1 / 18

BEPIQUA PROJECT

BEPIQUA PROJECT. SURVEY RESULTS EMAIL & ON-SITE VISITS. PROJECT SURVEYS. BEPIQUA PROJECT: Two surveys: Email questionnaire (26 replies out of possible 40) On-site visits (5 foreseen in project, 14 realised). PROJECT SURVEYS – FIGURE 1. PROJECT SURVEYS – FIGURE 2.

teo
Download Presentation

BEPIQUA PROJECT

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. BEPIQUA PROJECT SURVEY RESULTSEMAIL & ON-SITE VISITS

  2. PROJECT SURVEYS BEPIQUA PROJECT: Two surveys: • Email questionnaire (26 replies out of possible 40) • On-site visits (5 foreseen in project, 14 realised)

  3. PROJECT SURVEYS – FIGURE 1

  4. PROJECT SURVEYS – FIGURE 2

  5. PROJECT SURVEYS - FIGURE 3

  6. PROJECT SURVEYS – FIGURE 4

  7. PROJECT SURVEYS – FIGURE 5

  8. PROJECT SURVEYS – FIGURE 6

  9. PROJECT SURVEYS – FIGURE 7

  10. PROJECT SURVEYS – FIGURE 8

  11. PROJECT SURVEYS – FIGURE 9

  12. ON-SITE SURVEY OBJECTIVES • To determine the extent of implementation of a QA system • To assess whether the need for establishing a QA system is appreciated • To evaluate whether there exists an institutional “Quality Culture”, which wouldfacilitate the implementation of a QA system • To ascertain the possibility of promoting the realisation of a QA system

  13. EXTENT OF IMPLEMENTATION OF QA • A lot of the basic requirements exist, particularly statistics and IT • QA Concept known • 10% of UNICA universities have a QA system • National environment and Bologna process are “driving” implementation of QA systems • Generally TQM NOT available • International collaboration should be part of QA system (even where QA exists, IR not included)

  14. LEVEL OF DESIRE FOR ESTABLISHING QA • This is high, a lot of Universities already have a “reporting of goals” system • Top management aware of QA and pertinent policy formulation forthcoming • Desire for evaluating performance and facilitating decision-making

  15. PREVAILING “QUALITY CULTURE” (QC) • 90% of Universities reported that “QC” exists • Actions (Bologna process, national regulations etc) in place which strengthen QC • Why is there an existing QC?: because people believe in professionalism, have self confidence, wish to serve, want transparency, desire comparability

  16. POSSIBILITY FOR ESTABLISHING QA SYSTEM • Supported by big majority of institutions • Realisation in the near future considered possible • Has support of staff involved • Acceptance of new working methods and approaches required • Recognition of the need for improving performance

  17. GENERAL CONCLUSIONS • International collaboration no longer limited to mobility • In most Universities IR “centrally” controlled • IR funding exists as well as a “reporting” system • IRO and VR/IR play a central role in formulating IR policy • Need to redefine IRO “core activities” in order to meet new environment

  18. GENERAL CONCLUSIONS • EC funding for IR mainly from EU programmes • IR performance is NOT measured • The preconditions required for “Quality Culture” appear to exist • Concept of “Benchmarks” and “Performance Indicators” are known but in the vast majority NOT used and particularly for IR

More Related