quality assurance introduction
DESCRIPTION
What is quality assurance in higher education and how it is done at Fontys University of Applied ScienceTRANSCRIPT
Quality management
About what we should do because they say so and whatwe do because we want to
And a little bit about James Bond
Everard van Kemenade
Senior consultant Quality Management
Fontys International Projects
QUALITY
MANAGEMENT
What we should do, because “they say so”:
accreditation.
Accreditation = a licence to kill
A licence to kill
Different accreditation systems
– Q Definition
– Objective (improvement or accountability)
– Methods (audits, peer review)
– Responsible agency (government funded or not, employers)
– Voluntary or mandatory
– Object (education/research, existing/new, programs or institutes)
– Public or confidential reports
– Follow up (financial consequences?)
Van Damme (2000), Scheele (2004)
Conformities
Increasing autonomy
Not only top down implementation
Method:
–Self evaluation incl. performance indicators
–Peer review
–Public report
What we have to do in the
Dutch situation
External quality assurance
– Accreditation organised by the
Accreditation Agency (NVAO)
– Compulsory, severe consequences,
– Accountability > improvement
© CHEPS, University of Twente | Don F. Westerheijden | 1998 2
cheps
Higher Ed.
Institution
Visi tingCommittee
InspectorateH igher Ed.
internal Q m anagement
self-study
reportreport of
visitingcommittee
inte
rna
lexte
rnal
s t u d e n t le a r n in g
t e a ch in g
q u a l i t y im p ro ve m en t
s e lf -e v a lu a t io n
p r o g r a m m e
ju d g em e n t s
s i t e v is i t s
M inistry,
press,public, etc.
“met a -ev
aluat io
n”
acco
un
tability
t ransp
arency
Quality Spiral in Dutch Higher Education
Buffer
body
Accreditation Agency (NVAO) accredits
Study
Programme
Legal c
onsequences
QUALITY:
External Quality
Assurance
Self evaluation
Visitation by “customers”
Every six years
The course is the object
Emphasis on primary (educational) process
Change foreseen 2010: more institutional issues
Different views onits
effectivenessVan Kemenade
(2009)
Some results Ph.D study
1. Seperate accountability from
improvement
2. Do not use self evaluation for
accountability, only for improvement
3. Do not model the internal system (just)
to the external demands
Quality is not a thing
It is an event
R. Pirsig.
““Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenanceZen and the art of motorcycle maintenance””
(1972)(1972)
The seventies cult book on quality and values The seventies cult book on quality and values
plan
do
check
act
Deming cycle
QUALITY:
The Fontys case
What we want is:
Continuous improvement
Commitment from all employees
How we organize it at Fontys
Concern auditors
Quality Service Centre
Program Quality Managers:
– Management contracts and
reports (Macon and Marep)
Teams
– Team contracts
Individual
– Personal development plan
Concern Auditor
Top senior staff-function
Advisor Board of Directors
X X + 6Internal
audit
Quality Service Centre
Quality system advise
Assist self-study
Documentary system
Research stakeholders: evaluations
* students
* staff
* alumni
* world of work
* government
EvaluationsStudents
– Every period (course)
– Every year (program)
– Every two year Fontys
Staff
– Every two year Fontys
World of work
– Council
– Alumni/employers yearly
Government
– Accreditation
Tomorrow?
How to get the p-d-c-a cycle
working on program level
Evaluations Summary Improvements Results
MT: Macon
Activity plan
Marep
Marep=management
report
Quality
Study-results
Marketing-results
Educational Development
Financial
Co-operation0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
1e kwrt 2e kwrt 3e kwrt 4e kwrt
How to get the p-d-c-a cycle
working: teamplan
Team MTTeam plan
MT Activity-plan Marap
Quality Manager
Reports on evaluations
Quality improvement is
a daily
personal priority
obligation
W. Edwards Deming:
We have to bring back the individual.
How to get the p-d-c-a
cycle working on
individual level
Competence management
Personal development plan
Yearly appraisal meeting with the manager
Shaken not stirred
Thanks for yourattention
Questions