aqip basics

AQIP andcontinuous improvement

Stephen D. Spangehl, DirectorAcademic Quality Improvement Program

The Higher Learning Commission

19 States

1000 institutions

The North Central Association region

Goals of AQIP• Help organizations improve performance

and maximize effectiveness while meeting accreditation requirements

• Reshape the relationship with members of the Commission into a partnership and network

• Provide the public with credible quality assurance information concerning higher education providers

Who can participate?

• Institutions already accredited by HLC that want to use this process to maintain continued accreditation

• Institutions not accreditable by HLC that want to use AQIP to drive institutional improvement and seek interaction with other continuous improvers

• Quality-focused colleges or schools within large universities (where the university itself continues to use traditional process for institutional accreditation)

1 4

7

Everyyear

Every 4years

Every 7 years

• A mission and vision driven by students' and other stakeholders' expectations

• Broad-based faculty, staff, and administrative involvement

• Leaders and leadership systems that support a quality culture

• A learning-centered environment

• Respect for and willingness to invest in people

• Collaboration and a shared institutional focus

• Agility, flexibility, and responsiveness to changing needs and conditions

• Planning for innovation and improvement

• Fact-based information-gathering and thinking to support analysis and decision-making

• Integrity and responsible institutional citizenship

Principles of High Performance Organizations

Suppliers

ProvidersProcesses

Recipients

Beneficiaries

Customers

INPUTS OUTPUTS

Input Requirements Output Requirements

What produces current performance?

The Silo ViewStu

den

t A

ffair

s

Hum

an

itie

s

Fin

ance

Aca

dem

ic

Aff

air

s

Main

ten

an

ce

Sci

en

ces

Su

pp

ort

S

ervi

ces

Collecting the data needed for decision-making

Envisioning and Preparing for an Unknown Future

Developing and Capitalizing on People’s Talents

Silo Perspective

Systems Perspective

AdmissionShould be preceded by broad discussion of what quality improvement is and whether it fits the institution’s culture and vision

Institution must present evidence that it

• Understands what continuous quality improvement implies

• Has begun to look at itself from a process-focused perspective

• Has begun to identify potential Action Projects

• Meets the five Criteria for Accreditation• Has been responsive to Commission

concerns and advice (from its last comprehensive evaluation)

Applying institutions in Higher Learning Commission area must

• Be currently accredited and in good standing • Have completed two comprehensive PEAQ

evaluations • Be less than seven years from last

comprehensive PEAQ review

Strategy Forum

• Interactive forum for institutions to review each others’ Action Projects and strategies, providing and receiving constructive feedback

• Opportunity to receive peer review of Action Projects and organizational improvement strategies before they are undertaken

• Teams of institutional leaders craft and shape Action Projects and strategies together

• Institutional teams begin to plan implementation and measurement to ensure that plans succeed

Action Projects

• Dynamic improvement projects that drive an institution’s quality

• program — and inform AQIP• Selected by institution to promote learning and

culture change and respond to opportunities for improvement, problems, or challenges

• Institution reports to AQIP annually on progress or completion of projects

• Action Projects shared via AQIP website to promote collaboration and to enhance self-improving image of higher education

• Essentially serve as intense action learning cycles that focus the institution on hands-on, useful work that further drives change in the entire institution’s culture

Plan,Design, Invent,

Propose, Create, Devise,

Formulate, Originate, Arrange Do,

Execute, Implement, Carry Out, Perform,

Experiment, Test,

Try OutCheck, Study,

Evaluate, Verify,

Research, Assess,

Monitor, Confirm, Review

Act,Revise,

Fine Tune, Redirect, Adjust, Modify, Alter,

Change, Improve

PDCACycle

Systematic Improvement Methods for selecting improvement

opportunities and setting targets Action Projects Plan-Do-Check-Act cycles of improvement Trend lines in measures Closing gaps between institutional

performance and benchmarks

Improving ProcessesDocumenting and stabilizing processesSimplifying processesRemoving “special” causes of variationImproving connections among processesRedesigning an ineffective processDeploying good processes broadly

Annual Updates

• Simple report, due September 21st, describing progress on Action Projects

• Reviewed by quality experts, who provide feedback and advice

• Option for institution to request assistance in cases where progress is stalled

• Opportunity for institutions to identify “outstanding practices” that may deserve Commission recognition and widespread publicity

Systems Portfolio

• 75-100 page public portfolio describing fundamental institutional systems

• Covers the nine AQIP categories, describing processes, results, and improvement in each system

• Portfolio created once (with the first 3 years after an institution joins AQIP) and then kept up-to-date with changes in systems and results

• Valuable for employees, other accreditors, state agencies, and other stakeholders by building shared understanding, consensus, and support for the institution

Academic Quality Improvement Categories

The Categories provide buckets or lenses for examining groups of related processes

The Categories promote a non-prescriptive dialogue about how an institution determines and achieves its goals

Each Category inquires into processes (approach & deployment), results, and improvement

Overall, the AQIP Categories ask:

• Are you doing the right things — the things that are most important in order to achieve your institution’s goals?

• Are you doing things well — effectively, efficiently, in ways that truly satisfy the needs of those you serve?

Each AQIP Category asks:

• How stable, well-designed, and robust are your systems and processes?

• How consistently do you deploy and employ your systems and processes?

• How satisfying are the results your systems and processes achieve?

• How do you use your performance data to drive improvement?

AQIP Categories

Measuring Effectiveness

UnderstandingStudents’and other

Stakeholders’Needs

Building CollaborativeRelationships

Planning ContinuousImprovement

AccomplishingOther Distinctive

Objectives

Leading andCommunicating

ValuingPeople

HelpingStudents Learn

SupportingInstitutional Operations

1P1 How do you determine your common student learning objectives as well as specific program learning objectives? Who is involved in setting these objectives?

1P4 How do you communicate expectations regarding student preparation and student learning objectives (for programs, courses, and the awarding of specific degrees or credentials) to prospective and current students?How do admissions, student support, and registration services aid in this process?

1P5 How do you help students select programs of study that match their needs, interests, and abilities?

In providing this help, how are discrepancies between the necessary and actual preparation of students and their learning styles detected and addressed?

Systems Appraisal

• When an institution joins, AQIP sets the date of its next re-affirmation of accreditation in 7 years

• Re-affirmation of accreditation every 7 years, based on pattern of participation that provides evidence of dedication to continuous improvement and a pattern of results that indicates the commitment is paying off

• No single visit or event precipitates or causes re-affirmation

• Independent appraisal of an institution’s Systems Portfolio conducted every four years

• Valuable professional feedback report for improvement created for each institution

• Prompt, consistent appraisals conducted by heterogeneous panels of trained, experienced reviewers —some from outside higher education — knowledgeable about quality

• Separate independent and consensus review stages ensure that appraisers produce feedback that represents the team’s shared views of institutional strengths and opportunities for improvement

• Blind review process, focusing institutional attention on the feedback itself rather than the identify of members of the team providing it

• Feedback provided in summary rubrics for public information, and in confidential, detailed actionable comments and explanations

Quality Checkup

• Conducted 1-2 years prior to reaffirmation of accreditation, planned collaboratively with institution; minor preparation required

• Assures that any accreditation issues raised by the last Systems Appraisal have been addressed, spot-checks veracity of the Systems Portfolio

• Affirms institution is broadly committed to continuous improvement

• Size and length dependent on agenda - minimum is two peer reviewers for two days

Reaffirmation of Accreditation

• When an institution joins, AQIP sets the date of its next re-affirmation of accreditation in 7 years

• Re-affirmation of accreditation every 7 years, based on pattern of participation that provides evidence of dedication to continuous improvement and a pattern of results that indicates the commitment is paying off

• No single visit or event precipitates or causes re-affirmation

SystemsSystemsAppraisalAppraisal

StrategyStrategyForumForum

SystemsSystemsPortfolioPortfolio

AnnualAnnualUpdatesUpdates

ActionActionProjectsProjects

QualityQualityCheckupCheckup

Reaffirmation ofReaffirmation ofAccreditationAccreditation

Overall how satisfied are you with the value your institution has received from its participation in

the Academic Quality Improvement Program (AQIP)?

199

219

177 2

0

50

100

150

200

250

Extremelysatisfied

Satisfied Neither satisfiednor dissatisfied

Dissatisfied Extremelydissatisfied

Compared with other accrediting programs (regional national and specialized) that you have experienced how would you describe

the value your institution gets from participating in AQIP?

212

180

45

5 20

50

100

150

200

250

Much morevaluable

More valuable About the same Less valuable Much less valuable

Would you recommend to other colleges and universities that they participate in AQIP?

234

175

27

3 30

50

100

150

200

250

Stronglyrecommendparticipating

Recommendparticipating

Neutral Recommendagainst

participating

Stronglyrecommend against

participating

www.AQIP.org800-621-7440 x. 106

sspangehl@hlcommission.org