HEQC’s Quality Systems Restructuring Project (“Finnish Project”).

UFH presentation of Project Outcomes and Impact

October 2008

Presented by: Kuselwa Marala

PRESENTATION OUTLINE

• Background

• Project Intended outcomes

• Output and Impact

• Challenges

• Conclusion

The University of Fort Hare, Eastern Cape

University of Fort Hare campus locations

PROJECT BACKGROUND

• Start– Hectic: delays in appointment

– Revised delivery time-schedules

– Groundwork between July to December 2006

– Started in earnest in January 2007

INTENDED OUTCOMESPhase 1: Development of a Quality Plan

• Analysis of Business Processes– Alignment of policy with practice

– Review against perceived ‘best practice’, and made amendments where deemed essential

– Identified gaps

Phase 1: Development of a Quality Plan

• Captured and posted on the QMS in the Intranet– Process maps– Policy documents– Procedure documents

The process maps captured are what we

thought was ideal and aligned to policies

QMA Document management system

Under policies you will get 3 subfolders

Click the folder Financial Policies

If you want to read the document you can click OK If you want to edit the document click on edit then click OK.

Introducing a New Qualification Process for the Accreditation and Implementation of a New Programme/Qualification

External BodiesRegistrarExternal Units /

Peer Review

Central Academic Planning

Committee (CAPC)

Inter-Faculty Process

Complete SAQA Qualification Form and Programme Application

Form (DoE) (refer to CESM Categories and

Course Level Definitions)

QA C’ee check programme alignment to vision, mission and

goals and endorse process to begin

TLC Review and Sign Off

Faculty Board Approve

Initial Clearance Approved

Registrar seeks DoE funding

approvalDoE Approve

Together with Programme Proposer Complete HEQC On-

line Application for Accreditation

HEQC Approve

Application for SAQA Registration

on NQF (with support from QMA

Unit)

Complete ITS Forms for

Registration of Academic Structure

Internal Registration

Complete Module Prospectus Forms

and commence implementation

SAQA Register on their Web-based

Database

Faculty Submission to

Senate

Chair of CAPC (University Planner)

Submission Report to Senate

Institutional Approval

Library Review and

Sign Off

QMA Review and Sign Off

Where applicable, professional body approval must be

sought before undertaking the

HEQC application process

Complete New Module

Registration Forms

Peer Review of New Modules (x2

Institutions)

Take all forms and Clearance

Certificate for review and sign off

Completed Clearance

Certificate tabled at QA C’ee

Dean Tables at

CAPC

A revised ‘user friendly’ process map that takes

you through the internal and

external processes

Process Map and all relevant forms will be:

1. Sent to Faculty QA Committee Members

2. Put on UFH Intranet

Just what you want with the document management system. Note: if you are working on a document no one can open or work on it.(Safe and Powerful)

The immediate impact of this process

• Time- saving gains for the QMA Unit as colleagues with queries on policies, processes and procedures are referred to the intranet as a source of initial reference.

• A number of colleagues have reported that this has been an empowering experience as they are able to educate themselves at their pace by visiting the QMA site

Phase 1 Impact Continued

• It has enhanced the induction of new staff members

• Given the potential that this holds for the improvement of our quality systems the UFH Management has resolved to build on this system a Document Management System

•Single point of access

•Work flow processing

•Versioning control (Backup)

•Browser-based collaboration

•Document Management Platform

•Host web portals

•Access shared workspaces and documents

http://sps.ufh.ac.za/qma

Phase 1 Outcome (1)

• Quality Policy that serves to regulate the use of the system

• It was adopted by Senate on 01 November 2007 and Council on 23 November 2007

Phase 1: Outcome (2)

• However, it is the QMA Unit’s view that for this to have impact, further training on the policy is essential.

• This should help to bridge the gap between the policy at theoretical level as well as policy at implementation level.

Phase 2: Diagnostic Analysis and Review

This phase entails two activities:

1.Capacity development of institutional

staff to conduct internal self - evaluations

2.Developing Programme Evaluation tools and Piloting these

The immediate impact of the self-evaluation process

• A sharpened insight of self-knowledge as an institution (UFH, Alice & Bhisho + former RUEL)

• The innovative model (Internal auditors audit faculties). Audit Reports and interventions are tabled at the Audit Committee

Activity 2: Programme Evaluation

The following programmes were evaluated:

1. B Sc Crop / Agricultural Science and

2. B Sc

In-depth discussions of the report with the

Faculty, IQAC as well as Senate.

The impact of this pilot

• TWO evaluation tools instead of the intended ONE were developed (Programme & Faculty)

• The generation of lots incisive discussions on the core business of the University.

The impact of this pilot Continued

• The training of Faculty Quality Assurance and Teaching and Learning Committees on the use of the developed electronic evaluation tools that are posted in the QMS

• The academic programme evaluation tool had been rolled out for use to the rest of the UFH community.

• Pro-active academic leaders to take the initiative of conducting their programme evaluation outside the University evaluation cycle

Phase 3: Development of a Detailed Implementation Plan• Limited progress in the development of a

consolidated improvement plan for implementation at institutional systems level.

• This is due to limited human capacity issues within the QMA Unit. Currently, this stands at 1 Manager and 2 Administrative support staff servicing THREE campuses

Phase 3: HOWEVER• For the Office of the Registrar and the

Library this is already work in progress as their improvement plans have already been developed AND are being implemented

• Some individual leaders in their respective Units have started developing some quality improvement plans for the issues that have emanated from the self-evaluations.

Phase 3: AND of CAUSE

• Some are waiting for the QMA Unit to say what must be done!!!!!!!

CHALLENGES• QMA Unit Human capacity

• QMA Unit engaged in a number of projects and working with the same stakeholders who view us as over demanding of their time

• Competing demands for attention by UFH community. Juggling.

• Logistics

• Resources allocation for needed improvements

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS• Dr. Herman Du Toit of HEQC• Mr Dave Reevell of Revworth Consulting• Mr Lovemore Nalube, ex-UFH Webmaster• Mr Lwazi Mbambo, TSC at UFH• QMA Unit Colleagues: Cuzi, Maria & Cleo• FINNISH FUNDERS

Thanks for listening..

Any questions?