Audit of the Quality Assurance System of Seinäjoki Polytechnic · 2016-06-16 · “university”...

Audit of the QualityAssurance System ofSeinäjoki Polytechnic

Inkeri Papp • Des Carolan • Gunnar Handal •Eric Lindesjöö • Reetta Marttinen •Veera Mustonen • Kati Isoaho

PUBLICATIONS OFTHE FINNISH HIGHEREDUCATION EVALUATIONCOUNCIL

�:��

ISBN 952-206-050-X (paperbound)ISBN 952-206-051-8 (pdf)ISSN 1457-3121

Publisher: Finnish Higher Education Evaluation Council FINHEEC

Cover: Juha IlonenLayout: Pikseri Julkaisupalvelut

Tammer-Paino OyTampere 2006

Preface

The Finnish Higher Education Evaluation Council (FINHEEC) has beendeveloping the audit procedure focusing on the quality assurance systems ofFinnish higher education institutions (HEIs) in order to show theinternational community that Finland has a valid and competent qualityassurance practice. This procedure is a response to the development principlesprevailing in the European Higher Education Area where quality assurancewithin the HEI is one of the priorities. The FINHEEC audit model has beendesigned with the quality assurance standards and guidelines issued by theEuropean Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ENQA)in mind.

The most common quality assurance methods in European highereducation are the accreditation of programmes and institutional audit. Somecountries have opted for a national solution using both methods in parallel.In its operations FINHEEC underlines the principles of enhancement-ledevaluation. Audits of the quality assurance systems of higher educationinstitutions are compatible with this principle. Auditing is a methodrespecting the autonomy of the HEIs, based on the conviction that they areultimately responsible for the quality of the education they provide. Inpractical auditing, the enhancement-led principle is manifested in theinteraction and dialogue between FINHEEC and the HEIs. The aim is togenerate information that the HEIs can use to develop their own operations.The results of the audits also highlight good practices to be disseminated andexploited by the entire HEI sector. The reports always includerecommendations to support the HEI in the further development of itsquality assurance system.

FINHEEC began the audits in spring 2005. The experience gained todate shows that the FINHEEC audit model is quite demanding for the HEIsas it covers the entire HEI operation. However, a demanding audit will alsobe versatile and illustrative in highlighting core factors of the HEI operationsand quality development mechanisms.

The audit of Seinäjoki Polytechnic is the eighth such audit and the firstinternational audit implemented in English. I would like to express ourwarmest gratitude to Seinäjoki Polytechnic for their fearless and unprejudiced

participation in the international audit. I would also like to thank the auditgroup members for their competent and committed work, as well as theirpioneering contribution in the application of the English-language conceptsof the FINHEEC audit model.

Dr. Ossi TuomiSecretary GeneralFinnish Higher Education Evaluation Council FINHEEC

Contents

Audit GroupAudit GroupAudit GroupAudit GroupAudit Group __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ��

�� IntroductionIntroductionIntroductionIntroductionIntroduction ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ �� Background of FINHEEC’s Audit Model ______________________________ �� Seinäjoki Polytechnic or Seinäjoki University of Applied Sciences _______ ��

�� Audit ProcessAudit ProcessAudit ProcessAudit ProcessAudit Process _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ �� Audit Objectives __________________________________________________ �� Audit Targets _____________________________________________________ �� Audit Agreement _________________________________________________ �� Audit Material ____________________________________________________ �� Audit Visit _______________________________________________________ �� Structure and Compilation of the Audit Report ______________________ �

�� Seinäjoki Polytechnic and its Quality Assurance SystemSeinäjoki Polytechnic and its Quality Assurance SystemSeinäjoki Polytechnic and its Quality Assurance SystemSeinäjoki Polytechnic and its Quality Assurance SystemSeinäjoki Polytechnic and its Quality Assurance System ________________________________________________________________________________ �� Organisation� Structure and Administration __________________________ �� Vision� Mission and Strategies _____________________________________ �� Quality Assurance System and its Sub sections _______________________ ��

�� Audit ResultsAudit ResultsAudit ResultsAudit ResultsAudit Results ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ �� Objectives� Overall Structure and Internal Coherence of

the Quality Assurance System _____________________________________ �� Documentation of the Quality Assurance System ____________________ �� The Comprehensiveness of Quality Assurance________________________ ��

�� Degree Education ____________________________________________ �� Research and Development Work (R&D) ________________________�� Interaction with and Impact on Society� and Contributionto Regional Development _________________________________________ ��Support and Other Services ___________________________________ �� Staff Development ___________________________________________ �

�� Participation of Staff� Students and External Stakeholders _____________ �� Interface between the Quality Assurance System and

the Management/Steering ________________________________________ �� Relevance of� and Access to� Quality Assurance Information ____________�� Relevance of� and Access to� Quality Assurance Information

for External Stakeholders _________________________________________ �� Efficiency of the Quality Assurance Processes and Their Effect

on the Development of Operations _________________________________

�� Application of Quality Assurance Information in Quality Managementand Enhancement ________________________________________________ �

�� Monitoring� Evaluation and Continuous Developmentof the Quality Assurance System ___________________________________ �

Final ConclusionsFinal ConclusionsFinal ConclusionsFinal ConclusionsFinal Conclusions ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ �� Strengths and Good Practices ______________________________________ �� Recommendations _______________________________________________ �� Audit Group’s Overall Assessment of the Quality Assurance

System of Seinäjoki Polytechnic ____________________________________ �� FINHEEC’s Decision ______________________________________________

AppendicesAppendicesAppendicesAppendicesAppendices�: Table of the Audit Criteria _________________________________________ �: Programme of the Audit Visit ��–�� May �� ______________________ ��: Figure of Seinäjoki Municipal Joint Authority for Education ____________ ��

�

Audit Group

Chair

Inkeri Papp, Finland

Inkeri Papp, Counsellor of Education, was formerly Head of the School ofHealth and Social Care at Jyväskylä Polytechnic. In this position she also actedas a vice-rector of the Jyväskylä Polytechnic. Mrs. Papp has participated inFINHEEC’s international evaluation of the postgraduate polytechnicexperiment in Finland as a member of the evaluation team in 2004. She hasalso participated in the evaluation of the quality work of the South Careliapolytechnic in 2000, as well in the evaluations of the professional coursesaccredited by FINHEEC.

Members

Des Carolan, Ireland

Des Carolan is a Head of Function in the Higher Education and TrainingAwards Council (HETAC) in Ireland, with specific responsibility for thereview of the effectiveness of provider quality assurance and the delegationof authority to make awards, as provided for in the Irish Qualifications(Education and Training) Act, 1999 and 2006.

Prof. Gunnar Handal, Norway

Professor Gunnar Handal is Professor of Higher Education at the Institutefor Educational Research at the University of Oslo. He has done researchand taught in the field of higher education for decades, has chaired a nationalcommittee on quality in Norwegian higher education and has recentlychaired an evaluation project on programmes in Education in Swedish highereducation institutions for the Swedish National Agency for HigherEducation.

�

Dr. Eric Lindesjöö, Sweden1

Dr. Eric Lindesjöö is a Project Manager in Swedish National Agency forHigher Education (Högskoleverket) and from the beginning in 2001 hasprimarily been responsible for the evaluation of subjects and programmeswithin natural sciences and technology, such as the evaluation of Engineeringeducation in Sweden. In addition to this, he recently took part in aninternational study that compared the systematic quality work at four Nordichigher education institutions. Study was conducted by Nordic QualityAssurance Network in Higher Education (NOQA).

Reetta Marttinen, Finland

Reetta Marttinen is a student of Helsinki Business Polytechnic. She isstudying in the multilingual management assistance programme. In 2005 shewas a member of SAMOK executive board being responsible for educationalaffairs. She was also a member of the audit group in the audit of the qualityassurance system of Jyväskylä Polytechnic in 2005–2006.

Veera Mustonen, Finland

MA Veera Mustonen is a Senior Manager at Nokia. She is responsible fordesign strategy within Nokia’s product development and in this position isalso involved in quality assurance development.

Project manager

Kati IsoahoKati Isoaho is a Project Manager in FINHEEC Secretariat.

1 In the Audit Group’s meeting 3 May 2006 Dr. Lindesjöö was nominated as Vice Chair of theGroup.

�

� Introduction

�� Background of FINHEEC’s Audit Model

According to the agreement between the Finnish Higher EducationEvaluation Council (FINHEEC) and the Ministry of Education, FINHEECwill develop the audit procedure focusing on the quality assurance systemsemployed by the higher education institutions (HEIs) in 2005–2007. Theaudits are underpinned by the need to provide trustworthy evidence of thequality of Finnish higher education and degrees both nationally andinternationally, as well as to support the higher education institutions in theirquality assurance and quality development work.

In collaboration with the higher education institutions and studentorganisations, FINHEEC prepared the audit procedure described in the auditmanual published in October 2005. The manual contains descriptions of theaudit objectives, targets, methods, criteria and consequences. In defining theFinnish audit criteria, the European principles and recommendations forhigher education institution quality assurance were referred to.2According tothe European standards, the HEIs internal quality assurance should include adocumented quality policy and well-functioning procedures to ensure thequality of the education, collection and analysis of information for themanagement of education and other operations, as well as information aboutthe quality of the education and degrees provided by the higher educationinstitutions. The premise of the quality assurance audit operations is theenhancement-led principle that has characterised the Finnish evaluationpractice for a number of years. The objective is that the audit performed byFINHEEC works as part of the quality assurance system of the individualhigher education institution. FINHEEC carries out 6–10 audits annuallydepending on the request for audits made by the higher education institutionsand the resources available for such projects. Pilot audits were carried out intwo higher education institutions in spring 2005, and consequently the auditprocedure was developed so that the audits could start in late 2005.

2 Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area.European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education. Helsinki: Multiprint. (http://www.enqa.net/files/BergenReport210205.pdf)

��

Each member of the audit groups and higher education institutionparticipating in the audits in 2005–2007 will be asked for feedback on theaudit method and criteria. FINHEEC also engages in discussions of the auditmodel with its international co-operation partners. This feedback will beutilised in 2007 when the conclusions regarding the further development ofthe audit model are drawn.

�� Seinäjoki Polytechnic orSeinäjoki University of Applied Sciences

Prior to the audit process of SeAMK The Rectors’ Conference of FinnishPolytechnics ARENE recommended that the English translation of the term“polytechnic” (ammattikorkeakoulu, AMK in Finnish) should be changed to“University of Applied Sciences”. The reason for this change was theconfusion that the term“polytechnic”, due to its connotations with non-higher education, was causing in the international context. It was evident tothe audit group that the university label was creating antipathy among theuniversity sector in Finland.

The Ministry of Education also states that the terms ”polytechnic” and“university” will be used when describing the higher education system inFinland, while the individual higher education institutions are permitted todescribe themselves as universities, polytechnics or universities of appliedsciences in the case of Diploma Supplement.3 In the audit material SeAMKuses the term “University of Applied Sciences”.

While the audit group does not wish to interfere in the national debate,in this report is used, mainly for the sake of consistency, the term“polytechnic” with the permission of SeAMK’s President4 Tapio Varmola.

3 The Diploma Supplement (DS) is a document attached to a higher education diploma aimingat improving international ‘transparency’ and at facilitating the academic and professionalrecognition of qualifications (diplomas, degrees, certificates etc.). It is designed to provide adescription of the nature, level, context, content and status of the studies that were successfullycompleted by the individual named on the original qualification to which this supplement isappended. It should be free from any value-judgements, equivalence statements or suggestionsabout recognition. It is capable of adaptation to local needs. The DS is produced by nationalinstitutions according to a template that has been developed by a Joint European Commission– Council of Europe – UNESCO working party that tested and refined it. More on DS athttp://ec.europa.eu/education/policies/rec_qual/recognition/diploma_en.html4 The President of SeAMK is a Rector. The term President is taken from the audit materialsubmitted by SeAMK.

��

� Audit Process

�� Audit Objectives

The national aim of FINHEEC audits is to support universities andpolytechnics in their quality management and performance enhancement.Auditing processes and public reporting on institutional quality assurancesystems stimulate debate on quality assurance and boost interaction betweenhigher education institutions and their stakeholders. The aim is to share bestpractices in quality assurance and disseminate them within the highereducation system.

The principle of autonomy entails that quality assurance is reviewed bypeers. The peer review principle in turn means that higher educationinstitutions also accept a major responsibility as experts in national qualityassurance reviews.

The point of departure in quality assurance audits is an enhancement-led evaluation, which has a robust tradition in Finland. The aim is that auditsconducted by FINHEEC can be used by those audited as part of their ownquality assurance and that the audits cause as little extra work as possible forthose audited.

The goals of the audits of institutional quality assurance systems are:■ To evaluate how well the quality assurance system works as a tool for

quality management and enhancement– whether the higher education institution’s quality assurance system

promotes the attainment of national higher education policyobjectives, as well as those set by the institution itself

– whether the institution’s quality assurance system produces usefulinformation for the improvement of its operations and engendersimprovement measures

■ To evaluate the quality assurance system in terms of the audit criteria, tohighlight strengths and best practices, to put forward recommendationsfor the development of quality assurance and to determine whether thehigher education institution passes the audit or needs to be re-audited ata later date.

��

During the audit of SeAMK the audit group also discussed whether itwould be possible to evaluate the chosen instruments of the quality assuranceas such. However, the audit principles set in the FINHEEC’s Audit Manualstate clearly that the task of the audit group is to evaluate the functioning ofthe chosen quality assurance system and quality assurance instruments in thecontext of the institution to be audited.

�� Audit Targets

FINHEEC’s audit model focuses on two levels: the institution’s qualityassurance as a whole and quality assurance relating to the basic mission of theinstitution. Auditing assesses the comprehensiveness, performance,transparency and effectiveness of the system and determines how theinstitution monitors, evaluates and develops it.

There are ten audit targets, which are shown in the list of contents ofthis report. FINHEEC audits also employ a set of criteria, with different scalesfor four different stages of development. There are criteria for an absent,emerging, developing and advanced quality assurance system. These criteriaare appended to this report (see Appendix 1).

�� Audit Agreement

FINHEEC and each higher education institution to be audited sign aparticular audit agreement before starting the audit process. In the agreementthe following are agreed on: the timeframe of the audit, whether the auditgroup is domestic or international, the language of the audit and report, theduration of the audit visit, division of the auditing expenses between theinstitution and FINHEEC and the institution’s commitment to the re-audit,if required by FINHEEC.

The audit agreement of SeAMK5 was signed in 8 March 2006 with thecommitment to a possible re-audit. The agreement stated that the audit willbe conducted by an international audit group in English.

5 SeAMK is the common acronym derived from the Finnish name (Seinäjoenammattikorkeakoulu) of Seinäjoki Polytechnic. The audit group decided to systematically usethis acronym when referring to Seinäjoki Polytechnic.

��

�� Audit Material

According to the Audit Manual the institution is required to collect the auditmaterial, which should provide a sufficient information base for the auditorsto assess the comprehensiveness, performance, transparency and effectivenessof the quality assurance system. The audit material must also outline theinstitution’s organisation, describe the structure of the quality assurance systemand its links to the management system and provide evidence of the per-formance of the system.

The audit material should include the following two documents:■ basic material for the audit and■ material and samples chosen by the institution to substantiate the

performance of the quality assurance system.

More detailed information on the audit material can be found in FINHEEC’sAudit Manual.6

The basic material produced by SeAMK consisted of the followingdescriptions and documents:■ The SeAMK Quality Assurance system document, which includes the

following parts:– Quality work in SeAMK– EFQM Excellence Model– Division of responsibilities within the quality assurance system– Historical description of the development of the quality assurance

system– EFQM and yearly steering actions– SWOT analysis and quality assurance system

■ Seinäjoki University of Applied Sciences Description of operations basedon the EFQM Excellence Model Criteria, which included the followingparts:– Description of the EFQM– Description of the quality responsibilities within SeAMK– Description of the organisation and its mission– Description of customers and partners– Description of the operational environment

6 Audits of Quality Assurance Systems of Finnish Higher Education Institutions. Audit Manual for2005–2007. Publications of the Finnish Higher Education Evaluation Councill (4:2006). Themanual is also published on FINHEEC’s website http://www.kka.fi/pdf/julkaisut/KKA_406.pdf

��

– Descriptions of SeAMK operations based on the following EFQMassessment points: management, operational principles and strategy,people, partnership and resources, processes, customer results,personnel results, social results and financial capacity results.

– Summary of SeAMK’s EFQM results– Summary of SeAMK’s result indicators by subject– SeAMK’s EFQM results in relation to all Universities of Applied

Sciences’ averages– SeAMK’s results objectives for the EFQM indicators in 2006– Organisation chart– Description of the education process– Description of the R&D process.

The samples chosen by SeAMK were based on the above-mentioned EFQMdescriptions.

In addition to the audit material stated in the Audit Manual, the auditgroup may require extra material from the institution based on the needsdefined in its meeting before the audit visit. In the case of SeAMK, the auditgroup required and received the following material from SeAMK:

■ Case descriptions on quality assurance of degree education■ Case descriptions on quality assurance of R&D■ Case descriptions on quality assurance of regional impact and societal

interaction■ Pedagogical strategy■ Chart of Matrix Organisation.

Also the institution’s quality manual was requested, as well as the institution’sown EFQM manual.7 However, it was found that SeAMK has recentlyreplaced its previous quality manual with the current EFQM-based qualitydescriptions. The quality manual is a document where, for instance, the qualitypolicy, processes and responsibilities are coherently documented. Theimplementation of the idea of the quality manual may vary in the differentinstitutions. It may be published as a paper or an electrical version, accordingto the needs of the institution.

7 EFQM manual is a document which sets out how EFQM is used in the institution.Institutions may use it differently, for instance, by defining the more detailed asssessment criteriasuitable for themselves or adopting a different kind of evaluation method and procedure.

�

�� Audit Visit

Before the actual audit visit to SeAMK the Chair Inkeri Papp and the projectmanager Kati Isoaho visited SeAMK in 5 May 2006 to participate in theinformation and discussion seminar on the forthcoming audit visit. Theseminar was open to all staff members and students of SeAMK. In additionto the presentations given by Papp and Isoaho, also the followingpresentations were given: a presentation on the staff expectations on auditingby Terhi Kortesmäki, Principal Lecturer and on the expectations of studentsby Jani Erkkonen from SeAMK’s student union SAMO.8

The audit visit took place in Seinäjoki between 22–24 May 2006. Theaim of the audit visit was to verify and complement the information aboutthe institution’s quality assurance system provided by the audit material. Inaddition, the audit visit also aimed at contributing to the development of theinstitution’s quality assurance system by creating an interactive event.

The programme of the visit was planned according to the principlesstated in FINHEEC’s Audit Manual. The entire programme is appended tothis report (Appendix 1). The audit group interviewed representatives fromthe following educational units during the second day of the visit: Unit ofEngineering (Seinäjoki), Unit of Culture and Design (Seinäjoki and Jurva)and Unit of SME Business Administration (Seinäjoki). During the third dayof the visit two discussions were conducted under the themes of AdultEducation and R&D. Additionally, the staff of the Seinäjoki Polytechniclibrary was interviewed during the third day. The library is also used by Seinä-joki Vocational Education Centre, which is operates in South Ostrobothniaand provides secondary level education.

The whole audit group visited the School of Engineering, otherwise thevisits to the School of Culture and Design and the School of SME BusinessAdministration were conducted in parallel groups. The thematic discussionson adult education and R&D were also conducted in parallel groups.

8 SAMO is an acronym derived from the student union’s Finnish name “Seinäjoen ammatti-korkeakoulun opiskelijakunta”.

�

�� Structure and Compilationof the Audit Report

The members of the audit group produced the audit report co-operativelyusing their own expertise. The audit group had one meeting before the auditvisit, during which it planned the structure and content of the visit. Inaddition the audit group had a couple of meetings during the visit, in whichthe themes of the interviews were clarified and a preliminary outline of theaudit report was made. The project manager was responsible for the first partsof the report covering the description of SeAMK and its quality assurancesystem in general. SeAMK was allowed to check the facts in the report beforeit was published. To guarantee the correctness of the language used, the reportwas checked by a native English-speaking language expert.

Whilst writing the report the audit group commented on several draftreports by email. Furthermore, three telephone conferences were also held tohelp finalise the report.

The structure of the report follows the principles stated in the AuditManual, whereby the background of the audit system and audit itself areintroduced in the beginning of the report, as well as the aims, organisationand the quality assurance system of SeAMK. The audit results are introducedin Chapter 4, and the final conclusions of the audit group in Chapter 5.

��

� Seinäjoki Polytechnic andits Quality Assurance System�

�� Organisation� Structure and Administration

SeAMK is a multidisciplinary regional higher education institutionmaintained by the Seinäjoki Municipal Authority for Education.10 SeAMKoperates in South Ostrobothnia in western Finland. SeAMK began as atemporary University of Applied Sciences in 1992 and the permanent licencewas awarded by the Finnish Government in 1995.

SeAMK offers education in seven fields of study in eight performanceunits. There are 22 degree programmes at SeAMK. SeAMK has performanceunits in the following cities and municipalities: Seinäjoki, Jurva, Ähtäri,Ilmajoki, Kauhava and Kauhajoki. Various schools11 are also involved inresearch and development connected with the studies offered and for thebenefit of regional development.

SeAMK has the following schools and study fields:■ School of Culture and Design (Seinäjoki and Jurva): Culture■ School of Information and Communication Technology (Seinäjoki):

Natural Sciences■ School of Agriculture and Forestry (Ilmajoki and Ähtäri): Natural

Resources and Environment■ School of Food Management (Kauhajoki): Tourism, Catering and

Domestic Services■ School of Health Care and Social Work (Seinäjoki): Social Services,

Health and Sports■ School of Engineering (Seinäjoki): Technology, Communication and

Transport■ Business School and Finnish School of SME Business Administration

(Seinäjoki and Kauhava): Social Sciences, Business and Administration.

9 All the information in Chapter 3 is based on the audit material produced by SeAMK.10 The Authority’s current contract was signed 10 March 2004.11 In SeAMK’s documents, for instance, in the Ordinance of SeAMK, schools are referred to asfaculties. In the audit material and in this report the term “school” is systematically used.

��

The organisational structure and administrative system of SeAMK is shownin Figure 1. The reporting levels between the board, upper management andthe council of the Joint Municipal Authority are defined in agreements, theJoint Municipality Authority’s administrative regulations, as well as in otherregulations.12 The internal administration of SeAMK is handled by SeAMK’sBoard and President. The President also acts as the head of the Seinäjoki JointMunicipal Authority for Education.

There are about 4,600 degree students at SeAMK and about 60013

mature/adult students. In addition, SeAMK’s Open University offers studiesin which 258 students participated in 2005. Almost 60% of all first yearstudents are from South Ostrobothnia.

�� Vision� Mission and Strategies

SeAMK states its mission in the audit material to be:

“Seinäjoki University of Applied Sciences offers high-quality degree leveleducation in the areas of culture, natural resources and environment, tourism,catering and entrepreneurship, health care and social work, engineering andtransportation, as well as in the area of social sciences, business administrationand management. SeAMK also carries out applied research and development,which aim at supporting regional development goals in the South Ostrobothniaregion in Finland.”

According to the interviews and observations by the audit group, SeAMKseems to have a stronger focus on education than on research and its researchis mainly applied research and development. Therefore, SeAMK followsclearly the common tasks of Finnish polytechnics as stated in legislation onpolytechnics.

SeAMK states its vision to be:

“An independent institution of higher education with networks.”14

12 Approved by the Board of the Joint Municipal Authority 22 November 2004.13 In Finland adult/mature students are usually those already integrated to the labour marketand studying part-time for degrees or for instance, some particular courses in the Openpolytechnic. The adult/mature students are included in the total number of students inSeAMK.14 The vision of SeAMK was confirmed by the Board of the Joint Municipal Authority in 2001.

��

According to the audit material, the current vision takes into account theopinions of the municipalities which own SeAMK. Broad-based internalwork prepared the strategy as confirmed in 2003. Furthermore, the vision ofSeinäjoki Educational Joint Municipal Authority is “to strengthen the know-how of the South Ostrobothnia region of Finland”.

SeAMK currently has the following strategies:■ Main strategy■ Pedagogical strategy■ Research and Development strategy■ IT strategy (information and communication technology for teaching

purposes)■ Communications strategy■ IT operations strategy.

In addition, SeAMK also has some Action Plans, for instance, for theinternational activities in 2004–2007. Every school has its own strategy, whichfollows the above mentioned strategies, but also aims to highlight individualproperties. According to the Main strategy SeAMK emphasises the followingvalues:■ Cooperativeness■ Professionalism■ Entrepreneurial spirit■ University environment■ Innovativeness■ Internationality.

SeAMK has set the goals for 2004–2006 in the strategy map included in theMain strategy. These are presented in Figure 1. There are goals for thefollowing sub-areas: staff, resources, processes and partners.

��

15 Juhani Mansikkamäki, Lee Harvey, Ulla Weijo and Satu Pehu-Voima: Audit of Quality Work.Seinäjoki Polytechnic. Publications of Finnish Higher Education Evaluation Council (10:1999).16 It has to be noted that these earlier audits were very different when compared to the currentaudit model of FINHEEC. Firstly, they were not based on the Audit Manual and there werenot any consequences of audit (audit certification or re-audit). Secondly, they focussed mainlyon degree education, otherwise the current audits cover all the activities of the institution.

Figure �� Current strategic goals of SeAMK� Source: Audit material produced bySeAMK

�� Quality Assurance Systemand its Sub sections

SeAMK has started its quality work in the 1990’s when the current institutionwas established as a part of the wider higher education reform in Finland.

The quality work of Seinäjoki Polytechnic was also audited by FINHEECin 1999.15 Similar audits were also conducted in some other FinnishPolytechnics and their focus was in the degree education.16

SeAMK states that its quality work occurs alongside management andbasic operations. Quality work aims to ensure that the operations of SeAMKare in accordance with its mission and statutes and that they are continuouslydeveloping. The Development Manager is responsible for the development

��

of operations and implementations of the quality assurance system on theinstitutional level. The SeAMK Board decides issues concerning the qualityassurance system as a whole and follows the development of operations.

The dean of the school is responsible for the quality and operations inhis or her unit. There is also an EFQM contact in every school. Their task isto coordinate the quality work, for instance internal peer reviews, in theirschools. As a part of the matrix organisation there is the Quality Group whichcoordinates the joint quality work development activities of SeAMK. TheQuality Group consist of EFQM contacts and is chaired by the Vice Presidentin charge of education. The group also makes proposals and initiativesconcerning quality assurance to the leadership of SeAMK.

The following components of the quality work in SeAMK are:■ quality work related to management■ quality work related to basic operations (education, R&D) and■ quality system work concentrating on the development of the quality

assurance system.

Figure �� Quality assurance system of SeAMK� Source: Audit material producedby SeAMK

��

Concept of EFQM

SeAMK has adopted the EFQM17 Excellence Model as a framework forassessing its performance for the Finnish and European Quality Awards. Theadoption of EFQM is a result of the development group established in 2004to plan a coherent quality assurance system for SeAMK. The first steps weretaken in autumn 2005, and by 2006 all the schools and other units wereproducing EFQM based descriptions of their own quality work.18

By adopting EFQM, SeAMK aims at measurability and comparabilitywith other European educational organisations. SeAMK uses EFQM as a toolfor enhancing current operations. The aim is to examine operationssystematically to evaluate the need for possible changes. SeAMK has producedan overall description of its quality assurance operations and theirdevelopment based on the EFQM assessment criteria.

Figure �� Basic elements of EFQM� Source: Audit material produced by SeAMK

All the schools of SeAMK have so far conducted one peer review in 2006.Peer review was based on EFQM assessment criteria. According to SeAMKEFQM is included in various quality assurance methods and their continuousfollow-up and evaluation is assured.

17 European Foundation for Quality Management (EFQM) is a non-profit organisationpromoting quality management with its own EFQM Excellence Model used in the differentorganisations. More on EFQM at http://www.efqm.org18 Later in this report these EFQM-based descriptions will be systematically called “qualitydescriptions”, which also follows the way they are called in SeAMK. These descriptions,however, are not quality manuals in the true sense.

��

Instruments and Indicators

SeAMK uses the following instruments and indicators in its quality assurancesystem:19

■ EFQM-based quality descriptions by SeAMK and also by every schooland other units

■ External evaluations■ Internal peer reviews based on the EFQM assessment criteria

■ A staff barometer conducted biennially■ A student barometer compiled every year until 2004 and now every

second year■ An Adult Student barometer carried out regularly■ An interest group barometer carried out annually■ A human resource statement carried out annually■ Customer questionnaires, that is, for conference participants and projects■ Graduate employment. Monitored every third year by a questionnaire■ Senten-questionnaire to 100 business leaders every third year

■ Metrics of Balanced Scorecard (BSC)■ The AMKOTA database20 maintained by the Finnish Ministry of

Education. The measures are analysed annually at SeAMK and actiontaken if figures indicate insufficient performance of education

■ OPALA survey21 conducted jointly by all the Finnish polytechnics andMinistry of Education yearly

■ Winha – Intranet-based follow-up system for student progress withauthority for the students and staff members

■ Internal performance negotiations with the schools annually

19 The list of instruments and indicators was identified both from the audit material andinterviews during the audit visit.20 AMKOTA includes a high number of indicators, such as indicators of number of students,study progress, international programmes, international exchange, gender balance, thesis worketc. Measures are also given indicate student’s satisfaction with teaching, practical training andteacher’s satisfaction with teaching etc. The measures given are comparable with all otherpolytechnics in Finland.21 More information on OPALA at http://opala.ncp.fi/main.do. OPALA focuses on theemployment of the polytechnic graduates, as well as on the success of education and practicaltraining in the students’ opinion.

��

■ Staff meetings and working groups■ Student representation in working bodies■ “Roundtable negotiations” with working life representatives (in each

school)■ The activities of student “Antenna” and “Käpälä” working groups22 (in

each school)

■ Written course feedback■ Feedback discussions between students and teaching staff every semester.

Many of the instruments and indicators mentioned above were used forseveral years at SeAMK, while the EFQM-based quality descriptions andinternal peer reviews were adopted during 2005–2006. Some improvementsin the measuring instruments and indicators are also planned: according tothe audit material an electronic student feedback system is currently in theplanning phase and may be adopted in the near future.

Quality Assurance System’s Linksto the Steering and Guidance of Operations

SeAMK has described the links between its yearly steering and quality workin Figure 4. SeAMK states that yearly steering actions form a cycle wherestrategic goal-setting turns into budgeting and resource allocation operationsand finally into achieved results. BSC scorecards are used in this annualsteering cycle as a tool to guide operations. SeAMK uses BSC to evaluatehow operations become the goals which were set.

According to SeAMK its quality assurance can also be described as acycle where the operating principles of the quality descriptions are turnedinto resourced operations which become results. It is also stated that EFQMis a tool in this cycle by which the transformation of operations into resultsis examined from the perspective of the quality principles which have beenset.

The figures 4 and 5 are adopted from the audit material submitted bySeAMK. They aim to describe the interfaces between management, steeringand the quality assurance system at SeAMK, therefore the issues related tothem are examined in the Chapter 4.5 in more detailed manner.

22“Antenna” and “Käpälä” are the working groups promoted and led by students. There aresimilar working groups in every school. Antenna groups focus on students’ social issues andKäpälä groups on study issues. Group meetings are open to all students of the school. Currentissues are discussed and those students representing students in SeAMK’s working bodies candisseminate information important for students.

�

Figure �� The cycles of SeAMK’s yearly operations� steering actions and qualitywork� Source: Audit material produced by SeAMK

Figure � Quality assurance system’s links to the guidance system of SeAMK’soperations� Source: Audit material produced by SeAMK

�

� Audit Results

�� Objectives� Overall Structure and InternalCoherence of the Quality Assurance System

Target �: Objectives� overall structure and internal coherenceTarget �: Objectives� overall structure and internal coherenceTarget �: Objectives� overall structure and internal coherenceTarget �: Objectives� overall structure and internal coherenceTarget �: Objectives� overall structure and internal coherenceof the quality assurance systemof the quality assurance systemof the quality assurance systemof the quality assurance systemof the quality assurance system

Objectives of the Quality Assurance System

According to the audit material, SeAMK’s quality assurance system aims is toensure that the operations of the institution are in accordance with its missionand statutes and that they are continuously developing. By adopting EFQM,SeAMK strives to obtain measurability and comparability with otherEuropean educational organisations using EFQM in their quality assurance.As stated in the audit material, the reason for SeAMK adopting EFQM as aframework for assessing its performance was that it is based on the learningorganisation-idea, which according to SeAMK makes it suitable for educ-ational organisations.

In the audit material SeAMK considers EFQM a tool for enhancing itscurrent operations. The aim for adopting EFQM is to systematise qualityassurance both in teaching and R&D. SeAMK has gathered information onquality improvement for years, but according to them, it has not beensystematic enough. The aim of this renewal was not to make radical changesbut by examining current operations systematically to find where improve-ment may be needed. The essential motive for using the EFQM is to ensurecontinuous improvement of operations. SeAMK states that it wants toevaluate its operations based on systematically gathered evidence.

However, some ambivalence about the objectives of SeAMK’s qualityassurance system was found in the audit material and especially during theaudit visit. The main purpose of the quality assurance system is formative,intended to guide quality development rather than follow-up achievementof the standards set. In the audit material both guidance and follow-upfunctions are indicated. If the internal development is the dominatingpurpose, the EFQM-based quality assurance system is insufficiently useful asan instrument for indicating how improvements are to be made based on theresults that system produces.

��

A system of follow-up and evaluation is not included in SeAMK’s qualityassurance system. EFQM’s own system of follow-up, RADAR Logic,23 is notapplied by SeAMK. RADAR Logic includes a system for identifying andimplementing part of a quality assurance system to ensure transparency in acomplex organisation such as SeAMK. Such a system is also needed ifmeasurability and comparability with other educational organisations is to beobtained. This was an important objective for SeAMK when it chose EFQM.

Overall Structure of the Quality Assurance System

As mentioned earlier, the components of the quality assurance system arequality assurance in management, basic operations and quality system (seeFigure 1 in Chapter 3). The basic elements of the EFQM are described inChapter 3, Figure 3. SeAMK also uses Balanced Scorecard (BSC) formeasuring purposes. The connection between EFQM and BSC is describedin Chapter 3, Figure 4. However, the link between EFQM and BSC, and ofhaving two systems instead of one, is unclear.

The quality indicators SeAMK uses are mainly based on the qualityassurance instruments used for many years. Only a few new indicators havebeen added recently. There seem to be quality assurance-like instruments andprocedures not included in either EFQM-based quality descriptions or inBSC.

Currently, it seems that the way SeAMK uses EFQM could be character-ised as follows:■ All the existing quality assurance activities and instruments are described

in the quality descriptions, the outline of which is taken from the EFQMassessment areas (see Chapter 3).

■ Therefore, EFQM is primarily a way of indicating the quality assuranceissues.

It is important to note that SeAMK defines its quality assurance system asEFQM, but all the activities related to the quality assurance seem to be widerin practise. It was noted by the audit group that this complexity made itsevaluation rather challenging at this time.

As noted, the earlier quality manual has been replaced by the EFQM-based quality descriptions. This seems to be somehow problematic in termsof the quality assurance system, since there is no quality policy, guidelines,

23 RADAR Logic is a cycle of development, where the acronym RADAR is derived from thewords “Requirements, Approaches, Deployment, Assessment, Requirements”. See also Figure3 in Chapter 3.3.

��

24 The University Regulations were approved by the Board of Seinäjoki Polytechnic 18 March2005.

processes and responsibilities common to and known to all of SeAMK andstated officially in one single document. Additionally, schools and other unitshave no quality manuals or comparable documents, which makes itchallenging to follow the nature of their activities. The EFQM-based qualitydescriptions, obviously, describe the current state of the activities concerningquality assurance, but the connection between the indicators generated byEFQM and quality assurance activities and processes is unclear. Manyactivities have their basis in the internal regulations, such as in the Ordinanceof Seinäjoki Polytechnic,24 thus they often actually function as part of thequality assurance. This concerns, for instance, the division of responsibilitieswithin SeAMK management.

Internal Coherence of the Quality Assurance System

There are many definitions concerning the quality assurance system used bySeAMK staff. At the administrative and managerial level, the definition ofwhat is EFQM and what else is used besides it differs from person to person.However, preparation to adopt EFQM has helped the staff understand thequality assurance system of SeAMK, its objectives, procedures and actions.Nevertheless, the definition of the quality assurance system remains unclearand differs from person to person. The following descriptions and definitions,at least, were given during the audit visit:

■ “The quality work is now put together under the label of EFQM. EFQM is aframework that includes all the quality assurance like BSC, regular barometers,AMKOTA indicators and questionnaires for the regional stakeholders etc.”

■ “EFQM and BSC are two different systems used for different purposes but theyoverlap.”

■ “SeAMK has moved from BSC to EFQM.”■ “BSC belongs to EFQM and it is more concrete than EFQM.”■ “There is nothing new in EFQM compared to the old quality assurance system.”■ “There is no new quality assurance documentation produced since EFQM was

introduced in SeAMK.”

Teaching and other staff appeared to be generally well aware of theirresponsibilities concerning the quality of the education provided. At the sametime, all the operations conducted by teachers are not obviously seen just aspart of the current quality assurance system. For instance, collectinginformation on practical training is often seen as part of the quality assurance

��

but not all the teachers knew whether it is part of the official system or not.For the teachers it seems to be most important to know well the targets oftheir own work.

The schools are free to modify some of the instruments and processeswithin the existing framework of the quality assurance system. For example,the methods of gathering information and feedback about teaching may vary.There are elements common to all and then there are elements that theschools and other units have chosen for their own use. SeAMK has to someextent given the freedom of choice to the operating units to use differentquality assurance procedures for data gathering and implementation ofinformation received.

Conclusions

■ The applied EFQM is at present used only as a frame for existing qualityindicators and quality assurance instruments. The focus in SeAMK’squality assurance is on the current operations, mainly including a varietyof measures taken on quality. There are quality assurance procedures inplace, but they are not systematic enough in structure.

■ SeAMK defines its quality assurance system as EFQM, but all theactivities related to the quality assurance seem to be wider in practise.

■ A transparent system of analysis, follow-up and evaluation of datacollected is not included in SeAMK’s quality assurance system and shouldbe carefully considered. This process might be possible to make moretransparent by using process descriptions where the sources of data,responsibilities in collecting and analysing it and methods of evaluationas well would be defined.

■ EFQM’s own system for assessment and review, RADAR Logic, is notincluded in SeAMK’s quality assurance system. Such a system seems tobe necessary, if SeAMK wants to use EFQM to obtain measurability andcomparability with other education providers.

■ It appears that SeAMK currently concentrates too much on EFQM inits quality assurance and objectives of the quality assurance. Exactly howEFQM is used is not stated or communicated clearly enough internallyand externally.

■ SeAMK should develop its mechanisms of communication within thequality assurance system to ensure a clear understanding by all of howthe whole quality assurance system interlinks and to assure ongoingcommitment from the staff, students and external stakeholders.

��

�� Documentation ofthe Quality Assurance System

Target �: Documentation� including the formulation ofTarget �: Documentation� including the formulation ofTarget �: Documentation� including the formulation ofTarget �: Documentation� including the formulation ofTarget �: Documentation� including the formulation ofquality policy and the definition of procedures� actors andquality policy and the definition of procedures� actors andquality policy and the definition of procedures� actors andquality policy and the definition of procedures� actors andquality policy and the definition of procedures� actors andresponsibilitiesresponsibilitiesresponsibilitiesresponsibilitiesresponsibilities

SeAMK has a mission statement and has defined the internal responsibilitiesfor the implementation of activities described in these EFQM-based qualitydescriptions. There are however, a number of issues in relation to the qualitypolicy and the definition of activities and actors which still requiredocumentation.

As described in Chapter 3, SeAMK seems use EFQM primarily as aframework for its quality assurance system. Both SeAMK as a whole and itsoperational units, that is, schools and other units, have created qualitydescriptions covering the current procedures and operations of qualityassurance. These descriptions are available on the intranet and as paperversions for both staff and students. There is also a preliminary version of theseintranet pages in English.

Currently there is no particular quality manual, since the earlier one wasreplaced by EFQM-based quality descriptions in 2005. Hence, in fact thedocumentation of the quality assurance system is shown both in the EFQM-based quality descriptions and in the institutional regulations, for instance inthe Ordinance of Seinäjoki Polytechnic.

The audit material produced by SeAMK also includes the processdescriptions on education and R&D. The role of those descriptions and howthey are used in the schools and other units, was left somehow unclear in theaudit material and the interviews. Current process descriptions are rathergeneral in nature and should be clarified in terms of responsibilities andtimetables to promote the common guidelines of the quality assurance withinSeAMK.

Quality Policy

It was difficult to find a clear definition of SeAMK’s quality policy both inthe audit material submitted and during the audit visit. The impression givenwas one of a system which is understood rather well by the leadership andincreasingly less so by staff, students and external stakeholders. In theinterviews there were several comments on how good the quality assurancesystem is for SeAMK and how it clarifies goals and helps to set the agendafor the quality assurance and the development of a culture of continuousimprovement.

��

However, it became increasingly clear during the audit visit that theofficial quality assurance system and the day to day quality assurance processesrequired to support and develop the system, are somewhat disjointed. This isnot to say that the institution has no quality assurance procedures, indeedthere is evidence of good practice in respect of how it organises its activitiesand includes and reacts to the opinions of its students and externalstakeholders. What appears to be missing are clearly defined, transparent andwidely understood links between the measurement outcomes and theoperational quality assurance responsibilities and processes. These issues shouldfirst and foremost be addressed in a clear quality policy. While there is littledoubt that SeAMK is committed to quality assurance and that much of itsethos and culture supports and implements quality daily, its quality policyappears to be informal. The production of a clear quality policy is animportant issue in the establishment of a homogenous quality assurancesystem.

Definition of Activities� Actors and Responsibilities

In many ways, the issues that relate to the absence of a defined quality policyare manifest in the operational aspects of the implementation of the qualityassurance.

SeAMK has defined the levels of responsibility and the varioussubstructure formations and responsibilities for the implementation of theEFQM. What is less clear, however, is the degree to which this has beenpromulgated within the institution and the extent, as a consequence, to whichstaff, students and the external stakeholders appreciate the whole picture inrespect of quality assurance. The staff in particular, from deans to teaching andsupport staff, appeared to be unclear or unaware of how the system workedas a whole, other than to iterate that the quality assurance system gave themclear direction on what should be addressed (see also Chapters 4.1 and 4.4).This is laudable in itself and many of the answers in response to questionsasked about what happens to address issues that have been highlightedindicated the operation of good practice.

Conclusions

■ SeAMK’s quality assurance system is documented primarily in theEFQM-based quality descriptions both at the level of SeAMK as a wholeand that of schools and other units. The documentation is available onthe Intranet, and also in English to a limited extent.

■ As the current quality assurance documentation has just been introduced,some of the information still needs to be documented. Some of the

��

practices and procedures are only now being documented as part of theEFQM-based quality descriptions, but not in the form of the normativeguidelines or regulations.

■ SeAMK should develop a quality policy which should reflect theinstitution’s mission and values, and relate closely to the relevant strategicmanagement plans and operations. It should also clearly state who isresponsible for its design and implementation. In addition, it shouldinclude a commitment to the provision of adequate resources to enablethe quality assurance system to be implemented satisfactorily.

■ The current documentation has, however, already led to more visible andofficial information.

�� The Comprehensivenessof Quality Assurance

Target �: Comprehensiveness of the quality assuranceTarget �: Comprehensiveness of the quality assuranceTarget �: Comprehensiveness of the quality assuranceTarget �: Comprehensiveness of the quality assuranceTarget �: Comprehensiveness of the quality assurance

�� Degree Education

All the SeAMK schools have described their procedures of planning,implementing and evaluating education in the EFQM-based qualitydescriptions. As mentioned, the process description of the education were alsoincluded in the audit material. All the degree programmes assessed havequality assurance related to planning, implementation and evaluation ofdegree education.

Deans and unit heads are responsible for their school’s or unit’s qualityassurance. According to the interviews conducted they like the unified qualityassurance system which helps them to discuss quality across the degreeprogrammes. At the leadership level data is compared between differentprogrammes and the feedback loop seems to work well in most cases.However, the teaching staff each views the quality assurance system a bitdifferently and the quality assurance procedures may vary at that level.

SeAMK has formulated a pedagogical strategy prepared under theleadership of the Vice President in charge of education. The Audit Groupheard that the current strategy has helped to make the previous tacitknowledge on teaching visible and also made its dissemination easier. Theprecise use of the pedagogical strategy appears to be taking shape and is notyet fully developed.

��

Quality Assurance in Planning of Education

The schools in practice plan the new degree programmes. The externalstakeholders are listened to carefully when the institution considers the needto improve the aims and content of the degree programmes. For instance, thedegree programme in mechanical and production engineering wasintroduced in SeAMK two years ago based on the initiatives of the localemployers. As usual, the formal procedure is for the Ministry to approve thenew programmes/or proposals, if a field of education is new to the institutionas stated in the internal regulations of SeAMK.

Updating the content of the existing programmes is mainly left to theprogramme staff, but seems also to be influenced by regular roundtablenegotiations with external stakeholders. There are detailed descriptions forcurriculum design and assessment at SeAMK. These existed prior to theestablishment of the quality assurance system. According to the interviews,their link to the current quality assurance system is somewhat vague. Inrevising existing curricula and teaching methods, two things were mentionedas being problematic:■ EFQM-based quality descriptions are helpful in identifying problematic

areas but not in identifying the causes of the problems or the steps to betaken

■ the individual teachers are sometimes “kings and queens” of theirclassrooms and implementation of innovations and changes is up to theirdiscretion.

It should be remembered that the last of these is not uncommon in highereducation institutions in general. However, it seems that the level ofcollectivity at SeAMK is somewhat different between schools: some have amore collective approach to pedagogical innovations than others.

External stakeholders participate well in planning the content ofeducation provided. Local industry, and employers in particular, are stronglyinvolved in planning degree education. For instance, the local hospital worksclosely with SeAMK to assure the quality of nurse training in planning,implementing and evaluation of the degree programme. In Jurva, the localfurniture industry has a close relationship with SeAMK’s School of Cultureand Design in planning degree education and implementing practical trainingfor the degree students.

��

Evaluation of Education

There are rather many operations linked with the evaluation of the educationin SeAMK. In the framework of EFQM all the schools have conducted onepeer review so far. This review was conducted in pairs. Therefore all theschools have both evaluated other schools and also been evaluated by otherschools. This method, obviously, has great potential for the dissemination ofthe good practices and peer learning in SeAMK. However, the focus of thesepeer reviews is wider than simply the degree programmes. The separation ofreviews, or the development of reviews which have a greater pedagogicaldevelopment, might be desirable.

Course and programme feedback is another significant part of theevaluation of the education in SeAMK. The teachers gather information asper the EFQM-based quality descriptions and the school steering groupinterprets it and decides what to do. It was often mentioned in the interviewsthat the collective decision-making of developmental procedures within theschools has increased when quality assurance system was systematised. Beforethat many teachers collected information randomly, independently and in aless systematic manner.

Student feedback on courses seems to be a quality assurance processworking well in all schools and degree programmes. It was also stated in theaudit material that there is an existing plan to improve the electronic studentfeedback system in the near future for the use of SeAMK as a whole. Thepros and cons of such a development ought to be discussed carefully in orderto get benefits out of it.

SeAMK also has a procedure for follow-up of the student’s progress:Winha, an internet-based system for such a follow-up has been used since1998. This illustrates that SeAMK has recognised the need for the studyfollow-up on the level of the whole SeAMK and developed mechanisms forit as a part of the quality assurance system.

Quality Assurance of Practical Training

The goals of practical training are clearly defined and the students informedthereof. After the mandatory practical training the students write a report andreflect on the experience according to their goals that they have formulatedwith their tutors. According to the audit material and interviews there aresome differences in these procedures between the degree programmes, but itdoes not seem to cause any counter-productive or undesirable effects.

During the interview sessions, it was doscovered that quality assurancedoes not reach all practical training, especially when these are taken abroad.Goal-setting as well as follow-up seemed not to be in place in some cases.

�

The quality assurance of practical training is commonly recognised as achallenging field in the Finnish polytechnics, thus SeAMK seems to representthe average polytechnic in this matter.

Conclusions

■ Quality assurance of education is recognised as an important asset of thedevelopment in the schools at SeAMK. There are quality assuranceprocedures in the planning, implementation and evaluation of the degreeeducation, but they do not yet function as a homogenous qualityassurance system. There may be good reasons for this as the programmesare quite different in purpose, content and scope. But such differencesshould only be accepted on the basis of programme justification.

■ There is no uniform application of quality assurance processes by staff inrelation to degree programmes. The current situation has an over relianceon individual actions by members of the current staff.

■ The existing process description on education is of rather general, goal-setting nature. It needs to be clarified and some more sub-processesshould also be described.

■ The internal peer reviews introduced in 2005 should be furtherdeveloped and also linked to the pedagogical development work of thedegree programmes. Peer reviews could offer a suitable basis for thedissemination of the good practices within SeAMK. SeAMK could alsoconsider whether the external peer review should be included to thequality assurance system.

■ The participation of the external stakeholders in the planning andevaluation of education is rather developed.

�� Research and Development Work (R&D)

Organisation and Management of R&D

According to the current Polytechnics Act in Finland R&D is one of thebasic tasks of the polytechnics together with education and regionaldevelopment. The importance of R&D is growing at SeAMK and itrepresents about 15% of the total budget when R&D activities integrated toteaching are excluded. The R&D is dominated by development projectscarried out in co-operation with local small and medium sized enterprises.Consequently, the R&D is primarily externally financed. Approximately 80%of the money comes from sources outside SeAMK, such as from publicresources nationally and internationally (e.g. various research grants from

�

25 SC is an R&D centre focusing on applied research in technology, innovations, know-howservices, research in SME business and evaluation. The centre is in Lapua.26 SoTE is an R&D centre focusing on health care and social work. The centre is in Seinäjoki.

public research funds and foundations, EU programmes, municipal asso-ciations, municipalities etc.) and from small and medium sized and also largerprivate enterprises.

SeAMK has an R&D strategy (see also Chapter 3.2). The mission ofR&D aims to be related to teaching activities in all the schools and to supportbusiness and service operations in the South Ostrobothnia region. The R&Dat SeAMK operates within the educational fields mentioned in Chapter 3.The major relationship between R&D and teaching is the students’ finaltheses, approximately 600 per year.

SeAMK has guidelines for final theses that control the rights of emerginginnovations. Eventual conflicts of interest, between theses and findings inindustrial projects, which are private, are normally resolved by omittingdetailed results in the thesis.

The R&D is organised in two separate units, SC research25 and SoTE,26

which are chaired by an R&D director. The position of these units withinSeAMK’s organisation is described in the organisation chart (see Appendix3). Also the schools have development projects of their own with externalstakeholders. Thus, the R&D of SeAMK seems to be organised bothintegrated in the education and as a separate set of activities. The R&Dconducted by the schools is led by the dean of each school.

According to the audit material and interviews the audit grouprecognised the four main activities in SeAMK R&D:■ Development projects in co-operation with external stakeholders■ EPANET network of professorships, partly funded by SeAMK■ Applied research by the individual teaching staff members of SeAMK■ R&D integrated into teaching.

The following organisational units, procedures and actors associated withR&D projects in SeAMK are:■ The R&D Director■ Deans of the schools■ Principal lecturers■ The R&D Expert Group■ Meetings of principal lecturers■ Steering groups of the development projects■ Other working groups (permanent & ad hoc).

��

At SeAMK about 40 out of 200 teachers are principal lecturers.According to the audit material and interviews, a goal of the principallecturers is to have at least 25% of their workload related to R&D. Theinternational networks of principal lecturers within the R&D are one of themost challenging areas of R&D to be developed in every polytechnic, as wellas SeAMK.

One of the most important challenges in R&D quality assurance forSeAMK is to combine development projects, EPANET, research conductedby individual staff members and R&D integrated into teaching in terms ofquality assurance.

Responsibility for each project rest with a spesific Project Manager. Eachproject also has a Steering Group in which the dean of the school can takepart. Tasks within the projects are primarily handled at the Expert GroupMeetings which take place approximately six to eight times per year.According to the interviews the project plans are updated rather informally,usually in connection with seasonal funding applications.

Although the R&D operations strive to integrate with the teaching,some of the development projects can also be carried out independent of theteaching. The responsible Project Managers are not always involved inteaching. The independent projects do not always have Expert GroupMeetings and are to a great extent carried out by the responsible ProjectManager independent of SeAMK leadership.

The EPANET Network

An important base for the research activities at SeAMK is the EPANET27.The most important sources of funding of its projects are regional enterprises,the Regional Council of South Ostrobothnia, the Employment andEconomic Development Centre of South Ostrobothnia, the South Ostro-bothnia Health Care District, the Objective 2 and 3 Programmes of the EU,universities and other institutions of higher education, Seinäjoki Polytechnic,

27 EPANET is a co-operation network of Finnish universities and higher education institutionsin South Ostrobothnia. All the members of the research network operate based onindependence and equality. As a whole, the activities of the network are coordinated by theUniversity Association of South Ostrobothnia, consisting of municipalities and institutions ofhigher education. EPANET comprises the following signatories of the programme agreement:University of Helsinki, University of Tampere, Tampere University of Technology, Universityof Vaasa, Sibelius Academy, Seinäjoki Polytechnic, University Association of South Ostrobothnia,Regional Council of South Ostrobothnia, Employment and Economic Development Centreof South Ostrobothnia and City of Seinäjoki. More on EPANET at http://www.epky.fi/epanet_eng/68.html

��

the city of Seinäjoki and other regional municipalities, as well as the Ministryof Education.

EPANET activities are based on the temporary professorships. EPANETfocuses on the following areas in its research projects:■ IT applications■ Economics and business administration■ R&D and marketing of the food industry■ Regions and welfare.

Each area of research will be covered by at least two research professorships.Each research professor will lead a research team of 3–5 researchers. Currently,the role of SeAMK in the network is primarily that of the funder. It isunclear, how SeAMK handles the quality assurance of EPANET in relationto its own basic mission. EPANET is obviously a potential way to developthe field of research at SeAMK, if its activities are enough in line withSeAMK’s R&D intentions.

Quality Assurance of R&D

In research by the individual staff members quality assurance takes placethrough publishing in refereed international scientific journals. This is also thecase at SeAMK. Studies, for example, within the health sciences in co-operation between the nursing school at SeAMK and the local hospital arepublished in scientific journals. R&D seems to offer a personal careerdevelopment path to staff members. R&D is an effective way to network withhigher education institutions and keep one’s professional knowledge updated.The quality assurance of such individual R&D activities could be taken intoaccount in staff development rather than in R&D strategy.

There a couple of procedures and principles for the quality assurance ofthe development projects at SeAMK.■ The external financier of the development projects sets the quality

criteria through their economic support.■ Feedback from R&D operations from external stakeholders and funders

takes place particularly during the final reporting phase of the projects.■ The customer feedback is regularly collected from the external

stakeholders (Senten questionnaire).

The other R&D unit, SoTE, has also participated once in SeAMK’s internalpeer reviews. In addition, SeAMK could consider whether there is a need forthe international benchmarking or comparable procedure of the projects andtheir management. This might help in defining the future objectives for thedevelopment projects and also in looking for international partners in R&D.

��

At SeAMK several measures are taken to follow up the quality of theeducation. However, there is no measure taken to follow up the quality ofprojects related to R&D. To fill this gap, a barometer for R&D could beintroduced, for example, in combination with a review system. It could alsobe useful to consider some common strategy-related indicators for R&Dprojects in addition to the tailored indicators of every single project.

Conclusions

■ The activities within R&D are primarily oriented to developmentprojects in co-operation with local small and medium sized enterprises.Although the activities within development and research are stillrelatively small the leadership of SeAMK places strong emphasis on thisfield. The quality assurance system covers some aspects of R&D, butespecially their interlinks require development.

■ SeAMK’s way to use EFQM does not specifically identify R&D as a fieldwithin SeAMK’s activities. The activities within R&D are notsystematised in SeAMK’s quality assurance system, including a system forregular follow-up and evaluation. Some common and transparent qualityassurance procedures and process descriptions are required for R&D inorder to gather together all the elements of it and be able to makestrategic decisions based on the information produced by the qualityassurance system. This also concerns the integration of R&D andteaching.

■ The organisation of R&D is rather multifaceted. The benefits anddisadvantages of having two separate units for the R&D, in addition tothe R&D conducted by the schools, should be carefully analysed. Thedevelopment of the R&D management should also be part of the qualityassurance.

■ The improvement of the quality assurance of the R&D externalnetworks and their quality assurance processes could be applied to partof SeAMK’s R&D development.

■ The quality assurance of R&D should cover the interfaces between thedifferent areas of R&D at SeAMK: development projects, participationin EPANET, research conducted by individual staff members and R&Dintegrated into teaching. So far, these interfaces seem to be insufficientlyvisible.

■ Evaluation of the quality of R&D should be regularly carried out,including the regional impact. SeAMK should consider whether there isa need for the international benchmarking of R&D operations.

��

28 SeAMK’s roundtables are officially negotiating committees belonging essentially to everyschool organisation.

�� Interaction with and Impact on Society�and Contribution to Regional Development

Organisation of the Societal Interaction and Regional Development

According to the audit material and especially the information given in theinterviews SeAMK has strong relations with other regional institutions,industry and employers. Its impact on the region and interaction with it arevery visible. Both the leadership and schools of SeAMK seems to havefunctioning contacts with the relevant local actors.

Participation of the External Stakeholders

The quality assurance system covers input from regional stakeholders. Thelocal actors are involved in planning degree education, communicating theirneeds and quality requirements to the polytechnic and thus providingfeedback on the content and quality of the education One of the mostimportant forms of participation are roundtable negotiations28 used in everyschool to discuss requirements for degree education and its quality assurancewith the local stakeholders.

The participation of the local external stakeholders seems to beinteractive and fruitful: for instance, the degree programme on mechanicalengineering was established based on the wishes of the employers in theSouth Ostrobothnia region.

According to the interviews the Board members of SeAMK representingthe regional stakeholders are active in improving the quality assurance systemin strategic terms.

Evaluation of the Societal Interaction and Regional Impact

There are ways of measuring the regional impact of the institution in thequality assurance system of SeAMK.

The quantative aspects, in particular, are well taken care of: the numberof students and graduates is followed up, as well their employment aftergraduation. Crucial measures of interaction and impact on society are alsomeasured constantly in relation to practical training, as well as local andindustry involvement in R&D projects.

��

Quality Assurance of Adult Education

SeAMK provides the following forms of education under the label of adulteducation:

■ Part-time degree studies for adults■ Open polytechnic studies■ Professional courses.

There is an Adult Education Working Group at SeAMK consisting of theschools’ representatives. Students are also represented in this group, which ischaired by the Vice President in charge of education. The group discussesboth degree and non-degree studies within adult education. The workinggroup is a part of the matrix organisation, otherwise the schools are vertical.According to the interviews this is a great benefit for the development ofadult education at SeAMK. It was stated, that in the working group it ispossible to get information from all the schools and also disseminate itfruitfully. In addition, there is an adult education contact in every school.

Most of the students studying for part-time degrees are those with aprevious secondary level degree and willing to top up their degree to acurrent polytechnic bachelor.29 Their studies are more or less tailoreddepending on their previous degree and work experience. Open polytechniccourses are available to anyone willing to improve his or her skills. Professionalcourses usually consist of 30–60 study points and focus on particular work-related topics. FINHEEC accredits these courses.30 Four professional coursesprovided by SeAMK have been accredited by FINHEEC during 1999–2005.31

Part-time degree studies, currently for 552 students, are financed byseparate funding from the Ministry of Education. The teachers stressed in theinterview that integration of studies and work experience is essential inSeAMK’s part-time degree studies. For instance, rather many of thosestudying part-time in the agriculture degree programme are farmers and canbase their study projects on their everyday work.

29 Such degree studies have been rather common in Finland since the current polytechnicsystem was introduced in the beginning of the1990s. Polytechnics are usually formed bygathering previous secondary level institutions together into a larger higher educationinstitution.30 More about accreditation of the professional courses at http://www.kka.fi/erikoistumisopinnot/index.lasso?kieli=en31 One of the accredited courses is included twice in this number, being accredited in 1999and re-accredited in 2005.

��

In most cases part-time students do not attend separate courses but joincourses organised for full-time degree students. It was found in the interviewsthat this sometimes creates tension between part- and full-time students.Problems may also be identified in the results of the student barometer, ifproperly analysed in this perspective. The Audit Group heard that, in suchcases problems are discussed within the school and also in the currentworking groups. The quality assurance system gives no indication as to wherethe priority should be placed in cases of differences of interest of the studentgroups. From the leadership’s point of view SeAMK has insufficient feedbackon this issue. The combination of the different groups of students on the samecourses ought to be a matter of further concern for the institution regardingthe quality assurance of the degree studies.

SeAMK conducts an adult education barometer. According to theinterviews there is evidence on the enhancement of the education based onthe information gathered. For instance, the barometer showed that adultstudents would like to have more company field trips during their studiesand this has been arranged.

In general, the quality assurance of the open polytechnic studies andprofessional courses should be in line with the quality assurance of the degreeeducation within the institution. Nothing in particular was found during theaudit visit concerning their quality assurance, but it seems not to be a veryvisible part of the entire quality assurance system. SeAMK has applied forFINHEEC accreditations for their professional courses, which shows they areactive in this field.

Conclusions

■ SeAMK is well integrated into the South Ostrobothnia region and itsinstitutions. This is also built into the quality assurance, but ratherinformally from the perspective of the quality assurance system. Thus,SeAMK’s external network has great potential, if and when it is put touse as effectively as possible.

■ All levels of staff are involved in the interaction with the regional actors.Both qualitative and quantative data is collected from the externalstakeholders.

■ However, behind the well-functioning external network SeAMK’squality assurance system only covers some aspects of the quality assuranceof societal interaction and regional impact. As in the education and R&D,these procedures should also be organised into a coherent set of theprocesses within the entire quality assurance system.

��

■ SeAMK should take steps to ensure that its adult education iscomprehensively and visibly incorporated into its quality assurancesystem and that students on these programmes are afforded equaltreatment and services. Development of particular quality assuranceprocesses for this group should be considered.

�� Support and Other Services

Organisation of the Support and Other Services

The support and other services include the following:SeAMK office services:■ Student affairs■ International services■ Library services■ Marketing and communication.

Joint Services for the whole joint municipal authority:■ Financial administration■ Human resources■ IT■ Facilities.

Support and other services are also described in Appendix 3.

Support and other services are divided: some staff members work for bothSeAMK and Vocational Education Centre, some just for SeAMK. They workin the same premises but report to different people in the joint organisation.The joint organisation has a common staff policy and there is a calculativemodel for financial division between the institutions. The IT services, inparticular, function with other services and provide the means for developingquality assurance in other services. The support and other services have alsocreated their own EFQM-based quality descriptions.

The library has participated in the internal peer review. In addition, thejoint support services and SeAMK’s main office have recently been assessedby the external consultant.

��

Some of the support and other services are examined below in more detail as examplesof the functioning of their quality assurance:

Library Services

According to the interviews library services are well integrated into thedifferent schools and other units and their quality assurance. They regularlygather information on the requirements of the schools and individualcustomers.

Part of the library’s concrete strategy is to be involved in all workinggroups of SeAMK so as to be well aligned.

As is the nature of library services, their work seems to be systematicand well structured when it comes to quality assurance. The Audit Group feltthat the library services displayed good examples of “best practises” in respectof quality assurance.

Services seem to follow more “best practices” of their field than thequality assurance strived for in SeAMK’s general quality assurance principles.The library has described its quality assurance in the EFQM-based qualitydescription, like the other units.

Not all of their quality procedures and practices are documented yet, butthey will be in the near future.

International Services

International services have a strategic importance for SeAMK and thus manyquality metrics related to them are followed. Schools and even some degreeprogrammes have appointed staff members responsible for internationalservices, covering exchanges and training abroad or foreign students andteachers coming to SeAMK.

The international services have defined their own objectives and peopleresponsible for their implementation in their own quality assurancedocumentation. This documentation was seen to be developed and function-ing as a quality manual-like tool in the international services.

In the the audit material, quality assurance seems to cover the quanti-tative aspects of international services. It would be beneficial to include otheraspects, such as international exchange, as part of the quality assurance.Evaluating training periods abroad may be difficult and currently thereseemed to be problems with setting quality criteria and measuring trainingperiods abroad. The role of the training contract between the student,institution and employer should also be emphasised in the internationaltraining.

�

Conclusions

■ The quality assurance covers several aspects of the support and otherservices. The services have been recently evaluated. However, theirquality assurance relationship to the entire quality assurance systemshould be more visible.

■ The implementation of the quality assurance by the institution’s libraryservices is of a high standard and is used effectively to enhance theprovision of support to and co-operation with the various schools.

■ The quality assurance documentation of the international services couldbe used as an example of the unit-specific quality assurance document-ation in the other support and service units of SeAMK.

■ Benchmarking between the units of the support and other services mightbe a good opportunity for the future enhancement.

�� Staff Development

Quality Assurance in Staff Development

The Joint Municipal Authority on Education has a documented staff policy,32

where the common principles on services and employment are statedconcerning all the staff under the jurisdiction of the Authority. The policygives a general framework, for instance, for recruitment, orientation,employment contracts, leadership and decision-making and staff services(health care etc.). However, it does not particularly guide staff developmentparticularly at SeAMK, when they once begin their employment. While thevalid staff policy is rather old, it would be advantageous to consider theestablishment of SeAMK’s own staff programme to supplement the joint staffpolicy. The staff programme should consist of enhancement objectives derivedfrom the data and information gathered through the quality assurance system.Such a programme could also be updated regularly as a part of the internalsteering and management cycles of SeAMK.

On the other hand EFQM itself provides mainly quantitative indicatorsof quality in this domain.33 For the indicators ‘Staff job satisfaction’ and‘Staff ’sestimations of the trustworthiness of unit management’ the system refers toestimations reported as indexes of satisfaction in a staff barometer (on a 0–100 scale or 1–5 scale). The ways these data are collected (instruments) and

32 The policy was confirmed by the Joint Municipal Authority 16 July 1997.33 For instance, number of days used by staff for self improvement, number of staff withdifferent levels of education, number of person-months for international exchange.

�

34 Confirmed 4 May 2004.

the indexes are calculated are not reported. Results from the last 3–4 yearsare reported and objectives for 2006 indicated as an extension of the historictrend reported. This use of the quality assurance gives a good picture of thesituation and recent developments on the indicators used, but fails, forinstance, to provide indications of the profile of competence in relation tocompetence needs for the institution.

Leave of absence is available for members of staff for further educationand courses to update their present qualifications. The quite extensive contactsbetween many members of the schools and the labour market surroundingthe institution in some way also contribute to identifying qualification needs.

Annual Development Discussions and Quality Assurance

The dean of the each school has a key role in discussing plans for staffdevelopment during the annual development discussions. The EqualityWorking Group of the Joint Authority has confirmed34 the commonguidelines for these discussions. The guidelines state that the purpose of thedevelopment discussions is to concretisise the strategies of the Joint Authorityand the unit to the level of the individual employee.

There is also a Development Fund established for this purpose. Accordingto the interviews, provision for competence development seems to beallocated more on an individual basis, rather than as a result of an analysis ofwhich competence development might be needed in a school or other unit.The link between institutional development and development discussions wasleft somewhat unclear in the audit material and interviews. If possible, itwould be useful to create some processes for gathering the staff developmentneeds of the whole of SeAMK and design an institutional plan for it as wellin future in order to gain more shared expertise.

According to the audit material and interviews, the majority of theschools’ staff has a formal pedagogical qualification. An e-learning teachingunit is established and provides guidance for teachers in this field. Apart fromthis there is no pedagogical development unit at SeAMK to which teachersmight turn for professional assistance in their efforts to translate resultsproduced by the quality assurance system into a means for further productivepedagogical developments.

��

Conclusions

■ The quality assurance system covers some aspects of staff development.SeAMK has a quite good policy and practice of providing for individualstaff development.

■ The biggest challenges are those of creating the general methods of thestaff improvement on the level of SeAMK and its vision. They also shouldbe integrated into the strategic and pedagogical development.

■ The results of the staff barometer should be supplemented with aninstitutional analysis of competence development needs from theperspective of the institution.

■ The pedagogical support of the teaching staff should be strengthened,for instance, by establishing a pedagogical development unit or otherwiseadding to the field of pedagogical expertise within SeAMK.

�� Participation of Staff� Studentsand External Stakeholders

Target �: Participation of staff� students and externalTarget �: Participation of staff� students and externalTarget �: Participation of staff� students and externalTarget �: Participation of staff� students and externalTarget �: Participation of staff� students and externalstakeholders in quality assurancestakeholders in quality assurancestakeholders in quality assurancestakeholders in quality assurancestakeholders in quality assurance

Establishment of the EFQM based Quality Assurance System

Planning EFQM’s introduction to SeAMK was handled by a task force groupconsisting of the development manager, the head of continuing education, amember of research and development, a teacher and a student. The proposalwas discussed in the Quality committee and in a meeting with the facultydeans. By getting members from every level and group of the organisationinvolved, for instance in describing the processes, has enhanced theunderstanding of the meaning of the change and helped in implementing thesystem for collecting and interpreting data. After this an external consultancycompany arranged orientation about EFQM for the staff. It was then testedin an internal peer review35 in the beginning of 2006.

Altogether this means that all groups of internal and externalstakeholders through their representatives were formally involved inestablishing the system, but that SeAMK’s leadership obviously have had astrong influence on the choices made.

35 The internal peer reviews are also handled in Chapter 4.3.1.

��

Data Production

Students and staff are involved in information production through thebarometers and, for students, through course evaluations. Administrative staffis involved in organising this information and presenting it within theorganisation and in delivering other information from routine statistics(enrolments, graduations, economy etc.). External stakeholders seem toprovide rather little information for the quality assurance system. However, itis planned to send a questionnaire survey to 100 business leaders in the regionevery three years concerning SeAMK’s role as educator, innovator andregional resource. Information is also collected more informally in meetingswith local industry etc.

Leading management directs the production of information and itspresentation inside and outside the organisation. Some groups, particularlystudents, seem to have mainly a position as data producers.36

Participation in Phases of Analysing the Data

As the current quality assurance system has not yet been operational for afull year, it is difficult to say much about the practice of analyses anddiscussions of what it produces. Obviously, rather many of the measures, forinstance barometers, have been used for years at SeAMK, but they have notbeen organised under EFQM framework or other system-like frameworksbefore.

According to the description of the whole system in the audit material,the results of centrally organised evaluations and measures are to be discussedin two steering groups within the organisation: one for teaching and one forR&D. A quality working group is also involved in analyses and discussions. Itwas, however, rather difficult to see exactly which matters are discussed hereand which are dealt with at the schools and on the level of the programmes.

It seems that matters dealing with major policy or resource questions areconsidered at the leadership and central management level while issuesdealing with the daily educational activities are discussed at the school ordegree programme level. Some schools and programmes will have generalstaff meetings every fortnight where quality matters may be analysed anddiscussed. As mentioned earlier, every degree programme has a roundtablenegotiation regularly involving representatives from all relevant stakeholders,including external stakeholders.

36 See also Chapter 4.6. about the student participation and their role as partners in the qualityassurance.

��

The audit material gave limited information on the distribution of issuesfor discussion at different levels of the organisation and consequently whichstakeholders are represented where decisions are made. Students interviewedindicated that representatives of the local student union SAMO arerepresented on the decision-making bodies at all levels. As mentioned, thestudent representation in the Board is guaranteed by law in Finland. Especiallythe leading management and the staff (particularly the teachers or theirrepresentatives) participate in analyses and discussion of the results of thequality assurance system.

Participation in Decision Making

It was not possible to identify through the audit material all the divisions ofresponsibility within the quality assurance system. The Ordinance of SeinäjokiPolytechnic states the division of power concerning the different levels ofleadership at SeAMK. The difficulty in identifying the exact division ofresponsibilities probably appeared mostly because of the lack of a qualitymanual or comparable document. As in the point above, the division seemsto be decided at different levels of the organisation according to the‘seriousness’ of the matter concerned. However, the impression got was thatdecisions were made based on consultations with lower level bodies or staffrepresentatives. According to the interviews there seems to be acceptance andsatisfaction among the leadership, staff and students with the way thisfunctions, so far as the experience goes.

Student Participation

According to the audit material and interviews students are rather extensivelyrepresented in the administrative bodies and working groups of SeAMK. ThePolytechnic Act states that student representation is required in the internalboards of the polytechnics. The local student union SAMO represents all theSeAMK students. Thus, the most active students have reasonable access to thecurrent decision-making in SeAMK and also its quality assurance.

Students in general seem not to be well informed about the qualityassurance system as such, but know a little about the part of it that they aredirectly in contact with, for instance, course feedback or the studentbarometer. Students, however, state that they were confident that theeducation they received was good and relevant and their feedback was wellreceived and actions taken accordingly.

In interviews students had no suggestions on how to improve the qualityassurance system as such. It is possible for all the students to get informationconcerning quality assurance through SeAMK’s intranet, but they find the

�

text to be sometimes difficult to understand. Furthermore, there seems to beso much information available that it is hard and requires much interest,motivation and time to read and understand in order to suggest improvementsin the system or its contents or procedures.

Conclusions

■ SeAMK’s leadership is committed to the quality assurance.■ SeAMK defines students as partners in their quality assurance and

decision making. However, currently student involvement in qualityassurance is most visible in giving feedback on the educational contentand methods of the education, and should be extended to include a moreactive role in discussions and decisions based on the results and methodsof their evaluation.

■ There is a need for more promotion of the quality assurance system forthe students. This is one of the areas to be developed in the coming yearsin co-operation with the local student union SAMO.

■ It remains unclear how well the staff of the schools and other unitsexactly know the objectives for using different instruments and processeswithin the quality assurance system.

■ The forms of participation of the external stakeholders appear tofunction well in practice but at the same time are quite informal. Theyalso vary from school to school and programme to programme.

■ Consequently, all the points presented earlier as conclusions in thischapter indicate that the quality assurance system is not well enoughformalised.

�� Interface between the Quality AssuranceSystem and the Management/Steering

Target : Interface between the quality assurance system andTarget : Interface between the quality assurance system andTarget : Interface between the quality assurance system andTarget : Interface between the quality assurance system andTarget : Interface between the quality assurance system andmanagement/steeringmanagement/steeringmanagement/steeringmanagement/steeringmanagement/steering

Organisation and Objectives of Management and Steering

As mentioned earlier, SeAMK operates under the jurisdiction of the SeinäjokiJoint Municipal Authority of Education together with Seinäjoki VocationalEducation Centre. The Joint Authority has a common Council, Board andmanager. The institutions have joint services in administration, finances,human resources, IT and facilities including a library. Both institutions havetheir own boards. The Vocational Education Centre has a Director and

�

SeAMK has a President who is also the Manager of the Joint MunicipalAuthority.

The vision of SeAMK is confirmed by the Board of the Joint MunicipalAuthority.37 In its vision SeAMK states its desire to be “an independentinstitution of higher education with networks”. It emphasises the self-governing status as defined in the Polytechnics’ Act.

In addition to SeAMK’s main strategy there are separate strategies forvarious areas (see the list in Chapter 3.2). Some of them are required by theMinistry of Education and all the Finnish Polytechnics have these strategies.The schools and other units have their own strategies, 11 in all. SeAMK alsouses a BSC verified in 2003 that has not, according to the audit material, beenreadjusted with EFQM yet.

Strategic goals38 are confirmed by the Council and the Board of the JointMunicipal Authority. As described in Chapter 3.2, the strategic goals aredivided into four perspectives of BSC: staff, processes, resources and partners.

Strategic Planning and Internal Steering

According to the audit material strategic planning is implemented as part ofthe three-year agreements on objectives between the Ministry of Educationand SeAMK.39 The planning lasts all year and includes the developmentdiscussions between the President, Vice President and also with SeAMK’sR&D Director and the deans of the schools. The agreements contain theobjectives and activities for next year. The agreements aim to form the basisfor change and development in the schools and other units.

The four main processes of SeAMK are:■ Management and Strategy work■ Educational processes■ R&D■ Support services.

In addition to these organisation-wide processes schools and other units havedetermined their own specific processes related to education and R&D intheir operational guidelines.

37 Last one was confirmed in 2001.38 Last ones were formulated for 2004–2006 in 2003.39 Similar agreements are made between each higher education institution and the Ministry ofEducation in Finland. More on management and steering of higher education in Finland athttp://www.minedu.fi/OPM/Julkaisut/2004management_and_steering _of_higher_education_in_finland?lang=fi&extra_locale=en

�

According to the interviews the essential task of the leadership in thedifferent levels is to recognise areas requiring change and bring about thatchange. According to the audit material and interviews the quality assuranceinstruments play an important role in this process. They may provideinformation about the areas to be developed and thus help the leadership intheir tasks.

Measuring Instruments� Steering and Management

SeAMK uses a multifaceted set of measuring instruments in its qualityassurance. However, their exact and regular use in the internal managementand steering was not introduced in the audit material clearly enough to get aclear understanding of it. However, Figure 3 in the audit material (seeChapter 3) shows the interfaces between steering and the quality assurancesystem as stated by SeAMK. It is obvious that data and information gatheredthrough the quality assurance system is used in steering, but the concreteguidelines for it seem to be missing. In the audit material there is evidence ofactions taken in the schools after the internal performance negotiations basedon the quality-related information.

It seems that all the measuring instruments are not directly part of theofficial quality assurance system, that is, their specific purposes as part of thesystem should be clarified. From the point of view of steering andmanagement, special attention should be paid to their suitability and relevancein receiving enough feedback on the strategic processes. It is recommendedthat the indicators and instruments be assessed to fit better the strategicpurposes.

According to the audit material the national follow-up data gathered bythe Ministry of Education is used in a comparative manner to get informationon where SeAMK stands among the other Polytechnics in Finland and alsofor improving the national status of the institution. Information is alsogathered from the regional partners in work life and also of the recruitmentand employment of students. Management of the follow-up data at theinstitutional level is still in the early phase partly due to the implementationof the new quality assurance system.

Processes� Steering and Management

Quality assurance of education and R&D are described in processdescriptions included in the audit material. These descriptions are still rathergeneral and require clarification in order to function as common and clearguidelines of the processes.

�

Conclusions

■ EFQM as a basis for the quality assurance began in both institutions inthe Joint Municipal Authority (SeAMK and the Vocational EducationalCentre) at the same time. According to the interviews theimplementation of the model differs in the institutions. It could be worthdiscussing that some of the data gathered and information in bothinstitutions should be decided together to get relevant and comparableinformation for the decision-making purposes of the owners andstakeholders of the Authority.

■ It seems that the focus in SeAMK’s quality assurance is on currentoperations. At the time there is a danger that its strategic impact is low.However, the future challenge of SeAMK is to integrate quality assuranceand the information produced by it more closely to the strategies andstrategic development work.

■ The interface between the quality assurance system, management andsteering processes needs to be more clearly described in concreteoperational terms. This also covers the links between the internalperformance negotiations and the quality assurance system.

■ It is challenging to manage and assess the quality and build up acomprehensive quality assurance system to serve strategic andmanagement purposes when there are many strategies in use. Criticaldiscussions concerning the value and usefulness all the strategies arerecommended.

�� Relevance of� and Access to�Quality Assurance Information

Target : Relevance of� and access to� quality assuranceTarget : Relevance of� and access to� quality assuranceTarget : Relevance of� and access to� quality assuranceTarget : Relevance of� and access to� quality assuranceTarget : Relevance of� and access to� quality assuranceinformation of the internal stakeholdersinformation of the internal stakeholdersinformation of the internal stakeholdersinformation of the internal stakeholdersinformation of the internal stakeholders

Information about the quality assurance system is available to staff andstudents mostly on the intranet of SeAMK. Some information is also in theweb pages of SeAMK. The material provided by SEAMK also puts greatemphasis on information held in different sources in the Internet.

The description of the quality assurance system is also on the intranetand SeAMK has chosen to use other information updated and held by otherson the Internet. The idea behind this is that there is no need to rewritedescriptions that can be found on the Internet. The information on theintranet is constantly updated. Intra- and extranet provide all the material foruse by the staff and students.

�

The information on the intranet is mostly in Finnish making it difficultfor foreign students to get information on quality assurance. This puts theinternational students in an unequal position with Finnish-speaking students.It is understandable because the amount of the information related to qualityassurance is huge and it is not relevant to offer everything in English.However, some parts concerning education might also be important forforeign students.

Also according to the interviews, the information on the intranet is in aform not comprehensible to all staff and students as such.

A significant amount of information about quality assurance is alsodisseminated through the roundtable negotiations where the representativesof staff, students and most importantly external stakeholders are gathered.Every degree programme has its own roundtable that gathers to discusscurrent issues. As mentioned (see also Chapter 4.3.3) these roundtablenegotiations are especially developed to discuss improving the quality of theeducation and other activities in general. In addition to this, they also maydiscuss quality assurance.

The development discussions and staff meetings play an important rolein informing the staff. Minutes and memos of these meetings are sent byemail to all staff members in each study programme, as are the memos ofmeetings of the school steering group.

Some of the information is also disseminated in unofficial conversationsbetween different groups within the institution. It was found in the interviewsthat people seem to know who to turn on certain quality assurance issues.These conversations however are not stated as part of informing about thequality assurance system. The students know who to turn to if they needmore information about the quality assurance system or if they want toinform staff and teachers about some quality issues.

The EFQM training has been offered for the staff during 2006. Thetraining was organised by SeAMK in cooperation with the externalconsultants.

SeAMK states that all its strategies and key results should be known bythe staff and students. According to the interviews this is expected by theleadership. This goal however has not been entirely achieved. According tothe interviews, the students are quite unaware of the key results as they areunable to interpret the information on the intranet and elsewhere. However,in the interviews some students felt that they could benefit from the qualityassurance information gained during their studies, for instance, aftergraduation.

Conclusions

■ Much information is produced via the quality assurance system, but it isnot yet produced systematically enough. The ways of collecting andespecially analysing the information should be carefully considered andtheir relevance evaluated.

■ The teachers and other staff can usually identify which parts of thequality assurance information are important to them.

■ Students did not seem to be well aware of the quality assurance systemin use as a systematic approach. It might be useful if there would becentral parts of the quality assurance information for students in moreavailable form and in layman’s terms both in Finnish and English onSeAMK’s intranet.

�� Relevance of� and Access to� QualityAssurance Information for External Stakeholders

Target �: Relevance of� and access of to� quality assuranceTarget �: Relevance of� and access of to� quality assuranceTarget �: Relevance of� and access of to� quality assuranceTarget �: Relevance of� and access of to� quality assuranceTarget �: Relevance of� and access of to� quality assuranceinformation for external stakeholdersinformation for external stakeholdersinformation for external stakeholdersinformation for external stakeholdersinformation for external stakeholders

According to the audit material and also mentioned in the interviews, themain information channel from SeAMK to external stakeholders are theroundtable negotiations (see also Chapters 4.3.1 and 4.3.3). The roundtablenegotiations are the forums where external stakeholders can also informabout their needs and observations on the quality assurance system andquality itself. Each school has its own roundtable negotiations with the mostimportant actors of the study field, as well as students and staff. The idea is toput forward new ideas and improve the quality of the education this way.SeAMK also organises annually a two-day seminar for the externalstakeholders.

The external stakeholders seem to be satisfied with the quality ofSeAMK’s education and other activities and the information that they getconcerning quality. External stakeholders, in particular, that are involved onSeAMK’s board are well informed about the results of quality work. This isalso the way to inform the most important external interest groups about thestrategies. They seem to appreciate the work SeAMK does in SouthOstrobothnia. According to the interviews external stakeholders feel that italso benefits them that SeAMK has good quality education.

The external interest groups are clearly defined and known to all withinSeAMK and there is a lot of interaction between SeAMK and its external

stakeholders. The content of this interaction is not however clear. The externalstakeholders seem very satisfied with the co-operation with SeAMK and arehappy with the results of SeAMK. However they are not very well informedabout the quality assurance system itself.

Access to SeAMK’s quality assurance system through the Internet isdifficult since most of the results and information on the system are on theintranet which is accessible only to staff and students of SeAMK.

Some of the quality assurance instruments used by SeAMK such asEFQM are familiar to external stakeholders, as they use the same instrumentsin their work places.

Conclusions

■ The most important and long-term external stakeholders, the membersof the Board and roundtables, are well defined and communication withthem is fluent and direct. However, the content of the communicationconcerns more the quality itself than the quality assurance. Otherexternal stakeholders may have difficulty getting access to informationabout quality assurance and its results.

■ SeAMK should ensure that information on the quality assurance systemis suitable, written in a style, which is clear and readily accessible to itsintended readership, and it should be easy for a reader to find.

�� Efficiency of the Quality AssuranceProcesses and Their Effect onthe Development of Operations

Target �: Efficiency of the quality assurance processes and theirTarget �: Efficiency of the quality assurance processes and theirTarget �: Efficiency of the quality assurance processes and theirTarget �: Efficiency of the quality assurance processes and theirTarget �: Efficiency of the quality assurance processes and theireffect on the development of operationseffect on the development of operationseffect on the development of operationseffect on the development of operationseffect on the development of operations

EFQM as a New Solution of the Quality Assurance

EFQM was introduced in 2005 at SeAMK and has been functioning for onlysix months. Consequently, it was not possible to evaluate the effects of thequality assurance system from the point of view of EFQM, but only toevaluate its potential effects.

All levels at SeAMK, the leadership, the staff including the teachers, thestudents and the external stakeholders bear witness that the current qualityassurance system focuses better on the quality assurance at SeAMK. Thechange before and after the introduction is described as that nothing newhas in fact been introduced but the current system makes the quality

�

assurance system more visible. Before the current quality assurance system wasintroduced each school had their own quality policy and practise.

The RADAR Logic is included in EFQM. The RADAR Logic can beused for different matters. The most common is applying it for self-assessmentusing the RADAR scoring matrix. The scoring matrix can be used for suchas internal following up, or for benchmarking. It is remarkable that theRADAR Logic, which is described by the owner of EFQM as “the heart ofthe Model”, is not included in SeAMK’s system. According to the auditmaterial SeAMK does not have plans to include the RADAR Logic in theirquality assurance system. Furthermore, SeAMK’s quality assurance systemdoes not include a transparent system from top to bottom which wouldfollow-up all the information collected by the large number of qualityindicators chosen and to evaluate it, as well as the system for evaluation ofthe quality assurance system itself.

While it is desirable that the institution’s quality assurance system shoulditself be suitable and that its acceptance and operational efficiency should notbe hampered by unnecessary bureaucracy, there appears to be a requirementfor a stronger connection between the catalysts provided by EFQM and theinternal processes subsequently activated. Recognition of this was alluded toby SeAMK itself on a number of occasions.

Efficiency of the Quality Assurance System

The quality of teaching (for R&D see Chapter 4.3.2) is followed up byseveral measurements, such as the barometers, the AMKOTA database etc.These measurements seem to function well and are all appropriate apart frompractical training and course evaluations, and are a necessary base for asystematic quality assurance system.

The result was a lack of evidence for examining whether the practicesthemselves might need to be altered, whether any alteration might have aninstitution-wide impact, how and by whom such alterations might be madeand approved and how they might be disseminated on an institution-widebasis if required. A typical example of this was seen in the arrangements putin place for practical training elements of many of its programmes that variedin their degree of organisation and quality assurance.

Students in some schools appeared to receive minimal support andguidance, while others received more structured input. In all cases, however,there appeared to be no formal mechanism for assuring the quality andappropriateness of the students’ experience and its linkage to the objectivesof the related programme. This might typically be a process, which could

�

benefit from examination, but how or why that examination might betriggered by EFQM and how it might be concluded thereafter is unclear.

As noted (see Chapter 4.1), SeAMK has to some extent given thefreedom of choice to the schools and other units to use different qualityassurance procedures. This freedom of choice is strength; however, there maybe a danger that the efficiency of the quality assurance in SeAMK as anorganisation does not reach the anticipated level. The cost effectiveness of theentire quality assurance system is also worth looking into when consideringthe wholeness of the quality assurance system and opportunities for variationwithin it.

SeAMK’s quality assurance seems to be overly oriented towardsproducing information about the present quality of the institutionaloperations in quantitative form in order to identify achievements andshortcomings. Identification of reasons for possible shortcomings, however, isnot part of the system. The system also lacks descriptions of processes foranalysis of these results and for transforming these into improvements. Thispart of the quality assurance system needs to be further developed in orderto function sufficiently well for enhancement purposes.

Conclusions

■ All groups involved in the measurements, including the students and theexternal stakeholders, are highly motivated to take part in them.Consequently, the individual quality assurance procedures apart frompractical training are well suited for identifying sub-standard quality butnot for taking appropriate remedial actions.

■ The analysis of the data and information produced by the qualityassurance system has to be strengthened, and made a more systematic andvisible part of the entire quality assurance system. Currently the inform-ation applied is quite informal and in most cases not formally analysed.

■ The feedback system seems not to be visible enough. However, thiswould be a necessary condition for closing the loops in a quality assur-ance system.

■ The overall aim for a quality assurance audit being developmental is thatit is of utmost importance that the system to be audited has beenfunctioning long enough. In SeAMK the current quality assurancesystem has been used for only six months. The question remains is thereenough evidence of how it really functions in practice. Moreover, therecan be no evidence of its long-term effects. The audit group alsorecognises that many of the elements of the current quality assurance

�

system have been used for years. However, currently the focus of theaudit is the functioning of the quality assurance system which consists ofindividual elements.

�� Application of Quality AssuranceInformation in Quality Managementand Enhancement

Target �: Use of the information produced by the qualityTarget �: Use of the information produced by the qualityTarget �: Use of the information produced by the qualityTarget �: Use of the information produced by the qualityTarget �: Use of the information produced by the qualityassurance system as a tool for quality management andassurance system as a tool for quality management andassurance system as a tool for quality management andassurance system as a tool for quality management andassurance system as a tool for quality management andenhancement in education and other activitiesenhancement in education and other activitiesenhancement in education and other activitiesenhancement in education and other activitiesenhancement in education and other activities

SeAMK’s measuring instruments are listed in Chapter 3.3 in this report. Asseen, SeAMK has a relatively extensive set of measuring instruments fordifferent purposes. Some of these are common to all the polytechnics inFinland, for instance, AMKOTA metrics, while most are tailored by SeAMKdirectly for their own purposes. To summarise, the number of measurementstaken is impressive.

It is important to note that measurements taken focus predominantly onresults in terms of quantitative output and satisfaction ratings of staff andstudents. In addition, the pedagogical and other qualitative aspects should alsobe taken into account more clearly when defining the objectives to bemeasured. In addition to the students’ satisfaction their actual learning shouldalso be the key issue when evaluating the results of education. Obviously,learning is usually measured by individual teachers and students withincourses and other forms of study, but some summarising of these might alsobe useful. Furthermore, the way of planning and implementation of theteaching and learning processes should also be the object of the qualityassurance. Peer reviews and use of so called “critical friends” might be usedfor this purpose.

However, it is not always clear how the results are distributed and theway the results are used for the enhancement of education or other activities.As an example from the interviews, the results of the barometers, such asthose from the student barometer, may not always reach the studentsthemselves.

One of the most important sources for information is the coursefeedback. As noted (see Chapter 4.3.1), the procedures for course feedbackcan differ between the different schools and programmes, as well as the waythey are followed up. According to the interviews, opinions have also beenexpressed inside SeAMK that the measuring system has to be simplified.

�

Consequently, it would be of great importance to evaluate the differentmeasures taken and to find out if they are relevant instruments for thedevelopment of education. Currently such an evaluation is not part of thequality assurance system at SeAMK.

The information about quality of processes of teaching and learning isachieved by the collection of different measures (see the list in Chapter 3.2).The staff, students and stakeholders, all bear witness that data are regularlycollected and that the results are presented in various forms. The barometersand the data collected from the AMKOTA database were all said to beimportant information sources for the quality assurance of education.

Analysing the Information

According to the audit visit there is a need to develop the informationanalysis in the SeAMK quality assurance. It was recognised that theatmosphere in SeAMK encourages the discussion of different quality-relatedissues. There seems to be a wide variety of different committees, steeringgroups, working groups and more informal forums for this purpose. However,it was not clear, how effectively all these bodies actually work in terms ofanalysing the information produced by the quality assurance system. It ispossible that some added value could be found, if some of these bodies andmeetings were to be combined or at least their tasks in quality assurance madeclear, visible and not as overlapping.

According to the observations made during the audit visit, it would beadvantageous to pay more attention to the school leadership and teachingstaff ’s role in interpreting, analysing and synthesising the collectedinformation instead of mechanically collecting information and passing it onto the institution level management.

Conclusions

■ The vast amount of follow-up data gathered makes analysing of its valueand meaning in developmental conclusions and decisions verychallenging. The data focuses predominantly on quantative aspects andsatisfaction ratings.

■ The applicability of the different measures taken for the enhancement ofeducation should be evaluated through a follow-up system as part of thequality assurance system.

�

■ SeAMK should consider the collection and internal benchmarking of thebest ways of applying the information produced by the quality assurancesystem (between the schools and other units).

■ There are many forms of discussion bodies and groups that staff, studentsand external stakeholders attend. Discussing should focus even moredirectly on the information and its consequences provided through thechannels of the quality assurance system.

■ Critical discussion on the current quality indicators and metrics couldprovide new relevant indicators and at the same time some old onescould possibly be omitted. The areas worth looking into could include,for instance, R&D, the social and cultural impact of SeAMK and alsothe environmental and sustainability issues valued in SeAMK’s strategicintentions.

�� Monitoring� Evaluation and ContinuousDevelopment of the Quality Assurance System

Target ��: Monitoring� evaluation and continuous developmentTarget ��: Monitoring� evaluation and continuous developmentTarget ��: Monitoring� evaluation and continuous developmentTarget ��: Monitoring� evaluation and continuous developmentTarget ��: Monitoring� evaluation and continuous developmentof the quality assurance systemof the quality assurance systemof the quality assurance systemof the quality assurance systemof the quality assurance system

The establishment of the current quality assurance system has been, as explainedin Chapter 4.1, the result of the analysis made in SeAMK’s Board. This illustratesthe willingness to generally develop the quality assurance at SeAMK and may beseen as evidence of its evaluation and continuous development.

SeAMK does have measures in place, as a part of its own measurementsand as part of its obligations as stated by the Ministry of Education, tomonitor its performance. What is less clear are the processes and how it actsupon the monitoring results. Because SeAMK has only recently installedEFQM and is at the early stages of its implementation, it was not possible toestablish that any significant or systematic evaluation or continuousdevelopment had been undertaken on the EFQM-based quality assurancesystem. This current situation is understandable, although it may have beenmore prudent for SeAMK to delay its submission until evidence ofmonitoring and the implementation of change was available.

�

Conclusions

■ The processes to evaluate the performance of the quality assurancesystem, and ensure that appropriate actions are taken, is untested withinthe current quality assurance system due to the short period it has beenused.

■ SeAMK needs to ensure that its quality assurance system includesprocesses which effectively deal with issues arising from monitoring sothat feedback through the quality assurance results in positive devel-opment and enhancement.

■ The complete quality assurance system should include functions givingsignals and follow-up different measures taken, as well as evaluating thesystem itself. This part of the system must be included in SeAMK’squality assurance system.

�

Final Conclusions

�� Strengths and Good Practices

Strengths

■ The leadership, staff, students and external stakeholders are all committedto the development of the quality assurance at SeAMK.

■ SeAMK has recognised the need for the more systematised qualityassurance system instead of separate quality assurance procedures and hasstarted to address this issue.

Good Practices

■ The library of SeAMK regularly collects customer information from theschools providing the degree education. This interactive process visiblystrengthens the link between support services and teaching units.

■ The internal peer review based on the EFQM assessment criteria seemsto be an interactive and enhancement-led way of developing the degreeeducation provided.

■ SeAMK operates a system of alleviating teacher workload to facilitatethe development of pedagogical studies, if teacher is not yetpedagogically qualified. This seems to support the teacher’s motivationto develop his or her skills.

■ SeAMK demonstrates good connections with and involvement ofexternal stakeholders in their activities and partly also in their qualityassurance processes.

�� Recommendations

■ SeAMK needs to develop a clear policy and strategy for its qualityassurance system. The quality policy should set out the scope of thequality assurance system, responsibilities for its implementation andreview and a clear indication of the processes that support the system.

�

■ In respect of the activities, actors and responsibilities, SeAMK shouldexamine its quality assurance structure, the various actors and the relatedactivities and processes. The individual quality assurance proceduresshould be organised into a systematised quality assurance system thatincludes routines for follow-up, such as RADAR Logic.

■ There is a need for the systematic institutional quality manual or acomparable document. In the manual it would be possible to definequality policy, processes and responsibilities in one single documentinstead of a wide and complicated spectrum of quality-relateddocumentation.

■ The students’ role as partners in the quality assurance of SeAMK needsdevelopment. Instead of merely informing, they should also participatemore actively in setting the targets of education and its quality assurance,as well as of the support and other services important to them. Studentsshould also be integrated into the analyses of the information producedby the quality assurance system. SeAMK and the student union SAMOshould set about developing mechanisms to ensure that students’ role andfeedback is extended and integrated into the quality assurance systemmore effectively.

■ The interfaces between the quality assurance system, management andsteering should be clarified.

■ The internal peer review should be performed regularly for all theschools and other units at SeAMK. They might also be supplemented byexternal experts. The systematic development work between the schoolsand other units after information has been gathered through the qualityassurance system could be enhanced. Such discussions could providesynergy even though the responsibility for quality assurance is separatein each operating unit.

■ The management of follow-up data and information should be furtherdeveloped through systemising the reporting more uniformly (data andinformation processing system).

■ The quality assurance and evaluation competences of SeAMK staffshould be continuously developed. This should aim particularly atdeveloping competence for information analysis and identifying theresults of the findings. Furthermore, this might help in identification ofconsequences of the findings.

�� Audit Group’s Overall Assessmentof the Quality Assurance Systemof Seinäjoki Polytechnic

Based on this report the Audit Group states that there are some majorshortcomings in the quality assurance system of Seinäjoki Polytechnic whenmeasured against FINHEEC’s audit criteria. The Audit Group recommendsthat the quality assurance system of Seinäjoki Polytechnic be subject to re-audit. The Audit Group also recommends that the re-audit should particularlyconcentrate on the structure, coherence and documentation of the qualityassurance system as a whole. Currently there are many quality assuranceprocedures and measures in place and they should be organised into afunctioning quality assurance system.

�� FINHEEC’s Decision

Based on the proposal of the audit group and the audit report, the FinnishHigher Education Evaluation Council (FINHEEC) decided in its meetingof 24 October 2006 that the quality assurance system of SeinäjokiPolytechnic (SeAMK) had some major shortcomings and did not meet theaudit criteria, for which reason the development of the quality assurancesystem calls for action from the HEI, as well as for a re-audit. The re-auditwill particularly concentrate on the structure, coherence and documentationof the quality assurance system as a whole. The re-audit will be performedwithin two years from the FINHEEC decision.

The

crit

eria

are

use

d as

an

indi

cati

ve to

ol in

ass

essi

ng th

e st

age

of d

evel

opm

ent i

n in

stit

utio

nal q

ualit

y as

sura

nce�

AUDI

TING

TAR

GETS

CRIT

ERIA

ABSE

NTEM

ERGI

NGDE

VELO

PING

ADVA

NCED

1. O

bjec

tives

, ove

rall

stru

ctur

eTh

e HE

I has

no

QA p

roce

dure

s in

Ther

e ar

e QA

pro

cedu

res

rela

ting

QA c

over

s m

any

of th

e HE

I'sQA

cov

ers

all o

r nea

rly a

llan

d in

tern

al c

oher

ence

o ft

hepl

ace

rela

ting

to it

s ac

tiviti

es.

to s

ome

HEI a

ctivi

ties,

but

activ

ities

and

the

QA p

roce

dure

sac

tiviti

es, a

nd Q

A pr

oced

ures

qual

ity a

ssur

ance

sys

tem

they

are

nei

ther

sys

tem

atic

form

a fa

irly

effic

ient

sys

tem

.pr

oces

ses

form

a d

ynam

ic w

hole

.in

stru

ctur

e no

r int

erlin

ked.

2. D

ocum

enta

tion,

inclu

ding

the

Qual

ity p

olicy

, pro

cedu

res,

The

defin

ition

and

doc

umen

t-Pr

oced

ures

, act

ors

and

resp

ons-

The

proc

edur

es a

nd d

ivisio

n of

form

ulat

ion

of q

ualit

y po

licy

acto

rs a

nd re

spon

sibilit

ies

atio

n of

resp

onsib

ilitie

s an

dib

ilitie

s ar

e cle

arly,

com

preh

ensib

lyla

bour

man

ifest

ly co

mpl

y w

ith th

ean

d th

e de

finiti

on o

f pro

cedu

res,

have

not

bee

n de

fined

or

proc

edur

es in

clude

d in

the

QAan

d co

ncre

tely

defin

ed, a

nd th

edo

cum

ente

d pr

oces

ses.

The

QAac

tors

and

resp

onsib

ilitie

sdo

cum

ente

d.sy

stem

are

inad

equa

te, a

nddo

cum

enta

tion

is ea

sily

avai

labl

eor

gani

satio

n is

extre

mel

y w

ell-

the

QA

proc

edur

es a

reto

all.

The

QA o

rgan

isatio

nde

signe

d an

d re

info

rces

QA.

inad

equa

tely

org

anise

d.is

wel

l-des

igne

d.

3. C

ompr

ehen

siven

ess

of Q

ANo

QA

in th

e ac

tiviti

es a

ndTh

e sy

stem

cov

ers

isola

ted

activ

ities

The

syst

em c

over

s m

any

activ

ities

In th

e m

ain,

the

syst

em c

over

spr

oces

ses

rela

ting

to b

asic

miss

ion.

and

proc

esse

s m

ainl

y re

latin

gan

d pr

oces

ses

rela

ting

toac

tiviti

es a

nd p

roce

dure

s re

latin

gto

deg

ree

educ

atio

n.ba

sic m

issio

n.to

the

basic

miss

ion.

3 a)

Deg

ree

educ

atio

nNo

QA

in d

egre

e ed

ucat

ion.

QA c

over

s so

me

isola

ted

aspe

cts

ofQA

cov

ers

seve

ral a

spec

ts o

fQA

cov

ers

all s

alie

nt a

spec

tsth

e pl

anni

ng, i

mpl

emen

tatio

n an

dth

e pl

anni

ng, i

mpl

emen

tatio

n an

dof

the

plan

ning

, im

plem

enta

tion

and

eval

uatio

n of

deg

ree

educ

atio

n.ev

alua

tion

of d

egre

e ed

ucat

ion.

eval

uatio

n of

deg

ree

educ

atio

n.

3 b)

Res

earc

h / R

&DNo

QA

in re

sear

ch/R

&D.

QA c

over

s so

me

isola

ted

aspe

cts

QA c

over

s se

vera

l asp

ects

QA c

over

s al

l sal

ient

asp

ects

of re

sear

ch/R

&Dof

rese

arch

/R&D

of re

sear

ch/R

&D

3 c)

Inte

ract

ion

with

and

impa

ctNo

QA

rela

ting

to in

tera

ctio

nQA

cov

ers

som

e iso

late

d as

pect

sQA

cov

ers

seve

ral a

spec

ts o

fQA

cov

ers

all s

alie

nt a

spec

ts o

fon

soc

iety

; and

con

tribu

tion

tow

ith a

nd im

pact

on

socie

ty o

r to

of in

tera

ctio

n w

ith a

nd im

pact

on

inte

ract

ion

with

and

impa

ct o

nin

tera

ctio

n w

ith a

nd im

pact

on

regi

onal

dev

elop

men

tre

gion

al d

evel

opm

ent

socie

ty, a

nd o

f reg

iona

l dev

elop

men

tso

ciety,

and

of r

egio

nal d

evel

opm

ent

socie

ty, a

nd o

f reg

iona

l dev

elop

men

t.

APP

EN

DIX

�: T

able

of

the

Aud

it C

rite

ria

�

AUDI

TING

TAR

GETS

CRIT

ERIA

ABSE

NTEM

ERGI

NGDE

VELO

PING

ADVA

NCED

3 d)

Sup

port

and

othe

r ser

vices

No Q

A in

sup

port

and

othe

r ser

vices

.QA

cov

ers

som

e iso

late

d as

pect

s of

QA c

over

s se

vera

l asp

ects

of s

uppo

rtQA

cov

ers

all s

alie

nt a

spec

ts o

f sup

port

(e.g

. lib

rary

and

info

rmat

ion

serv

ices,

supp

ort a

nd o

ther

ser

vices

.an

d ot

her s

ervic

es.

and

othe

r ser

vices

. c

aree

r and

recr

uitm

ent s

ervic

es,

and

inte

rnat

iona

l ser

vices

)

3 e)

Sta

ff de

velo

pmen

tNo

QA

in s

taff

deve

lopm

ent.

QA c

over

s so

me

isola

ted

QA c

over

s se

vera

l asp

ects

of

QA c

over

s al

l sal

ient

asp

ects

of

aspe

cts

of s

taff

deve

lopm

ent.

staf

f dev

elop

men

t.st

aff d

evel

opm

ent.

4. P

artic

ipat

ion

of s

taff,

stu

dent

sSt

aff,

stud

ents

and

ext

erna

l sta

ke-

Som

e of

the

follo

win

g gr

oups

are

The

afor

emen

tione

d st

aff g

roup

sEx

tern

al s

take

hold

ers

are

mea

ning

fully

exte

rnal

sta

keho

lder

s in

QA

hold

ers

are

not i

nvol

ved

in Q

A.ex

clude

d fro

m Q

A:an

d st

uden

ts p

lay

an a

ctive

par

tin

volve

d in

eva

luat

ion.

The

diff

eren

t–

stud

ents

in th

e QA

sys

tem

. Ext

erna

l sta

ke-

staf

f gro

ups

are

man

ifest

ly co

mm

itted

– te

ache

rsho

lder

s ar

e in

volve

d in

QA.

to a

nd a

ctive

in p

ract

ical Q

A. P

artic

-–

supp

ort s

ervic

es s

taff

ipat

ion

is su

ppor

ted

by c

omm

on v

alue

s–

rese

arch

ers

and

a cu

lture

bas

ed o

n tru

st a

nd–

adm

inist

rativ

e st

aff

equa

lity.

– m

anag

emen

t–

exte

rnal

sta

keho

lder

s

5. I

nter

face

bet

wee

n th

e QA

sys

tem

No li

nkag

es b

etw

een

QA a

ndQA

con

sists

of p

roce

dure

s an

dTh

e QA

sys

tem

is a

n in

trins

ic pa

rt of

QA is

a n

atur

al p

art o

f the

ope

ratio

nsan

d m

anag

emen

t/ste

erin

gth

e le

ader

ship

and

man

agem

ent.

proc

esse

s th

at a

re s

epar

ate

from

the

oper

atio

ns a

nd th

e di

rect

ion

ofan

d th

e di

rect

ion

of o

pera

tions

. The

othe

r ope

ratio

ns. T

he li

nkag

esop

erat

ions

. Inf

orm

atio

n pr

oduc

ed in

man

agem

ent a

re c

omm

itted

to th

ebe

twee

n th

e QA

sys

tem

and

QA is

use

d in

dev

elop

men

t, w

ithsy

stem

and

take

resp

onsib

ility

for i

t.m

anag

emen

t/ste

erin

g ar

e in

-m

anife

st li

nkag

es b

etw

een

the

QAIn

form

atio

n is

syst

emat

ically

use

dad

equa

te.

syst

em a

nd th

e m

anag

emen

t,an

d th

ere

is cle

ar a

nd c

onst

ant

perfo

rman

ce m

onito

ring

and

evid

ence

of i

ts e

ffect

ive u

se in

the

deve

lopm

ent.

man

agem

ent,

perfo

rman

ce m

onito

ring

and

deve

lopm

ent.I

nfor

mat

ion

prod

uced

by th

e QA

sys

tem

give

s an

ove

rall

pict

ure

of th

e qu

ality

of e

duca

tion

and

othe

r act

ivitie

s.

�

AUDI

TING

TAR

GETS

CRIT

ERIA

ABSE

NTEM

ERGI

NGDE

VELO

PING

ADVA

NCED

6. R

elev

ance

of,

and

acce

ss to

,QA

doe

s no

t cat

er fo

r int

erna

lTh

e pr

oduc

tion

of in

form

atio

n is

not

The

activ

ities

and

key

resu

lts o

f the

The

oper

atio

n of

the

QA s

yste

m is

ove

rtqu

ality

ass

uran

ce in

form

atio

nst

akeh

olde

rs a

nd in

form

atio

n is

not

syst

emat

ic an

d do

es n

ot s

uffic

ient

lyQA

sys

tem

are

kno

wn

to in

tern

alan

d tra

nspa

rent

. Int

erna

l com

mun

icatio

nco

mm

unica

ted

with

in th

e HE

I.ca

ter f

or in

tern

al s

take

hold

ers.

stak

ehol

ders

. The

QA

syst

em p

rodu

ces

rela

ting

to Q

A is

activ

e an

d in

form

atio

nin

form

atio

n re

leva

nt to

them

.is

syst

emat

ically

com

mun

icate

d an

dta

rget

ed to

diff

eren

t par

ties

with

inth

e HE

I. The

rele

vanc

e of

info

rmat

ion

to in

tern

al s

take

hold

ers

is an

impo

rtant

cons

ider

atio

n in

the

plan

ning

and

cont

inuo

us d

evel

opm

ent o

f the

QA

syst

em.

7. R

elev

ance

of,

and

acce

ss to

,QA

doe

s no

t cat

er fo

r ext

erna

lEx

tern

al s

take

hold

ers

are

not

Exte

rnal

inte

rest

gro

ups

are

defin

edEx

tern

al c

omm

unica

tion

rela

ting

toqu

ality

ass

uran

ce in

form

atio

nst

akeh

olde

rs. I

nfor

mat

ion

is no

tsu

fficie

ntly

take

n in

to a

ccou

nt in

and

thei

r inf

orm

atio

n ne

eds

clear

lyQA

is a

ctive

and

info

rmat

ion

is sy

s-fo

r ext

erna

l sta

keho

lder

sco

mm

unica

ted

to e

xter

nal

the

plan

ning

and

dev

elop

men

t of t

heta

ken

into

acc

ount

. Inf

orm

atio

n ab

out

tem

atica

lly c

omm

unica

ted

and

targ

eted

stak

ehol

ders

.QA

sys

tem

. Inf

orm

atio

n is

only

the

activ

ities

and

key

resu

lts o

f the

to d

iffer

ent e

xter

nal s

take

hold

ers.

spor

adica

lly c

omm

unica

ted

toQA

sys

tem

is a

cces

sible

to m

ajor

The

rele

vanc

e of

info

rma t

ion

to e

xter

nal

exte

rnal

sta

keho

lder

s.pa

rtner

s an

d st

akeh

olde

rs.

stak

ehol

ders

is a

n im

porta

nt c

onsid

er-

atio

n in

the

plan

ning

and

dev

elop

men

tof

the

QA s

yste

m. T

he s

yste

m p

rodu

ces

info

rmat

ion

whi

ch a

lso h

as re

leva

nce

toex

tern

al in

tere

st g

roup

s.

�

AUDI

TING

TAR

GETS

CRIT

ERIA

ABSE

NTEM

ERGI

NGDE

VELO

PING

ADVA

NCED

8. E

fficie

ncy

of Q

A pr

oced

ures

and

QA p

roce

dure

s ar

e un

able

to id

entif

yQA

aim

s at

mai

ntai

ning

the

pres

ent

QA p

roce

dure

s pr

omot

e th

eSp

ecia

l atte

ntio

n is

paid

to m

etho

dsst

ruct

ures

and

thei

r effe

ct o

n th

esu

b-st

anda

rd q

ualit

y.le

vel o

f qua

lity.

QA p

roce

dure

s ar

ede

velo

pmen

t of a

ctivi

ties

and

and

stru

ctur

es c

ondu

cive

to n

ew id

eas

deve

lopm

ent o

f act

ivitie

sab

le to

iden

tify

sub-

stan

dard

qua

lity

gene

rate

cha

nge.

Sub

-sta

ndar

dan

d th

eir i

mpl

emen

tatio

n. T

he o

pera

tiona

lsa

tisfa

ctor

ily.

qual

ity is

effi

cient

ly id

entif

ied.

cultu

re e

ncou

rage

s in

nova

tion.

Sub

-st

anda

rd q

ualit

y is

effic

ient

ly id

entif

ied.

9.

Use

of in

form

atio

n pr

oduc

ed b

yIn

form

atio

n re

latin

g to

QA

is no

use

dUs

e of

QA

info

rmat

ion

is sp

orad

icQA

info

rmat

ion

is us

ed a

s a

tool

inTh

e us

e of

info

rmat

ion

is sy

stem

atic

the

QA s

yste

m a

s a

tool

for q

ualit

yas

a to

ol fo

r qua

lity

man

agem

ent

and/

or it

s co

llect

ion

is an

end

in it

self.

qual

ity m

anag

emen

t and

enh

ance

men

tan

d th

ere

is cle

ar a

nd c

onst

ant e

viden

cem

anag

emen

t and

enh

ance

men

t in

and

enha

ncem

ent i

n ed

ucat

ion

orre

latin

g to

edu

catio

n an

d ot

her

of it

s ef

fect

ive u

se in

the

deve

lopm

ent o

fed

ucat

ion

and

othe

r act

ivitie

sot

her a

ctivi

ties.

activ

ities

. Mos

t fee

dbac

k is

put t

o us

e.ed

ucat

ion

and

othe

r act

ivitie

s.

10. M

onito

ring,

eva

luat

ion

and

The

HEI h

as n

o ov

eral

l ide

a of

the

QATh

e HE

I has

onl

y a

fain

t ide

a of

the

The

HEI m

onito

rs th

e pe

rform

ance

The

HEI m

onito

rs th

e pe

rform

ance

o ft

heco

ntin

uous

dev

elop

men

t of t

he Q

Aac

tiviti

es; t

hey

are

not m

onito

red

orov

eral

l per

form

ance

of t

he Q

A sy

stem

.of

the

QA s

yste

m a

nd is

con

scio

us o

fQA

sys

tem

and

is la

rgel

y aw

are

of it

ssy

stem

deve

lope

d.Its

act

ivitie

s ar

e ba

rely

mon

itore

d,its

maj

or e

ffect

s an

d ou

tcom

es.

effe

cts

and

outc

omes

. The

dev

elop

men

tan

d th

e de

velo

pmen

t of t

he Q

ADe

velo

pmen

t of t

he Q

A sy

stem

isof

the

QA

syst

em is

pla

nned

and

syst

em is

unp

lann

ed.

plan

ned

and

docu

men

ted.

docu

men

ted

and

the

HEI c

an cl

early

dem

onst

rate

its

dire

ctio

n an

d co

ncre

teef

fect

s.

��

APPENDIX �:Programme of the Audit Visit ��–�� May ��

First Day of the Visit� �� MayFirst Day of the Visit� �� MayFirst Day of the Visit� �� MayFirst Day of the Visit� �� MayFirst Day of the Visit� �� May

8.45–9.15 Audit Group’s own meeting9.15–10.00 Presentation: Quality assurance system of the Seinäjoki Polytechnic (5 persons)10.15–11.15 Interview with the polytechic leadership and the development manager (6 persons)11.30–12.30 Interview with the heads of field of study (8 persons)12.30–13.30 Lunch13.30–14.30 Interview with teaching staff ( 6 persons)14.45 -15.45 Interview with students (7 persons)16.00–17.00 Interview with representatives of support and other services (6 persons)17.15–18.15 Interview with representatives of interest groups, i.e. external stakeholders (8 persons)19.30–21.00 Audit Group’s own Meeting

Second Day of the Visit� �� MaySecond Day of the Visit� �� MaySecond Day of the Visit� �� MaySecond Day of the Visit� �� MaySecond Day of the Visit� �� May

9.00–11.30 Audit visit to the school: School of Engineering09.00-09.30 Presentation: Quality assurance of the School of Engineering (2 persons)09.30-10.45 Interviews of three chosen Degree Programmes

– Degree Programme in Foodprocessing and Biotechnology (5 persons)– Degree Programme in Automotive and Transportation Engineering (3 persons)– Degree Programme in Mechanical and Production Engineering (3 persons)

10.45–11.30 Interview of students (8 persons)12.00 -12.45 Lunch13.00–15.30 Audit visits to the schools (in parallel groups):

– 1. School of Culture and Design13.00–13.30 Presentation: Quality assurance of the School of Culture and Design (2 persons)13.30–14.45 Interview: teachers and R&D staff (8 persons)14.45–15.30 Interview of students (3 persons)

– 2. Finnish School of SME Business Administration13.00–13.30 Presentation: Quality assurance of the School of SME Business Administration (1 person)13.30–14.45 Interview: teachers and R&D staff (5 persons)14.45–15.30 Interview of students (4 persons)16.00–18.00 Audit Group’s own Meeting

Third Day of the Visit� �� MayThird Day of the Visit� �� MayThird Day of the Visit� �� MayThird Day of the Visit� �� MayThird Day of the Visit� �� May

9.00–10.15 Thematic Discussions (in parallel groups):– Quality assurance of the Adult Education (8 persons)– Quality assurance of R&D (8 persons)

10.30-11.15 Thematic Discussion: Quality assurance of the Seinäjoki Polytechnic Library (7 persons)11.30-13.15 Lunch and ending discussion with the SeAMK’s leadership

��

APPENDIX �:Figure of Seinäjoki Municipal Joint Authorityfor Education

ABSTRACT

Published byThe Finnish Higher Education Evaluation Council FINHEEC

Name of publicationAudit of the quality assurance system of Seinäjoki Polytechnic

AuthorsInkeri Papp, Des Carolan, Gunnar Handal, Eric Lindesjöö, Reetta Marttinen,Veera Mustonen & Kati Isoaho

AbstractCarried out by FINHEEC, the objective of the audit of the quality assurance system of SeinäjokiPolytechnic (SeAMK) was– to evaluate how the HEI’s quality assurance system works as a quality management and

improvement tool;– to evaluate the quality assurance system in terms of the 10 previously determined audit criteria

and prepare a statement as to whether the HEI should pass the audit or whether its qualityassurance system required re-audit;

– to support the development of the HEI by providing feedback on the strengths and developmentchallenges of the quality assurance system;

– to demonstrate the functioning and credibility of the quality assurance system to the HEI’s co-operation partners, through the description and evaluation of the HEI’s quality assurance system

The audit was based on the material prepared and delivered in advance by SeAMK, as well as on theaudit visit that took place between 22 and 24 May 2006. The audit was performed by an internationalaudit group in English. In its report, the audit group makes the following developmentrecommendations to SeAMK:– SeAMK needs to develop a clear policy and strategy for its quality assurance system. The quality

policy should set out the scope of the quality assurance system, responsibilities for itsimplementation and review and a clear indication of the processes that support the system.

– In respect of the activities, actors and responsibilities, SeAMK should examine its quality assurancestructure, the various actors and the related activities and processes. The individual qualityassurance procedures should be organised into a systematised quality assurance system that includesroutines for follow-up, such as RADAR Logic .

– There is a need for the systematic institutional quality manual or a comparable document. In themanual it would be possible to define quality policy, processes and responsibilities in one singledocument instead of a wide and complicated spectrum of quality-related documentation.

– The student’s role as partners in the quality assurance of SeAMK needs development. Instead ofmerely informing, they should also participate more actively in setting the targets of education andits quality assurance, as well as of the support and other services important to them. Studentsshould also be integrated into the analyses of the information produced by the quality assurancesystem. SeAMK and the student union SAMO should set about developing mechanisms to ensurethat students‘ role and feedback is extended and integrated into the quality assurance system moreeffectively.

– The interfaces between the quality assurance system, management and steering should be clarified.– The internal peer review should be performed regularly for all the schools and other units at

SeAMK. They might also be supplemented by external experts. The systematic development workbetween the schools and other units after information has been gathered through the qualityassurance system could be enhanced. Such discussions could provide synergy even though theresponsibility for quality assurance is separate in each operating unit.

– The management of follow-up data and information should be further developed throughsystemising the reporting more uniformly (data and information processing system).

– The quality assurance and evaluation competences of SeAMK staff should be continuouslydeveloped. This should aim particularly at developing competence for information analysis andidentifying the results of the findings. Furthermore, this might help in identification ofconsequences of the findings.

The audit group finds that SeAMK does not meet the criteria set by FINHEEC on quality assurancesystems and the quality assurance of its basic tasks. Therefore, the audit group recommended toFINHEEC that SeAMK be subject to a re-audit in two years time. In its meeting of 24 October 2006,FINHEEC decided to require a re-audit in accordance with the proposal by the audit group.

KeywordsEvaluation, audit, quality assurance system, quality, higher education institutions,polytechnic, re-audit

TIIVISTELMÄ

JulkaisijaKorkeakoulujen arviointineuvosto

Julkaisun nimiSeinäjoen ammattikorkeakoulun laadunvarmistusjärjestelmän auditointi

TekijätInkeri Papp, Des Carolan, Gunnar Handal, Eric Lindesjöö, Reetta Marttinen,Veera Mustonen & Kati Isoaho

TiivistelmäKorkeakoulujen arviointineuvoston toteuttaman Seinäjoen ammattikorkeakoulun (SeAMK) laadun-varmistusjärjestelmän auditoinnin tavoitteena oli:– arvioida, miten korkeakoulun laadunvarmistusjärjestelmä toimii laadunhallinnan ja kehittämisen

välineenä– arvioida laadunvarmistusjärjestelmää suhteessa ennalta ilmoitettuihin 10 auditointikohteeseen ja

tehdä esitys siitä, läpäiseekö korkeakoulu auditoinnin vai edellyttääkö laadunvarmistusjärjestelmäuusinta-auditointia

– tukea korkeakoulun kehittämistä antamalla palautetta laadunvarmistusjärjestelmän vahvuuksista jakehittämiskohteista

– osoittaa korkeakoulun laadunvarmistusjärjestelmän kuvauksen ja arvioinnin avulla korkeakoulunyhteistyökumppaneille laadunvarmistusjärjestelmän toimivuus ja luotettavuus.

Auditointi perustui SeAMK:n ennalta toimittamaan auditointiaineistoon ja auditointivierailuun, jokatehtiin SeAMK:un 22.–24.5.2006. Auditoinnin toteutti kansainvälinen auditointiryhmä englannin kie-lellä. Auditointiryhmä esittää raportissaan SeAMK:lle seuraavat kehittämissuositukset:– SeAMK:n tulee laatia selkeä laadunvarmistuspolitiikka ja -strategia. Laatupolitiikassa on määriteltä-

vä laadunvarmistusjärjestelmän kattavuus, sen toteutukseen ja seurantaan liittyvät vastuualueet sekäne prosessit, jotka tukevat järjestelmää.

– SeAMK:n tulee tarkastella toiminnan, toimijoiden ja vastuualueiden osalta oman laadunvarmistuk-sensa rakennetta sekä sen eri toimijoita ja näiden toimintaa ja prosesseja. Erilliset laadunvarmen-nusmenettelyt on koottava yhtenäiseksi ja systemaattiseksi laadunvarmistusjärjestelmäksi, jokakattaa myös seurantarutiinit (esim. TUTKA-logiikka).

– SeAMK tarvitsee myös systemaattisen koko korkeakoulua koskevan laatukäsikirjan tai vastaavanasiakirjan. Käsikirjassa olisi mahdollista määritellä laatupolitiikka, sen prosessit ja vastuualueetyhdessä asiakirjassa tämänhetkisen laajan ja monimutkaisen laatuaiheisen dokumentaation sijasta.

– SeAMK:n opiskelijoiden kumppanuusroolia laadunvarmistuksessa on syytä kehittää. Sen sijaan ettäopiskelijat vain antavat tietoa, heidän tulisi myös aktiivisemmin osallistua opetuksen ja sitä koske-van laadunvarmistuksen sekä itselleen tärkeiden tuki- ja muiden palveluiden tavoitteiden asettami-seen. Opiskelijat tulisi myös ottaa mukaan laadunvarmistusjärjestelmän tuottaman tiedon analy-sointiin. SeAMK:n ja opiskelijayhdistys SAMO:n pitää yhdessä pohtia kehittämistapoja, joillavoidaan varmistaa, että opiskelijoiden rooli ja heiltä tuleva palaute tulee tehokkaammin sisällyte-tyksi laadunvarmistusjärjestelmään.

– Laadunvarmistusjärjestelmän, hallinnon ja toiminnan johtamisen rajapinnat tulisi selkeyttää.– Sisäisiä vertaisarviointeja olisi tehtävä säännöllisesti kaikissa SeAMK:n opetusta antavissa yksiköissä

ja muissa yksiköissä. Niitä voisi myös täydentää ulkopuolisilla asiantuntijoilla. Laadunvarmistusjär-jestelmän kautta saadun tiedon kokoamisen jälkeistä opetusta antavien yksiköiden ja muidenyksiköiden systemaattista kehitystyötä tulee vahvistaa. Näistä keskusteluista voisi koitua syner-giaetuja, vaikka laadunvarmistustyön vastuu onkin erillinen jokaisella toimintayksiköllä.

– Seurantatiedon ja muun tiedon hallintaa olisi kehitettävä edelleen systematisoimalla ja yhdenmu-kaistamalla raportointia (tietojenkäsittelyjärjestelmät).

– SeAMK:n henkilöstön laadunvarmistus- ja arviointiosaamista tulee jatkuvasti kehittää. Tämäntoiminnan erityisenä tavoitteena on oltava tietojen analysointitaitojen ja oleellisten tulostentunnistamistaitojen kehittäminen. Tämä voisi auttaa myös tutkimustulosten seurausten tunnista-misessa.

Auditointiryhmän mukaan Seinäjoen ammattikorkeakoulu ei täytä Korkeakoulujen arviointineuvos-ton asettamia kriteereitä laadunvarmistusjärjestelmän kokonaisuudelle ja perustehtävien laadunvarmis-tukselle. Tällä perusteella auditointiryhmä esitti Korkeakoulujen arviointineuvostolle, että Seinäjoenammattikorkeakoululta edellytetään uusinta-auditointia kahden vuoden kuluttua. Arviointineuvostopäätti kokouksessaan 24.10.2006 edellyttää uusinta-auditointia auditointiryhmän esityksen mukaisesti.

AvainsanatArviointi, auditointi, laadunvarmistusjärjestelmä, laatu, korkeakoulut, ammattikorkeakoulu,uusinta-auditointi

SAMMANDRAG

UtgivareRådet för utvärdering av högskolorna

PublikationAuditering av kvalitetssäkringssystemet vid Seinäjoen ammattikorkeakoulu

FörfattareInkeri Papp, Des Carolan, Gunnar Handal, Eric Lindesjöö, Reetta Marttinen,Veera Mustonen & Kati Isoaho

SammandragMålet för den auditering av kvalitetssäkringssystemet vid Seinäjoen ammattikorkeakoulu (SeAMK) somutfördes av Rådet för utvärdering av högskolorna var att– utvärdera hur väl högskolans kvalitetssäkringssystem fungerar som redskap för kvalitetsledning och

utveckling– utvärdera kvalitetssäkringssystemet i förhållande till de 10 auditeringsobjekt som angetts på

förhand och göra en framställan om huruvida högskolans kvalitetssäkringssystem ska bli godkänt iauditeringen eller genomgå en ny auditering

– stödja utvecklingen av högskolan genom att ge respons på kvalitetssäkringssystemets starka sidoroch utvecklingsområden

– med hjälp av beskrivningen och utvärderingen av högskolans kvalitetssäkringssystem visa förhögskolans samarbetsparter hur väl systemet fungerar och hur tillförlitligt det är.

Auditeringen baserade sig på auditeringsmaterial som yrkeshögskolan på förhand lämnat in och på ettauditeringsbesök som ägde rum 22.–24.5.2006. Auditeringen utfördes på engelska av en internationellauditeringsgrupp. Auditeringsgruppen lägger i sin rapport fram följande utvecklingsrekommendationerför SeAMK:– SeAMK behöver utveckla en klar policy och strategi för sitt kvalitetssäkringssystem. Kvalitets-

policyn bör ange omfattningen på kvalitetssäkringssystemet, ansvaret för hur det införs ochutvärderas och klart visa vilka processer som stöder systemet.

– När det gäller verksamhet, aktörer och ansvar bör SeAMK undersöka sin kvalitetssäkringsstruktur,olika aktörer och anslutande verksamhet och processer. De enskilda kvalitetssäkringsprocedurernabör organiseras i ett systematiskt kvalitetssäkringssystem som innefattar rutiner för uppföljning,såsom RADAR Logic.

– Yrkeshögskolan behöver en systematisk kvalitetsguide eller något motsvarande dokument. I guidenkan kvalitetspolicy, processer och ansvar definieras i ett enda dokument i stället för att man har enomfattande och komplicerad kvalitetsrelaterad dokumentation.

– De studerandes roll som parter i kvalitetssäkringen vid SeAMK bör utvecklas. I stället för attenbart ge information bör de också aktivare delta i uppställandet av målen för utbildningen ochsäkrandet av utbildningens kvalitet, liksom även stödtjänsterna och andra tjänster av betydelse fördem. De studerande bör också kunna delta i analyser av den information som kvalitetssäkrings-systemet producerar. SeAMK och de studerandes förbund SAMOK bör starta utvecklandet avmekanismer för att se till att de studerandes roll och feedback utsträcks till och innefattas i kvali-tetssäkringssystemet på ett effektivare sätt.

– Kontaktytorna mellan kvalitetssäkringssystemet, ledningen och styrningen bör klarläggas.– Intern peer review bör utföras regelbundet för alla skolor och andra enheter vid SeAMK. De kan

också kompletteras med utomstående experter. Det systematiska utvecklingsarbetet mellanskolorna och andra enheter efter det att informationen har samlats in via kvalitetssäkringssystemetkunde effektiviseras. Sådana diskussioner kan ge synergi även om ansvaret för kvalitetssäkringen ärolika i varje verksamhetsenhet.

– Hanteringen av uppföljningsdata och information bör vidareutvecklas genom att rapporteringengörs med enhetlig (informationshanteringssystem).

– Personalens kompetens i fråga om kvalitetssäkring och utvärdering bör kontinuerligt utvecklas.Särskild uppmärksamhet bör ägnas kompetensutveckling i informationsanalys och identifiering avresultaten. Detta kan också vara till hjälp för att man skall se konsekvenserna av resultaten.

Enligt auditeringsgruppen uppfyller Seinäjoen ammattikorkeakoulu inte de kriterier som Rådet förutvärdering av högskolorna har uppställt när det gäller kvalitetssäkringssystemet som helhet och kvali-tetssäkringen för de grundläggande uppgifterna. På grundval av detta föreslog auditeringsgruppen förRådet för utvärdering av högskolorna att Seinäjoen ammattikorkeakoulu skall genomgå en ny audite-ring om två år. Utvärderingsrådet beslöt vid sitt möte 24.10.2006 att förutsätta ny auditering i en-lighet med auditeringsgruppens förslag.

NyckelordUtvärdering, auditering, kvalitetssäkringssystem, kvalitet, högskolor, yrkeshögskola,ny auditering

PUBLICATIONS OF THE FINNISH HIGHER EDUCATION EVALUATION COUNCILP. B. 133, 00171 HELSINKI, Finland • Tel. +358-9-1607 6913 • Fax +358-9-1607 6911 • www.finheec.fi

1:2000 Lehtinen, E., Kess, P., Ståhle, P. & Urponen, K.: Tampereen yliopiston opetuksen arviointi2:2000 Cohen, B., Jung, K. & Valjakka, T.: From Academy of Fine Arts to University. Same name, wider ambitions3:2000 Goddard, J., Moses, I., Teichler, U., Virtanen, I. & West, P.: External Engagement and Institutional Adjustment: An Evaluation

of the University of Turku4:2000 Almefelt, P., Kekäle, T., Malm, K., Miikkulainen, L. & Pehu-Voima, S.: Audit of Quality Work. Swedish Polytechnic, Finland5:2000 Harlio, R., Harvey, L., Mansikkamäki. J., Miikkulainen, L. & Pehu-Voima, S.: Audit of Quality Work. Central Ostrobothnia

Polytechnic6:2000 Moitus, S. (toim.): Yliopistokoulutuksen laatuyksiköt 2001–20037:2000 Liuhanen, A.-M. (toim.): Neljä aikuiskoulutuksen laatuyliopistoa 2001–20038:2000 Hara, V. , Hyvönen, R. , Myers, D. & Kangasniemi, J. (Eds.): Evaluation of Education for the Information Industry9:2000 Jussila, J. & Saari, S. (Eds.): Teacher Education as a Future-moulding Factor. International Evaluation of Teacher Education

in Finnish Universities10:2000 Lämsä, A. & Saari, S. (toim.): Portfoliosta koulutuksen kehittämiseen. Ammatillisen opettajankoulutuksen arviointi11:2000 Korkeakoulujen arviointineuvoston toimintasuunnitelma 2000–200312:2000 Finnish Higher Education Evaluation Council Action Plan for 2000–200313:2000 Huttula, T. (toim.): Ammattikorkeakoulujen koulutuksen laatuyksiköt 200014:2000 Gordon, C., Knodt, G., Lundin, R., Oger, O. & Shenton, G.: Hanken in European Comparison. EQUIS Evaluation Report15:2000 Almefelt, P., Kekäle, T., Malm, K., Miikkulainen, L. & Kangasniemi, J.: Audit of Quality Work. Satakunta Polytechnic16:2000 Kells, H.R., Lindqvist, O. V. & Premfors, R.: Follow-up Evaluation of the University of Vaasa. Challenges of a small regional

university17:2000 Mansikkamäki, J., Kekäle, T., Miikkulainen, L. , Stone, J., Tolppi, V.-M. & Kangasniemi, J.: Audit of Quality Work. Tampere

Polytechnic18:2000 Baran, H., Gladrow, W. , Klaudy, K. , Locher, J. P. , Toivakka, P. & Moitus, S.: Evaluation of Education and Research in

Slavonic and Baltic Studies19:2000 Harlio, R. , Kekäle, T. , Miikkulainen, L. & Kangasniemi, J.: Laatutyön auditointi. Kymenlaakson ammattikorkeakoulu20:2000 Mansikkamäki, J., Kekäle, T., Kähkönen, J., Miikkulainen, L., Mäki, M. & Kangasniemi, J.: Laatutyön auditointi. Pohjois-

Savon ammattikorkeakoulu21:2000 Almefelt, P., Kantola, J., Kekäle, T., Papp, I., Manninen, J. & Karppanen, T.: Audit of Quality Work. South Carelia Polytechnic1:2001 Valtonen, H.: Oppimisen arviointi Sibelius-Akatemiassa2:2001 Laine, 1., Kilpinen, A., Lajunen, L., Pennanen, J., Stenius, M., Uronen, P. & Kekäle, T.: Maanpuolustuskorkeakoulun arviointi3:2001 Vähäpassi, A. (toim.): Erikoistumisopintojen akkreditointi4:2001 Baran, H., Gladrow, W. , Klaudy, K. , Locher, J. P. , Toivakka, P. & Moitus, S.: |kspertiza obrazowaniq i nau^no-

issledowatelxskoj raboty w oblasti slawistiki i baltistiki (Ekspertiza obrazovanija i nauc’´no-issledovatelskoj raboty v oblasti slavistiki i baltistiki)

5:2001 Kinnunen, J.: Korkeakoulujen alueellisen vaikuttavuuden arviointi. Kriteerejä vuorovaikutteisuuden arvottamiselle6:2001 Löfström, E.: Benchmarking korkeakoulujen kieltenopetuksen kehittämisessä7:2001 Kaartinen-Koutaniemi, M.: Korkeakouluopiskelijoiden harjoittelun kehittäminen. Helsingin yliopiston, Diakonia-ammatti-

korkeakoulun ja Lahden ammattikorkeakoulun benchmarking-projekti8:2001 Huttula, T. (toim.): Ammattikorkeakoulujen aluekehitysvaikutuksen huippuyksiköt 20019:2001 Welander, C. (red.): Den synliga yrkeshögskolan. Ålands yrkeshögskola.10:2001 Valtonen, H.: Learning Assessment at the Sibelius Academy11:2001 Ponkala, O. (toim.): Terveysalan korkeakoulutuksen arvioinnin seuranta12:2001 Miettinen, A. & Pajarre, E.: Tuotantotalouden koulutuksen arvioinnin seuranta13:2001 Moitus, S., Huttu, K., Isohanni, I., Lerkkanen, J., Mielityinen, I., Talvi, U., Uusi-Rauva, E. & Vuorinen, R.: Opintojen ohjauksen

arviointi korkeakouluissa14:2001 Fonselius, J., Hakala, M.K. & Holm, K. : Evaluation of Mechanical Engineering Education at Universities and Polytechnics15:2001 Kekäle, T. (ed.): A Human Vision with Higher Education Perspective.Institutional Evaluation of the Humanistic Polytechnic1:2002 Kantola, I. (toim.): Ammattikorkeakoulun jatkotutkinnon kokeilulupahakemusten arviointi2:2002 Kallio, E.: Yksilöllisiä heijastuksia. Toimiiko yliopisto-opetuksen paikallinen itsearviointi?3:2002 Raivola, R., Himberg, T., Lappalainen, A., Mustonen, K. & Varmola, T.: Monta tietä maisteriksi. Yliopistojen maisteriohjelmien

arviointi4:2002 Nurmela-Antikainen, M., Ropo, E., Sava, I. & Skinnari, S.: Kokonaisvaltainen opettajuus. Steinerpedagogisen opettajan-

koulutuksen arviointi5:2002 Toikka, M. & Hakkarainen, S.: Opintojen ohjauksen benchmarking tekniikan alan koulutusohjelmissa. Kymenlaakson,

Mikkelin ja Pohjois-Savon ammattikorkeakoulut6:2002 Kess, P., Hulkko, K., Jussila, M., Kallio, U., Larsen, S. , Pohjolainen,T. & Seppälä, K.: Suomen avoin yliopisto. Avoimen

yliopisto-opetuksen arviointiraportti7:2002 Rantanen, T., Ellä, H., Engblom, L.-Å., Heinonen, J., Laaksovirta, T., Pohjanpalo, L., Rajamäki, T.& Woodman, J.: Evaluation of

Media and Communication Studies in Higher Education in Finland8:2002 Katajamäki, H., Artima, E., Hannelin, M., Kinnunen, J., Lyytinen, H. K., Oikari, A. & Tenhunen, M.-L.: Mahdollinen

korkeakouluyhteisö. Lahden korkeakouluyksiköiden alueellisen vaikuttavuuden arviointi9:2002 Kekäle, T. & Scheele, J.P: With care. Institutional Evaluation of the Diaconia Polytechnic10:2002 Härkönen, A., Juntunen, K. & Pyykkönen, E.-L. : Kajaanin ammattikorkeakoulun yrityspalveluiden benchmarking11:2002 Katajamäki, H. (toim.): Ammattikorkeakoulut alueidensa kehittäjinä.Näkökulmia ammattikorkeakoulujen aluekehitys-

tehtävän toteutukseen12:2002 Huttula, T. (toim.): Ammattikorkeakoulujen koulutuksen laatuyksiköt 2002–200313:2002 Hämäläinen, K. & Kaartinen-Koutaniemi, M. (toim.): Benchmarking korkeakoulujen kehittämisvälineenä14:2002 Ylipulli-Kairala, K. & Lohiniva, V. (eds.): Development of Supervised Practice in Nurse Education. Oulu and Rovaniemi

Polytechnics15:2002 Löfström, E., Kantelinen, R., Johnson, E., Huhta, M., Luoma, M., Nikko, T., Korhonen, A., Penttilä, J., Jakobsson, M.

& Miikkulainen, L.: Ammattikorkeakoulun kieltenopetus tienhaarassa. Kieltenopetuksen arviointi Helsingin ja Keski-Pohjanmaan ammattikorkeakouluissa

16:2002 Davies, L., Hietala, H., Kolehmainen, S., Parjanen, M. & Welander, C.: Audit of Quality Work. Vaasa Polytechnic17:2002 Sajavaara, K., Hakkarainen, K. , Henttonen, A., Niinistö, K., Pakkanen, T. , Piilonen, A.-R. & Moitus, S.: Yliopistojen opiskelija-

valintojen arviointi18:2002 Tuomi, O. & Pakkanen, P.: Towards Excellence in Teaching. Evaluation of the Quality of Education and the Degree

Programmes in the University of Helsinki1:2003 Sarja, A., Atkin, B. & Holm, K.: Evaluation of Civil Engineering Education at Universities and Polytechnics2:2003 Ursin, J. (toim.): Viisi aikuiskoulutuksen laatuyliopistoa 2004–20063:2003 Hietala, H., Hintsanen, V., Kekäle, T., Lehto, E., Manninen, H. & Meklin, P.: Arktiset haasteet ja mahdollisuudet.

Rovaniemen ammattikorkeakoulun kokonaisarviointi4:2003 Varis, T. & Saari, S. (Eds.): Knowledge Society in Progress – Evaluation of the Finnish Electronic Library – FinELib5:2003 Parpala, A. & Seppälä, H. (toim.): Yliopistokoulutuksen laatuyksiköt 2004–20066:2003 Kettunen, P., Carlsson, C., Hukka, M., Hyppänen, T., Lyytinen, K., Mehtälä, M., Rissanen, R., Suviranta, L. & Mustonen, K.:

Suomalaista kilpailukykyä liiketoimintaosaamisella. Kauppatieteiden ja liiketalouden korkeakoulutuksen arviointi7:2003 Kauppi, A. & Huttula, T. (toim.): Laatua ammattikorkeakouluihin8:2003 Parjanen, M. : Amerikkalaisen opiskelija-arvioinnin soveltaminen suomalaiseen yliopistoon9:2003 Sarala, U. & Seppälä, H.: (toim.): Hämeen ammattikorkeakoulun kokonaisarviointi10:2003 Kelly‚ J., Bazsa, G. & Kladis, D.: Follow-up review of the Helsinki University of Technology11:2003 Goddard, J., Asheim, B., Cronberg, T. & Virtanen, I.: Learning Regional Engagement. A Re-evaluation of the Third Role of

Eastern Finland universities12:2003 Impiö, 1., Laiho, U.-M., Mäki, M., Salminen, H., Ruoho, K.,Toikka, M. & Vartiainen, P.: Ammattikorkeakoulut aluekehittäjinä.

Ammattikorkeakoulujen aluekehitysvaikutuksen huippuyksiköt 2003–200413:2003 Cavallé, C., de Leersnyder, J.-M., Verhaegen, P. & Nataf, J.-G. : Follow-up review of the Helsinki School of Economics. An

EQUIS re-accreditation14:2003 Kantola, I. (toim.): Harjoittelun ja työelämäprojektien benchmarking15:2003 Ala-Vähälä, T.: Hollannin peili. Ammattikorkeakoulujen master-tutkinnot ja laadunvarmistus16:2003 Goddard, J., Teichler, U., Virtanen, I., West, P. & Puukka, J.: Progressing external engagement. A re-evaluation of the third

role of the University of Turku17:2003 Baran, H., Toivakka, P. & Järvinen, J.: Slavistiikan ja baltologian koulutuksen ja tutkimuksen arvioinnin seuranta1:2004 Kekäle, T., Heikkilä, J., Jaatinen, P., Myllys, H., Piilonen, A.-R., Savola, J., Tynjälä, P. & Holm, K.: Ammattikorkeakoulujen

jatkotutkintokokeilu. Käynnistysvaiheen arviointi2:2004 Ekholm, L., Stenius, M., Huldin, H., Julkunen, I., Parkkonen, J., Löfström, E., Metsä, K.: NOVA ARCADA – Sammanhållning,

decentralisering, gränsöverskridande. Helhetsutvärdering av Arcada – Nylands svenska yrkeshögskola 20033:2004 Hautala, J.: Tietoteollisuusalan koulutuksen arvioinnin seuranta4:2004 Rauhala, P., Karjalainen, A., Lämsä, A.-M., Valkonen, A., Vänskä, A. & Seppälä, H.: Strategiasta koulutuksen laatuun.

Turun ammattikorkeakoulun kokonaisarviointi5:2004 Murto, L., Rautniemi, L., Fredriksson, K., Ikonen, S., Mäntysaari, M., Niemi, L., Paldanius, K., Parkkinen, T., Tulva, T. ,

Ylönen, F. & Saari, S.: Eettisyyttä, elastisuutta ja elämää. Yliopistojen sosiaalityön ja ammattikorkeakoulujen sosiaalialanarviointi yhteistyössä työelämän kanssa

6:2004 Ståhle, P., Hämäläinen, K., Laiho, K., Lietoila, A., Roiha, J., Weijo, U. & Seppälä, H.:Tehokas järjestelmä – elävä dialogi.Helian laatutyön auditointi

7:2004 Korkeakoulujen arviointineuvoston toimintakertomus 2000–20038:2004 Luopajärvi, T., Hauta-aho, H., Karttunen, P., Markkula, M., Mutka, U. & Seppälä, H.: Perämerenkaaren ammatti-

korkeakoulu? Kemi-Tornion ammattikorkeakoulun kokonaisarviointi9:2004 Moitus, S. & Seppälä, H.: Mitä hyötyä arvioinneista? Selvitys Korkeakoulujen arviointineuvoston 1997–2003

toteuttamien koulutusala-arviointien käytöstä10:2004 Moitus, S. & Saari, S.: Menetelmistä kehittämiseen. Korkeakoulujen arviointineuvoston arviointimenetelmät vuosina

1996–200311:2004 Pratt, J., Kekäle, T., Maassen, P., Papp, I., Perellon, J. & Uitti, M.: Equal, but Different – An Evaluation of the Postgraduate

Studies and Degrees in Polytechnics – Final Report1:2005 Niinikoski, S. (toim.): Benchmarking tutkintorakennetyön työkaluna2:2005 Ala-Vähälä, T.: Korkeakoulutuksen ulkoisen laadunvarmistuksen järjestelmät Ranskassa3:2005 Salminen, H. & Kajaste, M. (toim.): Laatua, innovatiivisuutta ja proaktiivisuutta. Ammattikorkeakoulujen koulutuksen

laatuyksiköt 2005–20064:2005 Korkeakoulujen laadunvarmistusjärjestelmien auditointi. Auditointikäsikirja vuosille 2005–20075:2005 Auditering av högskolornas kvalitetssäkringssystem. Auditeringshandbok för åren 2005–2007.1:2006 Dill, D.D., Mitra, S. K., Siggaard Jensen, H., Lehtinen, E., Mäkelä, T., Parpala, A., Pohjola, H., Ritter, M. A. & Saari, S.: PhD

Training and the Knowledge-Based Society. An Evaluation of Doctoral Education in Finland2:2006 Antikainen, E.-L., Honkonen, R., Matikka, O., Nieminen, P., Yanar, A. & Moitus, S.: Mikkelin ammattikorkeakoulun

laadunvarmistusjärjestelmän auditointi3:2006 Kekäle, T., Ilolakso, A., Katajavuori, N., Toikka, M. & Isoaho, K.: Kuopion yliopiston laadunvarmistusjärjestelmän auditointi4:2006 Audits of Quality Assurance Systems of Finnish Higher Education Institutions. Audit Manual for 2005–20075:2006 Rauhala, P., Kotila, H., Linko, L., Mulari, O., Rautonen, M. & Moitus, S.; Keski-Pohjanmaan ammattikorkeakoulun

laadunvarmistusjärjestelmän auditointi6:2006 Hämäläinen, K., Kantola, I., Marttinen, R., Meriläinen, M., Mäki, M. & Isoaho, K.: Jyväskylän ammattikorkeakoulun

laadunvarmistusjärjestelmän auditointi7:2006 Kekäläinen, H.: (toim.)Neljä aikuiskoulutuksen laatuyliopistoa 2007–20098:2006 Yliopistokoulutuksen laatuyksiköt 2007–20099:2006 Ojala, I. & Vartiainen, P.: Kolmen yliopiston opetuksen kehittämistoiminnan vaikuttavuus. Lapin yliopiston, Lappeen-

rannan teknillisen yliopiston ja Vaasan yliopiston opetuksen kehittämistoiminnan vaikuttavuuden benchmarking-arviointi10:2006 Lappalainen, M. & Luoto, L.: Opetussuunnitelmaprosessit yliopistoissa11:2006 Levänen, K., Tervonen, S., Suhonen, M. & Stigell, L.: Verkko-opintojen mitoituksen arviointi12:2006 Vuorela, P., Kallio, U., Pohjolainen, T., Sylvander, T. & Kajaste, M.; Avoimen yliopiston arvioinnin seurantaraportti13:2006 Käyhkö, R., Hakamäki, S., Kananen, M., Kavonius, V., Pirhonen, J., Puusaari, P., Kajaste, M. & Holm, K.: Uudenlaista

sankaruutta. Ammattikorkeakoulujen aluekehitysvaikutuksen huippuyksiköt 2006–200714:2006 Malm, K., Lavonius, H., Nystén, P., Santavirta, N. & Cornér, S.: Auditering av Svenska yrkeshögskolans

kvalitetssäkringssystem

Date post:	16-Jul-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Audit of the Quality Assurance System of Seinäjoki Polytechnic · 2016-06-16 · “university”...

Documents