Towards new quality management systems in

• Towards new quality management systems in merged institutions… THE UJ QUALITY PLAN: 2005 - 2008 Anci du Toit on behalf of Gerrie Jacobs

QUALITY CHALLENGES: FIRST MERGER YEAR Interim Council, MEC, Deans, Ho. Ds Interim Vision, Mission and values – no strategic direction Inherited QA policies, structures and practices Merger dynamics/loyalties to former QA systems Compromise not reached in the 1 st merger year ‘Comprehensive’ university? Lack of security

ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE UJ QUALITY PLAN Feb 2005: UJ joined SA-Finland project (via HEQC) UJ QUALITY PLAN: Senate-approved May 2005 (tedious lobbying and PLAN change management process) • Four Quality Project Teams (QPTs): – QPT 1: Quality management structures (all levels) – QPT 2: Analyse inherited and develop new UJ policies – QPT 3: Single strategic plan (incl. vision & mission) QPT 4: New academic programme structure (APS) Steercom & representative soundboard (USB)

STRATEGIC GOALS 1. A reputable brand 2. Excellence in teaching and learning 3. Internationally competitive research 4. An engaged university 5. Maximize intellectual capital 6. Institutional efficiency and effectiveness 7. Culture of transformation 8. Competitive resourcing 9. The preferred student experience 10. Focus on the Gauteng city region

GOAL 2: EXCELLENCE IN TEACHING & LEARNING To promote and sustain excellence in teaching and learning by quality assurance practices and actively developing and implementing cutting edge teaching, learning and assessment strategies. Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) 1. Learning excellence; 2. Teaching excellence; 3. Relevance/impact/diversity of programmes; programmes 4. Cutting edge teaching and learning strategies; strategies 5. Lifelong learning METRICS?

METRICS 1. Degree credit success rates HEMIS data 2. Student satisfaction with teaching Surveys 3. Employability Graduate & employer surveys 4. Impact: innovative teaching & learning Impact studies 5. Participation in lifelong learning programmes Existing database to be customised Attainment of critical learning outcomes by students ? Assessment of outcomes per programme/major?

QUALITY PROJECT TEAM: QUALITY STRUCTURES DVC: Strategic & Instit Planning & Implementation (incl. QA) DVC OIE: Mission is not just an empty promise (QA + Planning) OIE Quality Task Team: Steered QA and Planning in 2005 Team Two standing Senate committees in 2006 (SQC & SAPC) End of 2006: ONE Academic Planning & Quality Committee 2008: Senate Quality Committee –all strategic goals HE policy analysis, Link QP and all functions of University (Plan & Policy) Appropriate resources utilisation National & Prof Body reviews Faculty Quality Committees (FQCs) established (diverse)

QUALITY PROJECT TEAM: PROGRAMME REVIEWS Phase in the merger where Tyre Hits The Road – academics talked to each other about the institution’s core business Purpose: In-depth investigation of all programmes to: Purpose promote the quality of programmes (HEQC programme criteria) align programmes with the new UJ vision, mission and strategic goals establish a new Academic Programme Structure (APS) for UJ Decisions taken regarding each programme: C = continue unchanged ; or C = consolidate with another programme(s) ; or C = effect (substantial) changes ; or C = cancel or discontinue and phase out

CONDUCTING PROGRAMME REVIEWS NEW APS!! INTERNAL Peer review PWG & SENATE ADJUST PORTFOLIO (Electronic template) template SELF-EVAL PORTFOLIO (per programme group – most HEQC criteria) REPORTING EXTERNAL (Per programme and module - Forms 1 +2) Peer review

PROGRAMME REVIEWS (3) MASSIVE venture!! : Quality “tsunami” or “massacre”? Some numbers: numbers 9 faculties offering 1477 programmes (Form 1 s) 36 capacity building workshops (using an electronic template) 28 000 modules in OBE format (3456 Form 2 s reviewed) – Phase 1 External peer reviews, template and paperwork close to R 3, 5 million R 349, 194 SA-Finland project money – to 9 faculties (R 38, 800 each) R 98, 000 due in 2008 also payable to faculties R 140, 000 forthcoming research on impact + capacity building See PRODUCT!: UJ Academic Programme Structure + A quality ethos & quality “champions” in faculties…? ?

LONGITUDINAL RESEARCH: QUALITY PERCEPTIONS 2 questions: To what extent do FQCs perceive - QA and QPromotion as indicators of effectiveness and themselves as “true owners” of quality matters? PROJECT FINDINGS (1999, 2002, 2005 & 2008) QA/QP climate changed: Quality must be shown to exist changed 1 st research question? - ; 2 nd question? – ? ? ? QA “champions within” the faculties Quality Associates appointed SA-Finland funding utilised (Thank you!) you! EXPECT QA & QP from academic leaders? Difference: Lady and Flower girl (Eliza Doolittle, My Fair Lady)

Aftermath of the programme reviews Research • Role of PRs in establishing Quality Management Structures - FOTIM, AUQF • Quality Structures at Faculty level – Fotim • Quality management at faculty level – Fotim, AIR • Programme Reviews: A question of value - Transformational value – Role in QM System established? - Institutional Quality Awareness - Acceptance of responsibility THANK YOU HEQC! UJ and NMMU: SANTED project – comprehensive universities • Collaboration Edge Hill University, UK

QUALITY PROJECT TEAMS: POLICIES AND PLANNING New UJ policies: Task Teams developed more than 20 policies thus far – policies still a few to go, e. g. Policy for Quality Promotion – submitted to Senate UJ Quality Promotion Plan Challenge: Institutional participation and buy-in Challenge UJ strategic plan: Immense amount of work done in strengthening plan institutional mission attainment Challenges: Strategy management support and monitoring progress Challenges wrt the goals of the plan

LESSONS LEARNT • Coordination and support at management level crucial • Interim management detrimental – lack of decision-making powers • Profound effect of merger politics • Strategic planning – Goals, KPIs, Metrics, Actions NB • QM structures – only once MEC established, Strategic plan developed and responsibilities assigned • Faculty Q structures mirror institutional Q structures • Programme reviews was a MAJOR challenge – healing in end • Lack of capacity – HE QM, Curriculum development • Loyalties to existing policies and practices – detrimental effect

IN CONCLUSION “Fastest” post-merger focus= Quality planning SA-Finland project main contributor!! We’re building a new, bigger plane, while simultaneously trying to fly it quality & identity dialogues lag behind, but QA awareness excels… QM cycle implementation takes time in merged HEIs PROLONGED FINLAND INVOLVEMENT? INVOLVEMENT “Training” of QA practitioners Coherent curriculum development (a new HEQF waits…) Impact analyses (student learning scorecard), etc. Thanks HEQC (Herman) & Do. E, CEPD & Fins! We’re still enjoying it here! Mukavaa olla täöllö !!