Julianna Bálint Szent István University Ybl Miklós School Dept. of Building Materials and Quality Management Experiment with the model for quality improvement in higher education Experience from a pilot project

2  Every person with a high-school degree can participate in higher education, the training needs to be modified: choice of content and timing, development of the methodological toolkit;  Mass education does not necessarily mean a decrease in quality: strengthening and making systematic the quality improvement activity;  Life-long learning with market participants; Necessary change in attitude

3 Striving to achieve an education satisfying costumers’ (partners’) need of having excellence in quality Involvement, empowerment, training of personnel Continuous improvement, development Dynamic management with a new style Process-oriented operation as an organization: units related to each other and cooperating, related processes. The building blocks of the operation of an educational institution

4 A quality model for higher education

5 Partner-oriented operation: Common thinking on why we are, where we want to go, and how we want to do it.  analyse the situation of the institution  develop methods  determine what needs to be improved  a member of staff in the roles of external advisor and internal coordinator. Objectives of the project

6 1. What are we like? 2. Who are our most important partners? 3. What are their requirements and what do they think of us? 4. What are our strengths, and what is it we need to improve? Partner-oriented operation

7 Analyses 0. Assessment of the situation of the institution 1. Analyse the organizational culture. 2. Analyse the operation of the Registar’s Office. Analyse the opinions regarding its operation. 3. Analyse the operation of the Service Unit. Analyse the opinions regarding its operation. 4. SWOT analysis in the Departments and at the Registar’s Office.

8 Analyses 1. Students 1. Opinions of first year students about the conditions of registration and their experience with the start of the year. 2. Students’ evaluation of the professors 3. Assessing the teaching of building materials through the knowledge of the students. 4. Opinion of the Management majors about their major. 5. Self assessment of students’ internships. 6. Opinion of finishing students about the program. 7. Opinion of graduates.

9 2. Empoyees 1. Analyse workers’ satisfaction. 2. Opinions on managerial behaviour. 3. Executives’ requirements towards heads of departments and department heads’ requirements towards management; how far were these satisfied? Analyses

10 3. „Suppliers” 1. High-schools’ requirements and opinions, requirements of the school. 4. Employers 1. Opinions of the chairs of Graduation Committees. 2. Firms’ requirements and opinion. Analyses

11 Methods and tools used  Inform, ask for feedback, personal communication ;  Teamwork;  Brain-storming;  Prepare and use questionnaires;  Interview;  KJS (affinity diagram);  Cause and effect analysis (fishbone diagram);  SWOT analysis;  Rating, ranking;  Statistical;  Displaying the results of the analysis.

Summary of students’ evaluation of professors

13 1. Executives’ requirements towards department heads; 2. Department heads’ requirements towards management; 3. Fulfilment of executives’ requirements by executives and departments; 4. Comparison of opinions; 5. Fulfilment of heads’ requirements by executives and departments; 6. Comparison of opinions; 7. Determining what needs to be improved. Requirements of the management

16 Internships 2000 Self-assessment based on students’ opinions average satisfaction of students75,4 % their opportunities for studying and acquiring experience 81,4 % utilization of their time when employed78,8% personal satisfaction78,6% satisfaction of the companies 72,5% organization of the internship 77,0% possibility for independent work64,7%

17 Analysis of the opinions of the employing firms In-depth interview with managers 1. Information on the company: activity, size, field of operation. 2. What tasks and assignments are our graduates employed to perform? 3. What are the strengths and weaknesses of our graduates? 4. How is the contact kept between the firm and the faculty? 5. How can the cooperation be improved and developed, what forms should it take, who should the contact person be?

18  How long does the process of developing a quality- oriented way of thinking take?  How long does it take for the quality-oriented way of thinking inside people’s mind to be reflected in their actions?  How long does it take for the quality-oriented actions to become daily routine? The key success factors

19 0. Assessment of the situation of the institution 1. Analyse the operation of the Registar’s Office. Improvement in the RO’s operation. New leader, committed to quality-related activities. 2. Analyse the opinions on the operation of the Service Unit. Initiating a reorganization of the Service Unit. 3. Analyse the opinions on the departments’ operation. Initiating changes at certain departments. Results

20 1. Students 1. Students’ evaluation of faculty. Faculty is faced with the opinions. Written procedure developed. 2. Opinions of first year students Action by the president for precise statement and circulation of the course requirements. 3. Assessing the teaching of building materials through the knowledge of the students. New notes for practice sessions. Increase in the requirements during the year. 4. Self-assessment of students’ internships. Minor changes in the organization of internships. Results

21 2. Employees Analyse workers’ satisfaction Minor changes in a couple of areas. Results

22 3. Suppliers 1. Requirements and opinions of high-schools; Complete reform of the open day. New Students’ manual and Course information booklet. 4. Employers Opinions of the chairs of Graduation Committees on finishing students; Progress towards honest revelation of opinions. Results

Absolute support and commitment of the executives Facts, data and tools for executives Development of appropriate methods of analysis and tools of measurement. Achieved improvements Tasks performed with the guidance and participation of the quality officer The Ministry of Education – the principal – makes use of the experience of the pilot project Quality management training for every student Successes

24 Failures  Involvement of departments and workers remains inadequate.  At the institutional level, getting to know and starting to use the results of the project is a slow process.

25 1. Strengthening the contact between the Mathematics Department and the other departments. Problem solving teamwork. 2. Analysis of the performance of the system of course credits. Activities for 2003