HEQC’s Quality Systems Restructuring Project (“Finnish Project”).

1. HEQC’s Quality Systems Restructuring Project (“Finnish Project”). UFH presentation of Project Outcomes and Impact October 2008 Presented by: Kuselwa Marala

2. PRESENTATION OUTLINE • Background • Project Intended outcomes • Output and Impact • Challenges • Conclusion

3. The University of Fort Hare, Eastern Cape

4. PROJECT BACKGROUND • Start • Hectic: delays in appointment • Revised delivery time-schedules • Groundwork between July to December 2006 • Started in earnest in January 2007

5. INTENDED OUTCOMESPhase 1: Development of a Quality Plan • Analysis of Business Processes • Alignment of policy with practice • Review against perceived ‘best practice’, and made amendments where deemed essential • Identified gaps

6. Phase 1: Development of a Quality Plan • Captured and posted on the QMS in the Intranet • Process maps • Policy documents • Procedure documents The process maps captured are what we thought was ideal and aligned to policies

8. QMA Document management system Policy Documents Procedure Documents Process Maps Documents

9. Under policies you will get 3 subfolders

10. Cont… • Click the folder Financial Policies

11. Cont… • If you want to read the document you can click OK • If you want to edit the document click on edit then click OK.

12. QMA Website Cont…

13. Introducing a New Qualification • Process Map and all relevant forms will be: • Sent to Faculty QA Committee Members • Put on UFH Intranet A revised ‘user friendly’ process map that takes you through the internal and external processes

14. Cont… • Just what you want with the document management system. • Note: if you are working on a document no one can open or work on it.(Safe and Powerful)

15. QMA Website Cont…

16. The immediate impact of this process • Time- saving gains for the QMA Unit as colleagues with queries on policies, processes and procedures are referred to the intranet as a source of initial reference. • A number of colleagues have reported that this has been an empowering experience as they are able to educate themselves at their pace by visiting the QMA site

17. Phase 1 Impact Continued • It has enhanced the induction of new staff members • Given the potential that this holds for the improvement of our quality systems the UFH Management has resolved to build on this system a Document Management System

18. Single point of access Work flow processing Versioning control (Backup) Browser-based collaboration Document Management Platform Host web portals Access shared workspaces and documents

19. Storage Workflow Management http://sps.ufh.ac.za/qma

20. Phase 1 Outcome (1) • Quality Policy that serves to regulate the use of the system • It was adopted by Senate on 01 November 2007 and Council on 23 November 2007

21. Phase 1: Outcome (2) • However, it is the QMA Unit’s view that for this to have impact, further training on the policy is essential. • This should help to bridge the gap between the policy at theoretical level as well as policy at implementation level.

22. Phase 2: Diagnostic Analysis and Review This phase entails two activities: 1. Capacity development of institutional staff to conduct internal self - evaluations 2. Developing Programme Evaluation tools and Piloting these

23. The immediate impact of the self-evaluation process • A sharpened insight of self-knowledge as an institution (UFH, Alice & Bhisho + former RUEL) • The innovative model (Internal auditors audit faculties). Audit Reports and interventions are tabled at the Audit Committee

24. Activity 2: Programme Evaluation The following programmes were evaluated: 1. B Sc Crop / Agricultural Science and 2. B Sc In-depth discussions of the report with the Faculty, IQAC as well as Senate.

25. The impact of this pilot • TWO evaluation tools instead of the intended ONE were developed (Programme & Faculty) • The generation of lots incisive discussions on the core business of the University.

26. The impact of this pilot Continued • The training of Faculty Quality Assurance and Teaching and Learning Committees on the use of the developed electronic evaluation tools that are posted in the QMS • The academic programme evaluation tool had been rolled out for use to the rest of the UFH community. • Pro-active academic leaders to take the initiative of conducting their programme evaluation outside the University evaluation cycle

27. Phase 3: Development of a Detailed Implementation Plan • Limited progress in the development of a consolidated improvement plan for implementation at institutional systems level. • This is due to limited human capacity issues within the QMA Unit. Currently, this stands at 1 Manager and 2 Administrative support staff servicing THREE campuses

28. Phase 3: HOWEVER • For the Office of the Registrar and the Library this is already work in progress as their improvement plans have already been developed AND are being implemented • Some individual leaders in their respective Units have started developing some quality improvement plans for the issues that have emanated from the self-evaluations.

29. Phase 3: AND of CAUSE • Some are waiting for the QMA Unit to say what must be done!!!!!!!

30. CHALLENGES • QMA Unit Human capacity • QMA Unit engaged in a number of projects and working with the same stakeholders who view us as over demanding of their time • Competing demands for attention by UFH community. Juggling. • Logistics • Resources allocation for needed improvements

31. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS • Dr. Herman Du Toit of HEQC • Mr Dave Reevell of Revworth Consulting • Mr Lovemore Nalube, ex-UFH Webmaster • Mr Lwazi Mbambo, TSC at UFH • QMA Unit Colleagues: Cuzi, Maria & Cleo • FINNISH FUNDERS

32. Thanks for listening.. Any questions?