the basis of our

operating culture .

• Knowledge, experience, action, and the dialogue

concerning them, are crucial to learning . Metropolia’s

research and community based way of working

promotes participation and collective responsibility .

• • We create the structures and staff guidance system

that enable community-based operations

• • We draw up a plan for the development and use

of operating models that promote community spirit,

openness and cooperation at Metropolia

• • We actively promote fairness and prevent exclusion

by ensuring the implementation of the equal

opportunities programme

• • We create a mentoring system for new teachers

Developing and creative expertise

We are actively creating the expertise required by

Metropolia’s faculties, which is borne out of cooperation

between professions and faculties and utilises interfaces

between various fields of science and professional

organisations . Competence-based education, the

implementation of teaching and learning environments

are based on forecasting the future, evidence-based

knowledge from workplaces and research .

• • Theme year 2011–2012 on “Teaching”

• • We promote a multidisciplinary network structure, in

which we create and utilise continuously developing

competence

• • We build the Metropolia Academy for teachers

• • We define pedagogical expertise as multifaceted

and multidisciplinary competence

• • We draw up guidelines for generating information

and developing expertise

• • We adopt a reward system for good practices

• • We incorporate the periods spent by teachers at

workplaces as part of their career path

• • We link innovation projects as part of research,

development and innovation operations

Open and international networks

We encourage networking in our operations . International

cooperation is a natural part of our operations . Our

diverse Finnish and international learning environment

offers rich and creative operating opportunities . We are

actively involved in national and international research

and workplace networks . Metropolia challenges its staff,

students and partners in cooperation to continually develop

themselves .

29

• • Learning works: We set up an action plan for the

creation of open (physical and virtual) teaching,

learning and development environments to be used

by teachers, students and stakeholders

• • We develop the network structure into a continuous

operating environment

• • We define strategic pedagogical partners at the

Metropolia level

• • We create a contact person system for key partners

Continuous development: quality, evaluation and feedback

• Metropolia develops its teaching continuously .

Our objective is to offer high-quality learning and

competence that can be certified within a European

framework . The core aspects of teaching are up-to-

date information, future-orientation, close contacts

with workplaces and utilisation of feedback .

• Excellent competence and learning are achieved

through high-quality curricula that are based on

competence . We continuously evaluate, reflect

on and process teaching and learning outcomes

and incorporate up-to-date feedback as part of our

operating processes on all levels .

• • We create a comprehensive evaluation and

feedback system; in order to monitor its utilisation, we

create an operating method that emphasises respect

for and the responsibility of the parties involved

• • We utilise Metropolia’s own competence in

developing operations; for this we will create a staff

competence data bank

• • We examine competence in interpretation forums

openly and critically with a view to developing

operations

• • We develop the curricula

The strategic team has also described “How people learn”

according to modern pedagogical theories:

“People continuously learn new things while interacting

with their environment . A holistic approach to people

takes their intellectual, emotional, physical and social

development and cultural experiences into consideration .

Learning is an active knowledge construction and creation

process .

At a university of applied sciences, the process takes place

in expert communities with the help of social networks

and various learning tools . The learner interprets and

questions information, always seeking new solutions

based on his or her previous experiences and conceptual

models . An encouraging operating environment promotes

motivation that strives, through conceptual understanding,

to incorporate new knowledge into practical action; i .e . it

aims at expertise . At the core of expertise is a gradually

improving control of the problem-solving process . The

learning process also generates genuinely new knowledge

and competence both in individuals and in the community .”

In the following two Metropolia processes and good

practices of interest are described; the several methods by

which student feedback on education is collected and the

system for teacher training .

Student feedback

All students are encouraged to give feedback on teaching

and learning, as well as other activities in Metropolia . The

students’ ideas and comments will improve the quality and

content of educational services .

30

Metropolia,has developed the following channels of giving

feedback:

• Feedback System in Study Modules . This type

of feedback is collected at the end of each study

module . Students are asked to give their opinions

and evaluations on every study module they have

attended . The e-forms of this feedback are in

Metropolia’s Intranet “Tuubi” . This feedback channel

is open during the following 4 weeks after the course

has ended . In the same place an announcement

will appear, when the teacher has responded to the

group’s feedback . (<20% of students answer)

• Continuous feedback during the study course .

Students have a possibility to give feedback to the

teacher also during the course either by talking or

sending email . In the workspace of every study

course you will find the link ‘Give feedback to the

teacher’ and send the message him/ her anonymously

and tell your views about the course .

• Permanent Feedback Box . This box is created to

collect feedback over the whole year, and it is open

to everyone . Feedback, comments and ideas are

collected and directed to the persons in charge of

implementing improvements .

• Feedback from Graduating Students . The Ministry

of Education and Metropolia University of Applied

Sciences collect detailed feedback (called OPALA)

from graduating students to learn more on the

improvements that could and should be done at the

University .

• Feedback from Sophomores . This type of feedback is

collected from second year students when they reach

the middle of their studies in Metropolia . Metropolia

expects constructive, concrete feedback on what the

students need in terms of educational and support

activities .

• Other Types of Feedback . The individual degree

programmes can collect feedback designed for

particular purposes .

Collecting feedback is a significant part of Metropolia’s

quality management . It is extremely important to us to be

aware and follow our students’ educational and general

experiences in Metropolia and, in particular, to learn of their

true opinions on teaching and learning here .

Handling of student feedback

Metropolia has a common way to handle feedback from

students .

• The general principle is that the feedback is treated

as when it comes . Feedback will be processed by the

persons / entities for whom feedback is addressed or

who are responsible what it concern . To the feedback

will be reacted and responded as soon as possible,

if the sender wishes or for any other acute reason

assessed by the recipient’s . Course feedback will go

to the teacher and education manager . They handle

them together through the teacher’s performance

reviews at least once a year .

• All feedback will be reviewed annually as a whole . All

returned questionnaires will be analyzed in the study

programs . The focus is then on the most commonly

occurring deficiencies and cases, which are mostly

requiring development . Feedback evaluation takes

place by the staff in the study program and in the

common activities . After that developmental ideas

and feedback are discussed and dealt also together

with the students . Conferences will be held in

February - March ‘Feedback from Feedback’-events

31

in each degree program separately, and they inform

the time by themselves . Feedback event memos will

be in Tube .






Both universities collect student feedback extensively and

from different stages of study . HTW Berlin has a course

feedback questionnaire with three parts (own learning,

course, teaching) and it has more concrete and twice

the number of questions compared to the Metropolia .

Metropolia’s course feedback has (strategically oriented)

questions common to all study programmes and concrete

questions must be formulated by the degree programme

or teacher . In HTW Berlin the course feedback is collected

from all students, in Metropolia answering is voluntary .

HTW Berlin has a first semester questionnaire, whereas in

Metropolia the first student feedback on studies and the

university in general is collected in the second study year .

In Berlin the graduateds give their feedback right after

graduation, whereas in Helsinki the questionnaire is

sent two years after graduation . On the other hand

all universities in Finland have a common OPALA-

questionnaire (organized by the Ministry of Culture and

Education) , where students give feedback at the time of

graduation .

32


FINHEEC (The Finnish Higher Education Evaluation

Council) hat im Jahr 2011 eine Prüfung von

Qualitätssicherungssystemen bei HAW Metropolia

durchgeführt . Eine wichtige Empfehlung an Metropolia

war, ihre Prozesse zu verstärkern, um Feedback von

verschiedenen Stakeholdern zu sammeln . Deutsche

Universitäten sowie HTW Berlin bekommen regelmässig

Feedback von der Gesellschaft, Media und Industrie .

Korkeakoulujen arviointineuvoston suorittamassa

Metropolian laadunvarmistusjärjestelmän auditoinnissa

2011 nousi yhtenä kehittämiskohteena esille

työelämäpalautteen vahvistaminen . Saksan yliopistojen

laatua ja vetovoimaa arvioidaan vuosittain riippumattomien

tutkimuslaitosten toimesta ja tulokset julkaistaan

lehdistössä .


Universities in Germany and HTW Berlin get regular

feedback from society, media and industry through

e .g . evaluations published by Der Spiegel, Die Zeit,

Wirtschaftswoche/access KellyOCG and CHE Hannover .

Ref: Rankings im Wissenschaftssystem –Zwischen

Wunsch und Wirklichkeit

(publication 2011)

6 Benchmarking topic: Feedback from society, media, industry and other stakeholders


In the 2011 audit of Metropolia’s quality assurance system

by the Finnish Higher Education Evaluation Council

FINHEEC, one important recommendation to Metropolia

was to strengthen its processes of feedback from different

stakeholders .

Metropolia surveyed its image in the eyes of its

stakeholders in January 2012 . An online questionnaire

was sent to a total of 2,220 stakeholders . They were

asked how they viewed Metropolia today and how they

would like Metropolia to evolve within the next five years .

414 stakeholder representatives answered the online

questionnaire in January 2012 . The answers came fairly

evenly from various stakeholder groups: decision-makers,

partners in companies and organisations, advisory council

members, alumni, student advisors, media representatives

and other cooperation partners . Those in the fields of

education and health care and social services were the

most active respondents . The survey used image board

and text mining methods .

Metropolia’s stakeholders see us as a youthful educational

institution for young people with a dynamic approach in an

enthusiastic and happy community .In future, Metropolia

is expected to be an innovative forerunner with wide

cooperation networks and an ability to respond to society’s

needs .

Stakeholders’ view of Metropolia at the moment

• Youthful educational institution for young people

• Dynamic approach

• Enthusiastic and happy community

33

• Educational institution in the city

• Strong community spirit

• Confusing organisation searching for a direction

• Multidisciplinary

• Geographically scattered

• Valuing its students

Stakeholder groups expectations for Metropolia in the future

• Innovative forerunner

• Wide cooperation networks

• Responding to society’s needs

• International

• High-quality expert

• Ecological

• People-oriented

• Problem solver

Stakeholder groups considered Metropolia’s key methods of staying

connected with them not only through personal contacts but also by means of

newsletters and events and seminars . Customer magazines, social media and

networking were also considered important ways of staying connected .


The report was discussed in the HTW Berlin - Metropolia seminar of October

11 .–12 .2012, and each university will use the benchmarking results in their

further work in developing organization, processes and practices .

34


HTW Berlin has identified research and technology transfer

as vital factors of economic and social development and

has integrated them into the university’s core activities .

The strongly practice-oriented research conducted at HTW

Berlin is translated not only into developing innovative

solutions for pressing problems, but developing products,

procedures and services to meet the needs of the modern

world . University lecturers conducting top-quality research

also leads to top-quality qualifications for thestudents,

thus enabling them to meet the demands of the modern

employment market . The broad range of research interests

reflects the diversity of specialism and the open and

questioning research culture characteristic of the university .

The concept integrates both a researcher in HTW

Berlin as well as the dynamically networked teams .

Special emphasis is placed on finding sustainable

answers to cross-discipline problems requiring intensive

interdisciplinary co-operation . Energy generation and

environmental technology are just two branches requiring

such modern research approaches . HTW Berlin has

acquired an international reputation in a number of areas

and has developed strong links to the regional economic

infrastructure . The university also provides innovation

support to the regional economy, providing services such

as seconding research assistants to small and medium-

sized enterprises . This translates into immediate and

tangible economic development .

The new campus Wilhelminenhof (concluded in October

2009), enables HTW Berlin to concentrate all its technical,

engineering and cultural science disciplines at one location,

and has provided with new opportunities to conduct fully

7 RDI/Other topics of Common Interest and plans for further co-operation

networked interdisciplinary research . The best example for

this is the combination of Cultural Studies and IT, which

sees media technologists working closely with restorers,

museum curators and excavators .

The University of Applied Sciences Berlin has constantly

improved the framework and conditions for research .

Extensions to the laboratories and research facilities and

the development of fresh incentives for achievement

as well as increased transparency through systematic

evaluation of results all ensure the best possible conditions

for conducting ground-breaking research . The personal

and professional development of the research staff has

exhibited similar results, and members of staff participate

regularly in regional, national, private and EU-funded

programmes . This brings the staff into close contact with a

range of

firms and research institutions and ensures their

embedding in a number of international scientific and

commercial networks . Thescientists and scholars process

between 130-150 third-party funded projects per year in

technical, engineering, and culture-related disciplines .

Research contracts from industry play an important role

alongside public programmes . The income from third-

party sources of funding has undergone constant and ever-

increasing growth, doubling between 2005-2009 . Research

results from projects conducted

at HTWBerlin include prototype developments and more

than 200 scientific publications per year . The results

of these projects are presented to both the respective

specialist communities as well as an interested public via

trade exhibitions, exhibitions, conferences and conventions .

35

The interdisciplinary competence fields as well of those at

the various institutes and the so called An Institutes of the

HTW Berlin provide companies from a variety of branches

with a broad spectrum of research-based services . HTW

Berlin conducts research across an extremely broad

spectrum, yet the main focus lies on future-oriented topics

such as information and communication technologies,

renewable energy, environmental and climate protection, air

pollution control, health and consumer rights, preservation

of cultural heritage, the creative economy, marketing and

media and that pertaining to questions of the development

economy and globalization .

Projects and joint ventures in research and innovation

undertaken at HTW Berlin are managed and co-ordinated

by the Co-operation Centre Wissenschaft- Praxis

(KONTAKT) . The services provided by the team include a

number of components:

• Information regarding the spectrum of services

offered by HTW Berlin with its 270 researchers as

well as research groups from all areas of competence

and so-called An Institutes, research institutes and

over 100 research laboratories

• Procurement of scientific and academic services

(commissioned research, measurements and

inspections, expert opinions and market research)

• Initiating joint venture contracts and joint research

projects

• The provision of information and advisory services for

regional, national and EU grants

• Innovation support via transfer services from the

university to companies, especially projects with

regional small and medium-sized enterprises

• Staging academic events (conferences,conventions

and workshops)

• The procurement of research and development

results, patent and invention advisory services


MetropoliaUAS is committed to the definition of RDI by

ARENE (The Rectors’ Conference of Finnish Universities of

Applied Sciences), which is based on the Polytechnics Act .

The short definition is:

”Research and development is one of the missions of

universities of applied sciences . It is applied and it serves

the education in universities of applied sciences . Research

and development also has an important role in regional

development and in supporting the industry and commerce

of the region . The basis of applied research in the

universities of applied sciences is integrating the practical

experience, the latest knowledge and strong know-how .”

The Research and Development Strategy is based on the

general strategy of the UAS and the RDI objectives agreed

upon in the performance contract between the UAS and

the Ministry of

Culture and Education . The strategy takes into account

national development guidelines and provisions on higher

education, research and innovation . The RDI activities serve

the needs of the labour market, regional development and

the UAS itself . The emphasis is on applied research, on

development work that serves the stakeholders and on

putting the research results into practice . Business skills

and anticipation skills are the focus of most RDI operations .

36

RDI projects support product development, innovation and

services of enterprises . As RDI activities are integrated

with teaching, the students get an opportunity to apply

and deepen their expertise and to develop the skills they

need for work and business . At the same time this creates

a network of connections to boost the future career of

these students, and a link between enterprises and experts

that will be graduating soon . These experts are vital for

the renewing business life as a source of fresh ideas in

an environment already familiar to them as well as to give

feedback for our activities .

The RDI activities are carried out as part of the other

primary tasks: education and regional development . The

RDI activities are realized in degree programmes, organized

in seven administrative units called schools . RDI operations

are integrated into teaching through Innovation Project

studies (scope 10–15 credits) included in all curricula,

as well as other commissioned projects, students’ final

projects and RDI projects . It is typical for all of these that

they are carried out in cooperation between students,

lecturers and representatives of businesses and workplaces

in the metropolitan area . Characteristically, the Innovation

Projects are to be carried out in a multidisciplinary

way,thereby utilizing UAS’s extensive competence and

potential .

The institutional rules and regulations which define the

organisation of RDI are as follows:

• guiding principle (johtosääntö)

• guideline by the President of the UAS (26 May 2008)

• the general strategy of the UAS

• the research and development strategy of the UAS

The schools and degree programmes are responsible for

planning, running, monitoring and

development of RDI activities in accordance with the

strategic objectives of our UAS, as well as quality

assurance and risk management . All schools have internal

RDI-teams, which evaluate and decide on RDI-ideas and

project proposals which are to be forwarded . The teams are

run by the RDI contact persons of the schools, who usually

act as the head of the team . The schools have various

internal management practices, yet all the RDI-activities to

be promoted at the organizational level are approved by the

Directors of the Schools before any further activities . The

RDI-activities are approved by the President, Vice President

or the Director in Finance and Administration, depending

on the issue . However, the decision making is sometimes

delegated downwards in activities like contract RDI worth

less than 50 000 € .

The Vice President is responsible for the RDI-process of

the UAS . He is responsible for

monitor the functioning of the process, collecting feedback

and drawing up development and

alteration proposals to the party that decides on such

matters . As the President manages the operations of our

UAS and is responsible for developing it in accordance with

strategy, as well as steering it’s operations and making sure

they produce good results, she is ultimately responsible

for RDI . Although the Board of Directors of our UAS Ltd

and the Board of our UAS decide on our operations, the

boards don’t participate in the practical administration of

RDI . The main roles having effect to the RDI-activities, are

as follows:

37

• the decision making power of The Board of our UAS

Ltd over the strategy, action plan and financial plan of

our UAS, and

• the decision making power of The Board of our UAS

over the basis on which the budget is

allocated, the internal organization and the curricula of the

degree programmes .

The RDI activities are supported by the Financial and

Administrative as well as RDI Development Services

Units . The Financial and Administrative Services assists

in budgeting, advices with the financial issues, provides

financial reports, assists in reporting, organizes auditings

and provides other professional assistance in financial

issues . The RDI Development Services assists in

funding issues (sources, application procedure), RDI

agreements, IPR-issues, and research permits . The general

university services (i .e . Human Resources, IT Services

etc .) are available for RDI activities as well . The RDI

development services unit is responsible for the services

and development of the RDI process . It also provides

information and assistance in risk management, both for

the staff working in RDI sector and the management of

the UAS . They are supported by a strategic team called

“Providing competence and competent labour in the

region”, which deals also with strategic issues concerning

RDI in our UAS . The RDI development services operates

under the authority of the Vice President and are organized

as a top-down/ centralised services .

The Board of UAS defines the basis on which the budget is

allocated, based on the strategy . Accordingly the President

makes decisions on allocating RDI funding to schools .

The allocation decision is based on the FTEs (number of

full-time equivalent students) of the schools . The schools

have a right to decide how they allocate their RDI funding

internally, but their plans/ budget have to be approved

annually by the President . The funding for RDI development

services is allocated alike but presented to the President by

the Vice President . Some of the RDI funding of our UAS is

reserved for the President to be used as a complementary

funding for the projects funded jointly with various funding

programmes/ agencies, and for other unforeseen purposes

found necessary . The annual financial

plan of the UAS verifying the allocations is finally verified by

the Board of the UAS Ltd .

External funding is allocated directly to schools involved in

a project . The project proposals for external funding have

to be approved by the Director of that particular school and

eventually by the Managing Director of the UAS Ltd (who

also acts as the President of the UAS) . For certain funding

programmes/ agencies, all proposals must also be checked

and approved by the RDI development services for formal

approval . The general costs of these jointly funded projects

are covered by the common funds of the UAS, not allocated

to schools but reserved for these purposes (see above) .

In contract RDI the funding the proposals are approved by

the Managing Director, a Director of a school or a Head of

a certain degree programme, depending on the amount

of the contract . Contract funding is not complemented by

any internal funding . Allocation of labour and premises is

decided by the Directors of the schools and it’s based on

proposals/ plans presented simultaneously with the budget

planning annually . The schools have a freedom to decide

on any incentives for initiating RDI activities and some of

the schools have internal application procedures for such

incentives . No general incentives are in use at the moment,

38

except for a small reward for inventors . The procedures

and guidelines for acquiring external funding are described

extensively on the internal web sites . In addition, the

RDI Development Services delivers information and

offers assistance in finding external funding and preparing

proposals .

In Metropolia RDI work is integrated with teaching .

In practice this means that the qualifications for staff

participating in RDI are always intertwined with the

requirements of a degree programme . Due to this

the minimum requirements or qualifications for staff

participation in RDI activities are defined at Schools

and degree programmes and they are supplemented

by the strategic core competences of our UAS, which

are as follows: 1) enabling learning and competence, 2)

networklike and development-oriented ways of working,

3) sustainable renewal, and 4) modern management of

the university of applied sciences . The staff members are

stimulated to participate in RDI activities by organising

peer forums, RDImeetings and spreading out examples of

successful projects and available funding . The RDI-teams

of each school agree with additional stimulation activities

taking place within/ between schools .

The tasks of Metropolia teaching staff include teaching,

student guidance and RDI work, in addition to improving

their own professional skills and tasks supporting the

operations of the UAS, such as participation in training and

the assessment and development of other operations (e .g .

UAS-level teams and working groups and development

projects) . RDI competences are taken into account in staff

recruitment on a case-specific basis and the proportion of

RDI can vary .

RDI competences of staff members are developed by

arranging internal peer forums and courses (management

competences, leading a project), offering possibilities to

participate in external training, participating in conferences

and seminars, staff exchange and continuous participation

in RDI projects with front line national and international

partners . Recruitment of competent staff plays a key role

in maintaining the high standards and fresh pool of experts

with innovative ideas . The RDI is a part of the teaching staff

tasks and there are only few institutional academic staff

members having an RDI related function only .

RDI activities are integrated into teaching, which at

our UAS is done through Innovation Project studies

(scope 10–15 credits) included in all curricula, other

commissioned projects, students’ final projects and

RDI projects . It is typical for all of these that they are

carried out in cooperation between students, lecturers

and representatives of businesses and workplaces in the

metropolitan area . What is special about innovation projects

is that they are meant to be carried out in a multidisciplinary

way, thereby utilising the extensive competence and

potential of our UAS . The schools and degree programmes

are responsible for planning, running, monitoring and

reporting on projects, as well as quality assurance and risk

management during projects .

The students participate in RDI activities under competent

supervision in predefined assignments . Examples of

these are: planning the details of an activity, collecting

data, executing tasks and developing new designs . The

responsibility of the work is always at the supervising

lecturer/ teacher .

39

Co-operation between Metropolia and research universities

is active and takes various forms . The cooperation is

most intensive in the fields of technology, health care and

social services and culture . The outmost prevailing form

of co-operation is common RDI projects . The projects are

planned and executed together in good consensus and the

parties have defined roles . Another form of cooperation is

staff exchange .

Co-operation with private and public sector stakeholders

is dynamic and takes various forms . A typical form

of co-operation is common RDI projects where the

stakeholders are funding a project, are clients via contract

or tender-order procedure, or participate the project as

external experts/ steering group members . The private

and public sector stakeholders often act in tutor-like

relationship, thus sharing their know-how to the students

(and lecturers) while benefitting from the situation at the

same time .Besides some skeletal agreements between

Metropolia and private and public sector stakeholders, all

schools of our UAS have their own practices on managing

the co-operation . However, general management practices

and a common pool of stakeholder information are being

compiled . A customer management system is currently

under development and it shall be piloted during 2012 . The

system is designed for communication purposes, keeping

up customer and stakeholder contacts, reporting, and

background support in student internships .

The results of Metropolia’s RDI activities are disseminated

via scientific publications (micro-books, books, refereed

and nonrefereed scientific journals), professional journals,

general journals and magazines . They are included in

educational material and as a background for co-operation

projects with private and public partners . They are

also spread out by customer magazine and a quarterly

newsletter, media bulletin, and the websites: The results

are discussed and disseminated also in conferences and

seminars, both nationally and internationally .






References:

• Evaluation of RDI activities of Finnish UAS, Peter

Maassen et al . ,The Finnish Higher Education

Evaluation Council, ISBN 978-952-206-209-3 (pdf)

• Metropolia RDI strategy

40

Metropolia UAS will carry out a self- and cross-evaluation

of curricula and teaching in the Spring semester 2013 . The

pilot evaluation concerns 18 degree programmes and in

the following years all programmes will be evaluated . The

aim of the cross-evaluations is to improve the quality of

teaching and learning through reflection of own activities

and learning from others’ good practices . The evaluation

process also confirms that the curricula and practical

teaching are based on well-defined Learning Outcomes

and that the strategic goals of Metropolia are taken into

account . Cross cultural evaluation increases the possibilities

to share and benefit from the practices and cultures in

different fields of study . The evaluation promotes the

pedagogical goals of Metropolia, which have been defined

in the strategic team “Paras opetus” on teaching and

learning .

The evaluation areas are:

9 . Realisation of Metropolia’s pedagogical goals in the

curricula and in practical teaching

10 . The quality of the curricula and teaching

11 . Degree programme’s own focus areas

Each evaluation area contains several evaluation targets:

• community

• expertise

• networking

• quality, feedback, assessment

• learning environments

• assessment of courses

• adaptive tracks for students

• active learning

• pedagogy and teacher skills

• cooperation with the work-place

• RDI in teaching

8 Self-/cross-evaluation model in Helsinki Metropolia UAS

The evaluation criteria are specified for each audit target at

four levels: absent, emerging, developing and advanced .

The two universities will familiarize with each other’s

practices in the evaluation of teaching, curricula and

degree programmes . Presently there are plans to pilot

the cross-evaluation of degree programmes also at the

inter-university level . The international dimension and

benchmarking of the self-evaluation models will benefit

both universities in their quality assurance .

41

The report was presented and discussed in the HTW Berlin

- Metropolia seminar of October 11 .–12 .2012 . HTW Berlin

and Metropolia UAS have many things in common, both in

context and strategy as well as in the actual operation of

the university . In areas where the operation and processes

are quite similar, the benchmarking gives confidence

that the university is in the right path also in international

comparison . There are also significant differences between

HTW Berlin and Metropolia in the context and in the

implementation of university education and its services .

The recognition of different circumstances and approaches

gives each university a possibility to use the benchmarking

results in their further work in developing their organization,

processes and practices . Also the best practices of the

partner university can sometimes be directly implemented

quite readily .

9 Conclusions and recommendations from HTW Berlin and Metropolia benchmarking

42

• HTW Berlin – Metropolia UAS strategic partnership agreement, November 2011

• FINHEEC audit report on Metropolia, Pekka Hulkko et al . FINHEEC 2011, ISBN 978-952-206-182-9 (pdf)

• FINHEEC home page: http://www .finheec .fi/

10 References

43

Appendix A: 19/11, 31/11 /Berlin

Appendix A: Antrag Leistungsbezüge,W-Besoldung ,palkankorotushakemus /Berlin

Appendix C: Gesamtbeurteilung PTYOTES (Kollektivvertrag des Arbeitgebervereins der Serviceeinrichtungen für den

Bildungssektor)

Appendix D1: Rewarding Package for Metropolia UAS

Appendix D2: Belohnungspaket der Fachhochschule Metropolia

Appendix E: Der Gehalt der Lehrkräfte (PTYOTES-Tarifvertrag) /Metropolia

Appendix F: Das Prämienlohnsystem /Metropolia

Appendix G: Lehrevaluation /HTW pdf

Appendix H: Erstsemester /HTW pdf

Appendix I: Absolventen 2007 /HTW pdf

Appendix J: OPALA, Student feedback /Metropolia

Appendix K: Fragebogen zur Zufriedenheit der Studierenden im zweiten Studienjahr /Metropolia

Appendix L: Fragebogen für absolvierende Studierenden /Metropolia

11 Appendices (not included in this report)

44

Professor Dr . Matthias Knaut,

Vice-President for Research and

International Cooperation, HTW Berlin

12 Contact information

HTW Berlin: Metropolia UAS:

Dr . Tuire Ranta-Meyer,

Director, Metropolia UAS

Dr . Heike Zillmann,

ZR für Hochschulentwicklung und

Qualitätsmanagement, HTW Berlin

Dr . Juha Lindfors,

Senior Advisor, Metropolia UAS,

juha .lindfors(at)metropolia .fi

MSc Anitta Liinamaa,

Project Coordinator for Benchmarking-

project, Metropolia UAS,

anitta .liinamaa(at)metropolia .fi

report benchmarking of hochschule für technik und

Documents