Handbook of Quality Management in Education Exports
KARELIA UNIVERSITY OF APPLIED SCIENCES
Publication Series B:22 Chief Editor Kari Tiainen Editors Riina Siikanen and Mervi Leminen Graphic Design and Layout Salla Anttila @ Authors and Karelia University of Applied Sciences ISBN 978-952-275-126-3 (printed) ISBN 978-952-275-127-0 (online publication) ISSN-L 2323-6876 ISSN 2323-6876 Grano Oy, Joensuu, 2014
Content Foreword 5
National quality assurance criteria for Finnish higher education institutions 6 Evaluation of Higher Education 7 Universities of Applied Sciences in Finland 9 Quality management in UAS’s 10 Value Chain 12 Quality management in mapping and planning 14 Quality management in doing 16 Quality management in evaluation and development 20 Summary of the Best Practises 22
Foreword This handbook presents the final conclusions of the KOLARIproject carried out by Karelia University of Applied Sciences (Karelia UAS). The aim of the project was to identify and document the best practises of quality management, as well as to analyse the possible risks in the context of education exports. These documented practises and risk analysis are focused on in this handbook. In the beginning of the project, people from different exporting companies were being interviewed to benchmark their practises and knowhow of exporting goods and services. In addition, at this stage it was important to clarify the need for this kind of quality and risk analysis in Karelia UAS. Based on several interviews and the SWOT-analysis, a strong demand for quality and risk analysis in education exports had turned out in two previous reports of this project. These documents are confidential in order to secure and respect the business secrets. The best practises were documented by analysing three different cases of Karelia UAS, where educational activities were planned and
put into practise. Each case was treated as a pilot. The pilots were chosen as examples of different elements of the quality management system of Karelia UAS. The award-winning system follows the PDCA (plan, do, check, act) cycle and therefore, it was applicable to risk management analysis as well. The best practises were documented through observing the documents, and also by participating in and observing one international training session. Thank you for all the people and organisations who contributed to the KOLARI-project and to the preparing of this handbook. Special compliments to the financiers: Centre for Economic Development, Transport and the Environment, European Social Fund, and Joensuu Regional Development Company JOSEK. In Joensuu 29 May 2014 Riina Siikanen Project Planning Officer
Mervi Leminen Project Manager
5
Quality
NATIONAL QUALITY ASSURANCE CRITERIA FOR FINNISH HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS
Global education market European Higher Education Area
NATIONAL STEERING FOR HIGHER EDUCATION POLICY (MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND CULTURE)
FINNISH CENTRE FOR EVALUATION OF EDUCATION / FINNISH HIGHER EDUCATION EVALUATION COUNCIL
QUALITY MANAGEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION
LEGISLATION
6
OPERATING LICENCES
» t arget and performance management (TASO) » decision-making » authoritative evaluation
» national evaluation responsibility »a uditing of quality assurance systems » c entre of excellence and thematic evaluations
»m ain responsibility for the quality and development of operations » organisation of quality management »p articipation in external evaluations
DECISIONS ON DEGREE PROGRAMMES
Evaluation
Evaluation of Higher Education The Finnish Higher Education Evaluation Council (FINHEEC) is an independent expert body assisting universities, universities of applied sciences, and the Ministry of Education and Culture in matters relating to evaluation, and thus contributes to improving the quality of higher education. FINHEEC aims at guaranteeing the expertise in evaluations of higher education institutions and in clarifying the European quality assurance criteria. It conducts the audits of quality assurance systems of higher education institutions. Even though FINHEEC creates opportunities for quality assurance, the UAS’s have the final responsibility for the quality of the activities they perform. Source: www.finheec.fi
7
8
UAS
Universities of Applied Sciences in Finland Finnish higher education consists of two complementary sectors: universities and universities of applied sciences (UAS). Universities promote research and provide academic higher education based on research, whereas UAS’s are in charge of professional or ‘vocational’ higher education. UAS’s are municipal or private institutions, which are authorised by the government. The authorisation determines their educational mission, fields of education, student numbers and location. UAS’s have autonomy in their internal affairs.
UAS graduates are professionally oriented experts in their own fields. Highly skilled students with professional competencies graduate from UAS’s. The acquired skills are applicable already during the studies in projects carried out in working life, various assignments, thesis and the compulsory practical training. The BA and MA degrees provide the knowledge and competencies for further studies. Sources: www.studyinfinland.fi, www.minedu.fi
9
Quality
Quality management in UAS’s Despite the national quality assurance system, every higher education institution (HEI) has to monitor its processes. The quality management system might be a separate system, or for example incorporated into the enterprise resource management system, likewise in Karelia UAS. The risk analysis should follow the HEI’s strategy. This guarantees that the intrinsic aspects are focused on in the analysis. Thus, it serves the purpose.
10
The aim of quality management is continuous development
Quality Management
Plan
» Proposals » Training arrangements
Contracts
Act
Development
QUALITY MANAGEMENT
» Developing activities
Stakeholders
Staff
Do Operational processes
» Actual realisation of training
Implementation
Supporting activities
Check
Feedback » Gathering feedback » Self-evaluation
11
Quality Management
Value chain Value chain is used to describe the phases that an organisation has to go through to successfully deliver a service or a product. These phases have to be recognised in order to identify the smaller phases that support the core activities. Quality management has to be taken into consideration throughout the whole process. The identified value chain follows the PDCA cycle of the quality management system of Karelia UAS. Based on the analysis of the cases, a separate “mapping� phase was added to the model. This includes all the important background work that has to be done before the actual planning can begin.
12
Quality management has to be taken into consideration throughout the whole process.
Quality Management Communication
Contract
Networks
Selling
Market research
Proposal/Offer
Mapping
Plan
Billing
Do
Feedback
Check
Act
Stakeholders
QUALITY MANAGEMENT
13
Mapping
Plan
Quality management in mapping and planning Planning is often stated to be the most important phase of the process. Carefully completed mapping guarantees a good starting point for planning. Consequently, a well managed and implemented planning process affects the whole upcoming process. Careful planning plays an important role when aspiring excellent outcome. The planning phase includes also the identification of the stakeholders. Before the implementation of the plan can be done, several aspects, such as preparing the business transaction and drawing up a contract, have to be taken notice of in order to avoid risks.
14
The most important aspects of the mapping and planning phases are: »» Background work »» Identification of the strong areas »» Identification of the stakeholders and the focus group »» First drafts of the contracts »» Making cost calculations
Mapping
Plan
Identified risks POSSIBLE RISK
EXAMPLE OF SOLUTION
There are not enough human resources
Networks, effective HR planning
Activities are not cost-effective
Careful and cost-effective business planning and cost calculation, targets for profit margin
Client is not financially stable
Advance payments
No contracts have been made or they do not cover certain things
Official contracts and agreements about collaboration, fixing the contracts
There are not enough information about the client
Background work
Cultural differences cause problems and misunderstandings
Careful background work, cultural sensitivity
15
Do
Quality management in doing The work that is done in the planning phase becomes concrete in the doing phase. The execution of the plan should follow the standard procedure of the organisation, for instance when trainings etc. are carried out. Each person involved in the process should have a clear view of one’s tasks and responsibilities. This includes managing the stakeholders’ actions and their influence on the process. The risks in this phase can be avoided or at least reduced by careful planning.
The most important aspects of the doing phase are: »» Identification of the target group »» Use of the local networks »» Communication and cooperation with stakeholders and clients »» Careful background work about the client and the cultural background (if not done earlier) »» Stakeholders’ management actions
16
Do
Identified risks POSSIBLE RISK
EXAMPLE OF SOLUTION
Customers are not listened to
Effective communication with customers and stakeholders
Client is unsatisfied
Better communication, taking client as part of the planning process
The original plan does not work
Evaluating the plan and possibly even changing it, flexibility
Execution of the plan is not well done
Involving the people who are responsible of the implementation of the planning process, defining priorities
17
Quality management through stakeholder relations
18
NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL STAKEHOLDERS
LOCAL STAKEHOLDERS
Key partners City councils Ministry of Education Experts Institutions
Partners Clients City councils Ministries Experts
SUPPORTING SERVICES
CUSTOMERS
Accommodation Travel agency Translators and interpreters Infrastructure Insurance company
Persons Organisations
Do
19
Quality management in evaluation and development Gathering feedback is an essential part of the value chain. However, even more important is the use of the data and reacting to the information. For example, in Karelia UAS an effective feedback system which covers students, staff and stakeholders, is used. The organisation’s own actions and also the stakeholders’ actions during the process should be focused on in evaluation. For instance following issues should be evaluated: »» Effectiveness and fluency of the collaboration »» Experience of the staff »» Price-quality ratio »» Customer orientation
20
Check
Act
The most important aspects of the check and act phases are: »» Systematic feedback gathering »» Specifying contracts so that they still serve the purpose »» Finding more partners and other stakeholders, if necessary »» Reacting to the feedback and results of the evaluation »» Supporting better communication both in and outside the organisation
Check
Act
Identified risks POSSIBLE RISK
EXAMPLE OF SOLUTION
There are only verbal agreements or collaboration is between persons, not organisations
Formalising collaboration by agreements
Feedback is not gathered systematically and it is not comparable
Building a feedback system
Service is not developed
Gathering feedback and exploiting it
Departure of a key person with essential expertise
Transferring a key person’s personalised knowhow into organisation’s expertise by e.g productisation
21
Summary
Summary of the Best Practises »» To identify the stakeholders of the value chain »» To choose partners carefully and aim to establish long-term relationships with the stakeholders »» To formalise the collaboration by contracts and MOUs »» To communicate effectively with the stakeholders »» To build a management system for stakeholder relations »» To plan activities well »» To build an effective feedback system »» To react to the feedback and to the needs of the stakeholders »» Actively develop activities and take the stakeholders as part of the planning process »» To reflect the previous activities and to learn from them
22
Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) aims to evaluate education systems all over the world. Finland has constantly scored high every test year which claims that the quality of the Finnish education system is stable and firm.
23
www.karelia.fi