EAIE Conference, Torino, 15 – 18 September 2004

1. EAIE Conference,Torino, 15 – 18 September 2004 Accreditation and Evaluation Developing a Quality Culture inside Institutions – Process, Structure, and Key Actors Prof. Dr. Jürgen Kohler,Greifswald, Germany

2. The Starting Point: EUA Project “Quality Culture (I and II) – Implementing Bologna Reforms” Indicated by Project Title: Distinction in terminology: identifying “culture“ vs. “management“ Reflecting reality: “implementing”

3. The Challenge: • While • Acknowledging independence and interdependence of “culture“ and “management“ • Acknowledging scope of (mutual) improvement • Introducing • “Management of quality culture“ (?), plus • “Quality culture of management (?)

4. Presentation: Purpose and Practical Outcome • Intends to explore the notion of quality culture • Hints at tools for fostering processes, structures, actors contributing to quality culture

5. Defining quality culture (in a narrow sense): • By contrast to quality management (q.m.): q.m. = • technocratic element (instruments, processes, and responsibilities used to develop, measure, and enhance quality) • Quality culture (q.c.) as such, both at institutional and individual level: • Commitment to realize quality (intent) • Success in implementation (reality)

6. Defing quality culture (in a wider sense) by identifying the significance of q. c.: • “Q.C. in the narrow sense” a value in its own right • Instrumental: foster quality, efficiency and longevity of institutional operations and their outcomes • Hence: • All-embracing: quality culture in a wider sense = quality management + quality culture

7. Quality Culture (in a narrow sense) Expertise  Objectives +  and Ambition  Motivation Individually, and Institutionally Quality Management Technocratic: Know-how „Quality Culture“(in a wider sense)

8. Obstacles to Q. C.: • Human factors: • resistance to change (limited perspectives; fear) • Institutional factors: • complexity of steering a self - organising system based on decentralized steering and iterative non-linear loops towards shared goals

9. Basic requirements: • Identification of valid institutional objectives • Sharing and supporting of objectives • Ability to match objectives • Will to reiterate processes

10. 3a) Specific Requirement I: • Qualified Leadership • Substance-related competence • Balance between open-mindedness and steadfastness • Listening and explaining • Acting with reason and stating reason • Accepting and sharing responsibilities • Some concrete devices

11. Ensuring Leadership: Elements • Signal fundamental change and direction- defining goals- by means of thinking ahead (“vision”) and motivating, but without claiming exclusiveness and therefore acting openmindedly (“top down and bottom up at the same time”) • Think ahead (“vision”) requires anticipation of opportunities and risks, i.e. the ability to predict and conclude • Create trust by means of subject-matter orientation, transparency, guarantee of fear- free discourses, clear indication of necessary changes and qualities to be kept • Organise learning processes, communication channels, participation • Allocate/share tasks, especially definition of de-/centralisation while securing interdependence of decentral specificity (academic subject) and the overall system (university as an identifyable entity) • Identify competent contact persons, offer expertise • Create professional working groups with specific substance-matter and procedural competences • All in all: ensure capability and grant responsibility • Define the time-frame • Sum up the results • Finalize decisions and have decisions finalized (sharing decision making following identity of decision making power and substance-matter related competence

12. 3b) Specific Requirement II: • Sense of Ownership • Sharing objectives, process, tools, throughout the organisation; based on trust and participation • Some concrete devices

13. Developing a “Sense of Ownership” • Elements: • Establish and sustain communication, formal and informal, in a hierarchic system in both directions • Ensure participation of players, namely students and employees as well as external participants • Build working groups and match them in a sensible and effective way • Distribute and interweave responsibilities, and use the principle of subsidiarity sensibly • Take contributions of participants seriously • Justify decisions by objective criteria • Ensure transparency of contents and procedures

14. 3c) Specific Requirement III: • Sense of Optimism • Can-do attitude • Success required, also at interim stages • Indicating feasibility • Some concrete devices

15. Indicating Feasability • Elements: • Sketch and support means of implementation • Analysis: strengths- weaknesses- opportunities- threats- choices • Common mission statement – including: identification of strategies • Gain external partners (e.g. politics, media) • Develop funding and legal framework

16. 4) Defining “Quality”: From “ (Quasi- normative) Standards” to “Relativity of Quality” • Open Concept- • Valid Learning Objectives and Coherence of Concept and Implementation as Quality Guidelines

17. Advantages of a “relative quality concept” • Openness towards integrating research based innovation • Avoiding normative-bureaucratic control of content from outside: how and who to define “standards”? • Ensuring the development of institutional profile characteristic for each institution • Adjusted to differentiated expectations of students, research areas and labour market • All in all: linking innovation, flexibility, competitiveness and autonomy

18. Concretion of the relative quality concept 1. Definition of valid learning objectives (outcomes) 2. Orientation of programme towards learning objectives Monitoring Avoiding faults and enhancing quality Avoiding faults and enhancing quality 3. True implementation of concept Input 4. Adjustment: process iteration

19. Concretion in detail (I): “fitness of purpose” (Definition of) (learning) objectives of study programmes (“outcomes orientation”; “fitness of purpose”): Key: existence and validity of (an) objective(s) • In the context of the educational system (national, international) • In the context of the institution: mission • As regards stakeholders: students, research community, labour market • As regards (analysis of) competing programmes • As regards realism (staff; technical means; sustainability)

20. Concretion in detail (II): “ fitness for purpose of concept” Orientation of the specific programme towards achieving the learning objectives as defined above; i.e. “fitness for purpose of concept”: • Orientation of each curricular element towards a specific, valid (learning) objective • Coherence of all curricular elements as to their contribution to achieving the overall objective of the programme • Each item to be assessed with regard to substance matter, academic (meta) competence, soft skills, and learning environment/ devices (“didactics”)

21. Concretion in detail (III): “ fitness for purpose of implementation” and iteration • Compliance of objective and programme (“fitness for purpose of implementation”) • Monitoring programmes in operation • Adjustment: process iteration • Analysis of experience • Immanent: avoiding faults and enhancing quality [with regard to current programme concept and implementation] • External: (re-)action to new external factors, as described above (e.g., new societal or research demands)

22. 5.a) Concrete steering the process of quality culture: developing quality study programmes: Basic Matrix Time axis: Schedule/ milestones 1. Awareness Phase 2. Concept Phase 3. Implementation Phase 4. Evaluation Phase Mental Level (culture) Level of involvement, planning, and transformation Strategy Level (policy) Realization Level (management) Reassessment (dynamic element) Evaluation, reiterated Frame: esp.Finance, Law, Language Parallel consulting, quality assessment, and monitoring

23. The Quality Matrix I: Tasks Matrix Time axis: Schedule/ milestones 1. Awareness Phase 2. Concept Phase 3. Implementation Phase 4. Evaluation Phase Mental Level (culture) Commitment,Engagement, Openness KnowledgeCommunicationInformation KnowledgeCommunicationInformation Commitment to qualityPreparedness to self- reflection Levels of involvement, planning and transformation PacePartnerStakeholder Monitoring Strategy Level (policy) Institutional mission tool:Analysis of position SWOTPriorities ResponsibilitiesCoordination Realization Level (management) (Programme) Conceptmacro-objectives Implementation Accomplishment Self- reference Tools and micro-objectives Evaluation, reiterated Reassessment (dynamic element) Frame: esp.Finance Law Parallel consulting, quality assessment, and monitoring

24. The Quality Matrix II: Agents and Activities Matrix Time axis: Schedule/ milestones 1. Awareness Phase 2. Concept Phase 3. Implementation Phase 4. Evaluation Phase Rector/DeanSteering Committee,Working Group Information and Participation Rector/DeanSteering Committee,Working Group Information and Participation Rector/DeanSteering Committee,Working Group Information and Participation Mental Level (culture) Rector/DeanSteering Committee,Working Group Information and Participation Levels of involvement, planning, and transformation RectorSteering Committee Monitoring Strategy Level (policy) RectorSteering Committee Process Setup Rector, Steering Committee Mission, SWOT-Analysis, Core Bologna Concept RectorSteering Committee Coordination Programme Committees, Faculties, all university members Accomplishment Realization Level (management) Steering Committee, Working Group Macro objectives, Guidelines Programme Committees, Faculties, Working Group Implementation Programme Committees Programme concept Faculty, Working Group Reassessment Evaluation Committee Evaluation, reiterated Frame: esp.Finance, Law, Language Parallel consulting, quality assessment, and monitoring

25. 6. Some General Rules and Caveats • Major institutional changes? vs. • Small-scale adjustments? • Clear leadership plus competent working level; committees • Optimizing central and decentral functions • Principle of subsidiarity and efficiency; coherence • Collecting and disseminating information, establishing a “learning system” • Evaluation and readjustment of achievement, • step by step (feedback loops) • Clarification of funding

26. 7. Envoi- Not to forget: • Quality (Culture) is “fun” • Quality (Culture) means success • which brings about more “fun”