Quality Management Strategy at the KF University of Graz

1. Quality Management Strategyat the KF University of Graz How change management affects all spheres of a university Mag.a Andrea Bernhard KF University of Graz Institute of Educational Sciences

2. Outline • Background Information on HE • QM Systems in General • QM at the KF University of Graz basic idea… implementation… future plans… EU experiences in developing university strategies

3. Starting point „Quality in a product or service is not what the supplier puts in. It is what the customer gets out and is willing to pay for… Customers pay only for what is of use to them and gives them value. Nothing else constitutes quality.“ (Drucker 1986, p.228) EU experiences in developing university strategies

4. 1. Background Information on HE • Loss of monopoly of universities • Autonomy of universities • Marketisation of higher education • Globalisation – internationalisation • planning – controlling – improving Quality Management (QM) EU experiences in developing university strategies

5. 2. QM Systems in General • Legal requirements • Quality in research and teaching as well as management & administration • 4 principles for QA systems • a coordinating agency for the QA scheme • submission of a self-evaluation report by the unit to be evaluated • site visit by peers • (partly) public report on the evaluation results (Van Vught and Westerheijden 1994) EU experiences in developing university strategies

6. Phases in QA systems(Jeliaskova/Westerheijden 2002) EU experiences in developing university strategies

7. New Challenge Decreasing transparency across higher education systems • Role of QA • Market regulation, i.e., informing clients (students, employers) • Information base • Performance indicators about products (knowlege and skills of graduates) • Nature of quality evaluation • publication of comparative performance indicators • standardised testing of graduates? EU experiences in developing university strategies

8. QM Systems under Transformation! Challenges • bureaucracy • intrusion in the primary activities of a HEI • control vs. improvement (Middlehurst 2001, Mead/Woodhouse 2000) Recommendations • avoid fragmentation of the QA organisational structure • avoid excessive costs and burdens • improve quality information base • improve information dissemination (Santiago et al. 2008) EU experiences in developing university strategies

9. Important questions,that have to be raised… (Newton 2007) • can quality be managed effectively? • does accountability provide a basis for delivering quality improvement? • can accountability and enhancement be reconciled? • can external and internal requirements be balanced? • how were academics receiving, responding to, and coping with quality and quality policy? EU experiences in developing university strategies The University of Graz tries to find suitable answers!

10. 3. QM System of theKF University of Graz The Austrian Experience Legal Framework QM Model itself Barriers and Problems during Implementation Lessons Learned Success in the Implementation Phase Future Plans

11. Change Management EU experiences in developing university strategies

12. 1. Legal Framework • UOG 1993 • first systematic and comprehensive programme evaluation • 1993 non-university sector • 1999 private higher education sector • ex-ante accreditation • UG 2002 • high degree of autonomy for universities • public universities have to adopt QM (§ 14) no explicit regulation for compulsory external QA

13. AQA – Austrian Agency for QAwww.aqa.ac.at • founded in 2003 • as an independent non-governmental organisation • Scope of authority • assists and monitors HEIs to implement QA procedures • coordinates evaluations • elaborates QA standards

14. 2. QM System at the KF University of Graz • QM = various implemented instruments • QM system = closed circle that is tightly linked to university steering • Elements of the QM system • Strategic, goal-oriented steering instrument • Integrated in all performance areas • Communication and transparency • Low and purpose-oriented ressources • Feedback and learning-oriented (Raggautz 2009)

15. Graz Model Quality – Circle(Gaberscik/Raggautz 2008) EU experiences in developing university strategies

16. Department for Performanceand Quality Management (LQM) • www.uni-graz.at/lqm • Under the Rectorate • Responsible for • Performance agreements (ZLV) • Quality management (QM) • Knowledge survey (WB) • Main targets: • Strategic steering • QM • Reporting system • Data • Analysis: strategic and in-depth EU experiences in developing university strategies

17. Graz QM Model„theoretical basis“ (Gaberscik/Raggautz 2008) EU experiences in developing university strategies

18. Map of QM Processeshttp://www.uni-graz.at/prozesslandkarte Strategy Performance Agreements Quality Management Etc. Management Processes Teaching Research EU experiences in developing university strategies Performance Processes Further Education Personnel Management Financial Planning Information Management Monitoring Infrastructure Management Assisting Processes Work in progress…

19. Performance Agreements„top down and buttom up“ (Gaberscik/Raggautz 2008) EU experiences in developing university strategies

20. Tool Box of Graz QM Model(Gaberscik/Raggautz 2008) EU experiences in developing university strategies

21. Selected Instruments with External Experts • Evaluation of research • Appointment procedures • New curricula • Process accreditation for study and teaching (ACQUIN) • Strategic analysis labour market • Internationalisation (AQA audit) (Raggautz 2009)

22. Student Involvement • Designing new curricula • Student information service „4students“ • Basic module • Quality assurance and involvement • Course evaluation • Evaluation of students’ workload • Accreditation of processes • Several strategic analysis • Working experience • General involvement (Salmhofer 2008)

23. Involvement of other Stakeholders • No explicit stakeholder management until recently • Rather unstructured, ad hoc and based on short-term considerations • Main challenge identify all relevant target groups & establish stakeholder management • Prospective students • Alumni • Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) (Salmhofer 2008)

24. 3. Barriers and Problemsduring Implementation • inertia against change • brownfields • Academic freedom • Academic staff ≠ managers or employers with responsibilities for achieving aims or leading staff • I can´t tell a professor what s/he should do in his/her research • Misunderstanding of QM • Unique constitution of universities (Gaberscik/Raggautz 2008) EU experiences in developing university strategies

25. 4. Lessons Learned • Formulate valid facts about staff performance! • Do not start with explicit aim to create the best system! • Consider the time frame for developing and implementing a QM model! • Do not use too many different QM tools! • Use an iterative approach to develop indicators! (Gaberscik/Raggautz 2008) EU experiences in developing university strategies

26. 5. Success in the Implementation Phase • Effective definition of a principle QM model as a base • Streamlining of all the QM tools already used in the university • Long and broad discussion process is needed • Has to be continued after implementation to fulfill the specific demands of ALL stakeholders EU experiences in developing university strategies Maintain regular communication and take action as soon as difficulties arise!

27. 6. Future Plans • Flexibility and Adaptibility • Comparable, reliable & valid performance indicators • Changing legal regulation concerning QM • Quality system audits • Critical view on the whole QA sector • development of only one QAA? • coordination between different sectors • QA at the public sector still lax • university courses (further education) EU experiences in developing university strategies

28. Literature Drucker, P.F. (1986): Innovation and Entrepreneurship: Practice and Principles. New York: Harper Row. Gaberscik, G./Raggautz, A. (2008): Graz Quality Management Model for Universities. Paper presented at the 3rd Quality Assurance Forum in Budapest, 20-22 November 2008. Jeliazkova, Margarita/Westerheijden, Don F. (2002): Systemic Adaption to a Changing Environment: Towards a Next Generation of Quality Assurance Models. In: Higher Education, Vol. 44, No. 3/4. pp. 433-449. Meade, P./Woodhouse, D. (2000): Evaluating the effectiveness of the New Zealand Academic Audit Unit: review and outcomes. In: Quality in Higher Education, Vol. 6, No. 1. pp. 19-29. Middlehurst, R. (2001): Quality Assurance Implications of New Forms of Higher Education. Part 1: A Typology. Helsinki: ENQA. (ENQA Occasional Papers, Vol. 3) Newton, Jethro (2007): What is quality? In: Bollaert, Lucien et al. (Eds.): Embedding Quality Culture in Higher Education. A Selection of Papers from the 1st European Forum for Quality Assurance. Munich, 23 -25 November 2006. pp. 14-20. Raggautz, A. (2009): Qualitätsmanagementsystem und externe Qualitätssicherung. In: AQA: Trends of Quality Assurance and Quality Management in Higher Education Systems. Vienna: Facultas. pp.112-116. Santiago et al. (2008): Tertiary Education for Knowledge Society. OECD Thematic Review of Tertiary Education: Synthesis Report. Vol. 2-3. Salmhofer, G. (2008): Quality Assurance for Higher Education Change Area (QAHECA). Online in Internet: http://www.eua.be/index.php?id=529 Van Vught, F. A./Westerheijden, D. F. (1994): Towards a general model of quality assessment in higher education. In: Higher Education, Vol. 28, No. 3. pp. 355-371. EU experiences in developing university strategies

29. Thank you for your attention!andrea.bernhard@uni-graz.at The floor is open for discussion! What is required by universities? Which kind of agencies are needed? Beside agencies – further demands?