1 / 24

Aimo virtanen and nina aremo

Quality audit as an effective tool in establishing quality management at the university of helsinki. Aimo virtanen and nina aremo. Short bios. Nina Aremo , Quality Specialist, Central Administration Phil . Lic . 2009 in Organic Chemistry, University of Helsinki

evelynrobles
Download Presentation

Aimo virtanen and nina aremo

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Quality audit as an effectivetool in establishingquality management at theuniversity of helsinki Aimo virtanen and ninaaremo

  2. Short bios Nina Aremo, Quality Specialist, Central Administration Phil. Lic. 2009 in Organic Chemistry, University of Helsinki • Quality Specialist at the University of Helsinki 2015– • Quality Coordinator at the Faculty of Science 2006–2015 • Project Manager of the Project: Quality Management in Laboratories • Member of the Quality Management Steering Group (LAAVA) of the University of Helsinki, 2007– Aimo Virtanen, Quality Manager, Central Administration • 1998–2004 Planning Officer, evaluations and quality assurance • 1998–1999 International benchmarking of administration (University of Helsinki, Universities of Amsterdam, Stockholm and Oulu) • 2000 International library assessment of the UH • 2004 International follow-up of libraries and information services, UH • 2004– Quality Manager • 2004–2005 Evaluation of administration, UH • 2006–2008 and 2013–2015 Primary responsibility (together with Helena Immonen) for the Quality Assurance Audit by the Finnish Higher Education Evaluation Council (FINHEEC) and the Finnish Education Evaluation Centre (FINEEC), UH

  3. Quality management at theUniversity of helsinki

  4. Quality Assurance Organisation at the UH THE BOARD Rector 1st Vice-Rector Quality Assurance Steering Group Quality Manager • Expertsin operational sectors Quality Specialist Contact persons in the faculties and independent institutes

  5. Theauditprocess

  6. fineecaudit • Enhancement-led • Coveralluniversityfunctionsnotonlyeducation • HEI recognizesthestrengths, goodpractices and areas for need of development

  7. University of Helsinki auditprocess

  8. Preparation for audit • UpdatingOperationsManuals and constructingthem as a consistentnetwork and a part of Flamma-intranet • Visits to faculties, to departments, to independentinstitutes and to sectors of centraladministration (Vicerector, acting as a chair of Quality management steeringgroup, Quality Manager and Quality Expert) • Introductoryevents to preparemembers of academiccommunity to theauditprocess • Quality trainingcourses, tailored for differentgroups of staff and students

  9. Audit material An internationalaudit team (6 + 2 FINEEC’sprojectmanagers) received: • Basic material • Organisationchart • Overallstrategy • A diagram and concisedescription of thequalitysystem • TheHEI’sinstitution-levelqualitymanual • Informationaboutthechosendegreeprogrammes • Self-evaluationreport(50-70 pages)

  10. Purpose of the site visit • To get an overall picture of the University of Helsinki and how the quality of education, research and societal interaction is maintained and developed. • To verify and supplement the observations made based on the Helsinki University audit material. • An interactive event that supports the development of the operations of the University of Helsinki.

  11. Questionmarks • How to introducetheaudit team thenature of ourUniversity’squalitysystem? • Somemembers of theinternationalteam werenotveryconvinced of ourhonestdesire to combinetheprocesses of steering and quality management; their intention was to havemoreorlessindependentorseparatesystems • It is notveryeasy to assurethe team of a qualitysystemconcerningtotallyneworactivitiesunderconstruction (an examplewasdoctoraleducation at thefaculty of arts)

  12. Self-evaluationprocess

  13. Practicalimplementation at UH Workshops8 in differentfocus, 15-25 participant/workshop Total 150 participants Self-evaluationreport 0.2 QualityExperts Self-evaluationreport 0.1 Central AdministrationSection Samples of DegreeProgrammes Units, AcademicAffairsCouncil, QASG Evaluation and feedback UniversityLeadership, Unit’squalitycoordinators Open commentation on intranet Students and Staff Self-evaluationreport Final version

  14. Challenges in self-evaluation (1) • Focus on evaluationnot on description (separatedsections in eachchapters). • How to behonestbutnottoocritical? • To noticeshortcomings in procedures. • To give a signal of improvements in activities. • If defectsarenotnoticed, theycannotbecorrected. • Reliabilityis themostimportantprinciple and a challengeon bothsides, on theauditteem’s and on theHEI’s.

  15. Challenges in self-evaluation (2) • Themastery of qualityconcepts, such as qualitypolicy, quality culture, quality management, qualityassurance, qualitywork. • Theprofessionalqualityconceptsarenecessary to beable to speakexactlywithcolleagues, e.g. at this Forum; but is it necessary to learneach of those for anyoneworking at a HEI ? • At the UH quality management is tightlyintegrated in the management orsteeringsystem and is a part of ournormaldailywork. • On theotherhand, a recommendationgivenbytheauditpanelwasthatthe UH shouldmake a qualitysystemmorevisible and develop an overall ”blueprint” for thearchitecture of it.

  16. Benefits of theself-evaluation for UH (1) • Everybody at the University has had the possibility to participate to the self-evaluationprocess. • The self-evaluation report has been distributed and widely read throughout the University. • The report is used as a tool for further development. • The best practices will be employed throughout the University. • The quality culture has been renewed clearly, and the commitment to promote it has increased.

  17. Benefits of theself-evaluation(2) • Theself-evaluation is a splendidtool for • analysingoperations • openingupprocesses and • finding out blindspots • Differences in processesbetweenunitsemergedclearly • Theself-evaluationprocessforces us to worktogether • to find out thelanguage to discussaboutbasicqualityconcepts and • to search for betterways to operate

  18. Benefits of theself-evaluation(3) • Theself-evaluationhelpsthe management, staff and students • to understand and learnthebestpractices, adaptedfrom a modellapplied in otherunits • to noticethatdifferentpracticesbetweendifferentunitsarenotalwaysnecessities to strengthentheiridentities

  19. Benefits of theself-evaluationto theaudit team • Opens a basicanalysis of the QA system of a HEI. • Theaudit team cancomparetheinformationreceived in writtenform with thatacquiredthroughinterviews.

  20. thefinnishauditmodel Strengths • Comprehensive • Enhancement-led • Well-managedby FINEEC • Cooperative • Includesa remarkableinvolving of members at theUniversitycommunity in theprocess Challenges • To combinebothevaluation of processes and resultstogether • To convinceespeciallytheacademicstaff on aimingdevelopment of coreactivities • To managethelanguageissues – a question of special ’Quality language’

  21. Theself-evaluationincluded in theaudit • Motivating • Knowledge intensive • An excellentpossibility to open activities • An opportunity to find out good practices and to adaptthem

  22. THANK YOU –TACK - KIITOS!

More Related