Julianna Bálint

Szent István University

Ybl Miklós School

Dept. of Building Materials and Quality Management

Experiment with the model for quality improvement in higher

educationExperience 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

Level III TQM

Level II Management by Quality

Level I Partner oriented

operation

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.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8. Az órára felkészülten megy be

7. Naprakész és jövőbe mutatú szakmai ismeretekkelrendelkezik

5. Jól szemléltet

6. Többet ad mint a jegyzet, kiemeli a fontos dolgokat

1. A követelményeit előre és teljesíthetően adja meg

12. A barátomnak is ajánlanám, hogy ezt a tanártválassza

2. Követelésnél, számonkérésnél korrekt

3. Érdekesen, a hallgatók f igyelmét lekötve adja elő atananyagot

10. Kapcsolatot tud teremteni a hallgatókal

11. Van pedagógiai érzéke

4. Érthető, követhető, jegyzetelhető

9. Elérhető a hallgatók számára

Átlagos osztályzat és fontosság

Fontosság

Átlag

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

A legkevésbé teljesülő elvárások a tanszékvezetők szerint:

Elvárás Tanszék vezetők Felső vezetőkteljesülés fontosság teljesülés fontosság

1. 3 évenként tanterv revízió 28 84 41 842. Jövőkép 29 92 43 983. 2 órán belüli értekezlet 32 83 29 834. Működő eszközgazdálkodás 33 74 42 835. Email használata 34 88 38 856. Kevesebb bürokrácia 35 71 48 1007. Kari stratégiai fejlesztési terv 39 85 39 838. A szakok közötti jobb

együttműködés elősegítése40 80 47 93

9. Lobbizás mindenkiért 40 84 73 9310. Nagyobb hajlandóság a

változásokra42 80 52 90

A felső vezetők elvárásai a tanszékvezetők felé

főigazgató 0 25 50 75 100%1. Információ áramlás, láncolat Mennyire teljesül? Mennyire tartja fontosnak a teljesülését?2. Gazdálkodás (belső költségvetés év elején, majd

aktualizálás) Mennyire teljesül? Mennyire tartja fontosnak a teljesülését?3. A tanszék helye a világban (állandó értékelés Mo.,

Kárpátmedence, Európa) Mennyire teljesül? Mennyire tartja fontosnak a teljesülését?4. Tanszéképítés Mennyire teljesül? Mennyire tartja fontosnak a teljesülését?5. Amit még hozzátenne

Mennyire teljesül? Mennyire tartja fontosnak a teljesülését?

16

Internships 2000

Self-assessment based on students’ opinions

• average satisfaction of students 75,4 %

• their opportunities for studying and acquiring experience 81,4 %

• utilization of their time when employed 78,8%

• personal satisfaction 78,6%

• satisfaction of the companies 72,5%

• organization of the internship 77,0%

• possibility for independent work 64,7%

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