0

SQT Training Ltd

October 2014

1

Table of Contents

Introduction 2

Review of Quality Assurance Structures 3

Objective 1: Public Confidence 5

Objective 2: Strategic Planning and Governance 9

Objective 3: Quality Assurance 13

Element 1: Policy and Procedures for Quality Assurance 13

Element 2: Approval, Monitoring and Periodic Review of Programmes and Awards 16

Element 3: Assessment of Students 18

Element 4: Quality Assurance of Teaching Staff 20

Element 5: Learning Resources and Student Support 22

Element 6: Information Systems 24

Element 7: Public Information 25

Objective 4: Qualifications Framework, Access, Transfer & Progression 26

Objective 6: Recommendations for Enhancement 28

APPENDIX 29

2

Introduction

This report seeks to outline the progress made by SQT Training Ltd (hereafter SQT) on the actions

arising from its Institutional Review which was undertaken by HETAC (now QQI) in May 2012. The

organisation remains fully committed to embracing the conditions and recommendations set out in

the final report of the Expert Panel and have been thorough and reflective in their approach to

fulfilling the actions outlined in the implementation plan which was provided to QQI in October

2013.

The panel made a total of 5 commendations, 2 conditions and 22 recommendations in relation to

the five objectives of the review. The objectives related to:

1. Public Confidence

2. Strategic Planning and Governance

3. Quality Assurance

4. Qualifications Framework, Access, Transfer and Progression

5. Recommendations for Enhancement

Below is a summary of progress with respect to both the conditions and recommendations.

Objective No. Condition Recommendation TOTAL Complete In-Progress

TOTAL

#1 Public Confidence 1 4 5 4 1 5

#2 Strategic Planning and Governance

3 3 3 3

#3 Quality Assurance 14 14 12 2 14

#4 Qualifications Framework, Access, Transfer & Progression

1 1 1 1

#6 Recommendations for Enhancement

1 1 1 1

TOTAL 2 22 24 21 3 24

Given the overlap in actions and in the interest of clarity and conciseness some of the

recommendations have been combined and progress has been reported accordingly.

3

Review of Quality Assurance Structures

Many of the recommendations made by the Expert Panel and the consequential actions set out in

the Implementation Plan, involved a review and update of SQT’s Quality Assurance System. This

section seeks to provide an overview of the revised QA system in an effort to set the context for the

remainder of this report.

SQT invested considerable time in undertaking a root and branch review and subsequent update of

its Quality Assurance System. In broad terms, the outcome of this review culminated in the

following:

A new Quality Assurance Manual (hereafter QA manual) which was submitted to QQI in

December 2013 following approval by SQT’s Academic Council on 6th December 2013. The

document is a total revision of that which was previously compiled for submission to HETAC

in seeking accreditation for SQT Training Ltd. The original manual was compiled using an

overarching quality framework which aimed to accommodate the provision of programmes

accredited by a range of awarding bodies, each of which imposed distinct requirements on

providers. As the number of awarding bodies have grown, it was found that the layout of the

original QA manual was complex, particularly when used by external stakeholders. The

revised document has been simplified to incorporate the delivery of QQI HET (Higher

Education & Training) programmes only. Additional documents have been developed to

satisfy the requirements of the other awarding bodies.

The framework of the manual has been organised around seven chapters based on the

Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area, Part

one. Supporting documents provided by QQI and other relevant organisations and bodies

have been utilised to ensure necessary compliance across the entire framework. Such

documents are referenced at the beginning of each section.

A revised set of Internal work instructions and associated forms, checklists, specifications

and reports safeguard the implementation of all policies and procedures.

A Student and Tutor handbook has been developed to provide relevant information for

learners and other stakeholders. Such documents are made available via SQT’s Moodle VLE,

which was implemented in late 2013 and is accessible by Tutors and all learners enrolled on

QQI HET programmes.

An Internal Audit system which is fit for purpose and ultimately ensures that all policies,

procedures and related documentation are monitored on an ongoing basis and formally

reviewed at least once per year. Each of the 7 elements of the quality system are audited

4

once per year, this system has been operational since January 2014. To date, five major

audits have taken place and the remaining two are scheduled to take place over the coming

weeks.

5

Objective 1: Public Confidence

“To enhance public confidence in the quality of education and training provided by the College and

the standards of the awards made”.

Condition 1: In its publicity material (e.g. in its prospectus/website etc.) and information to

stakeholders, SQT must make explicit the Named Award, its Type, its Title and its Level.

Status: COMPLETE

Following the Institutional Review, SQT amended its publicity material and information to its

stakeholders so that all information now explicitly states the Named Award, its Type, its Title and its

Level. The organisation strives to ensure consistency and clarity across all documentation. Each

course brochure maintains a standard format as follows:

Awarding Body

Programme Title

Award Type and Code

Award Title (Named Award)

Award Level

Credits

Background

Programme Learning Outcomes

Who Should Attend

Module Learning Outcomes

Teaching Approach and Supports Provided

Assessment (including breakdown of assessment)

Course Tutor

Testimonials

Course Times

Course Cost

A comprehensive work instruction has also been developed (WI-045 Brochure Updates) to safeguard

updates and ensure compliance with QQI standards and protocols as well as other legal and

statutory obligations.

6

Recommendation 1: While SQT has begun to establish links with other organisations, especially

through its membership of Independent Providers of Higher Education (IPHE), and has tentative or

tangential links with other HEIs in Ireland and abroad, the panel recommends that it establishes

formal links with providers of similar programmes in Europe and elsewhere for the purpose of

programme benchmarking.

Status: In Progress – Advanced Stage

Whilst SQT are in agreement with this recommendation and recognise the benefits associated with

benchmarking, it has faced difficulties in finding comparable data sources with which to accurately

benchmark its programmes. At present, benchmarking is carried out through informal feedback

from stakeholders such as employers, External Examiner report feedback and internal review and

comparisons of assessment data. Ongoing work is planned in relation to benchmarking. Progress and

relevant actions will be monitored by the Programmed Board and Academic Council.

In addition, important new links and associations have been developed in the last year as follows:

SQT have recently joined HECA (Higher Education Colleges Association). This provides the

opportunity to discuss common concerns and issues with other HECA member institutions

and is open to the possibility of future collaborations based on mutually beneficial

initiatives.

Éamon O’Béarra, (Programme Leader of the Certificate in Process Engineering1) is engaged

as a Project Supervisor on the Atlantic University Alliance (AUA) Lean Diploma programme, a

one-year, part-time Diploma programme. The AUA is a consortium of three Universities: NUI

Galway, University of Limerick and University College Cork.

A link has also been developed with the UCD/Mater Lean Academy. Two of SQT’s Lean Six

Sigma Tutors are currently co-presenting on the new UCD Accredited Green Belt programme

for the Healthcare sector.

SQT will remain dedicated to fostering these links in the context of its strategic objectives and is

committed to pursuing new associations on a phased basis, as appropriate. This is a standing agenda

item on all Programme Board and Academic Council meetings.

1 QQI Accredited Special Purpose Award, Level 7 (10 ECTS Credits)

7

Recommendation 2: SQT should review its policy of providing validated and non-validated

versions of the Lean Six Sigma programmes in tandem. Some 1.8% of SQT's learners were

registered on un-validated Lean Six Sigma programmes in 2011. While this is not a significant

number in relation to the overall operation, it represents 46% of those registered on Lean Six

Sigma Programmes.

Status: COMPLETE

Recommendation 3: The panel recommends that SQT, in its publicity information, makes clear the

distinction between receiving a HETAC certificate and being professionally certified and point out

to potential learners how they can gain both academic credentials and professional certification.

Status: COMPLETE

The organisation continues to actively market QQI validated programmes and these are the only

versions available on a public course basis. SQT seeks to ensure that all potential learners

understand the differences between validated and non-validated programmes and this information

is clearly set out within the programme brochures which are available on the SQT website. SQT have

also recently published a blog article on the differences between validated, non-validated and

professionally certified programmes. As part of its website redevelopment, it is planned to maintain

this blog post within the Lean Six Sigma (LSS) area of the new site (due to go live in early 2015) so

that it is clearly visible and available to potential learners.

Non-validated programmes are only chosen where a company requires a very specific customised

programme which may result in the removal of certain elements of a prescribed curriculum or body

of knowledge (BOK) to meet specific requirements in the market.

Furthermore, access, transfer and progression polices ensures that learners enrolled on QQI

validated Lean Six Sigma programmes are not permitted to transfer to a non-validated programme

once they have commenced their programme. Over the past year, 79% of LSS Learners were

registered on QQI validated programmes and only 21% were registered on non-validated

programmes. This is in comparison to 46% on non-validated programmes at the time of the

institutional review. This statistic is testament to the actions which have been carried out in fulfilling

recommendations 2 and 3.

8

Recommendation 4: SQT needs to engage in wider external consultation when reviewing its

operations, programmes and graduate employability and further development. SQT needs to

devise mechanisms whereby its views, particularly in relation to the specific elements of quality

assurance and improvement that comprise programmatic and institutional reviews, can be

obtained and considered.

Status: COMPLETE

SQT remain committed to enhancing ongoing consultation and monitoring processes to methodically

feed into future programmatic and institutional reviews. This recommendation has been reviewed

and incorporated into the QA manual. Each chapter is preceded by a table which provides a synopsis

of the following information related to the specific quality element set out within the chapter:

Description of the European HET Quality Assurance standard

Supporting policy documents

On-going monitoring mechanisms

Relevant KPI’s

Continuous Improvement

Feedback is captured through these ‘On-going monitoring mechanisms’ associated with each quality

element which will ultimately feed more directly into future programmatic and institutional reviews.

9

Objective 2: Strategic Planning and Governance

“To contribute to coherent strategic planning and governance in the College”.

Recommendation 5: SQT should develop organisational Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) against

which achievement of strategic objectives can be measured.

Status: COMPLETE

SQT has carried out an extensive review and subsequent update of its KPI’s. In order to achieve this

recommendation, the following actions have been implemented:

Significant investment and development work has taken place on the SQT Management

Information System which has made the reporting of relevant information such as

assessment and other KPI’s much more meaningful.

KPI statistics are now mapped against strategic objectives which allows for transparent

analysis.

A KPI summary report is generated and reviewed on a weekly basis by the Managing

Director, Director of Quality and Academic Affairs and other relevant personnel. This report

provides vital information for monitoring strategic performance, operational aspects of the

organisation and the quality of programme provision and supporting services offered by

SQT.

Appropriate KPI’s are also reviewed by the Programme Board, Examination Board, Academic

Council, Board of Directors and at monthly internal staff meetings.

KPI’s are referenced throughout the QA manual. A list of KPI’s associated with each chapter

of the manual are presented on a summary page at the beginning of each chapter. Appendix

1 provides a summary of the key performance indicators categorised by each chapter. The

table includes how frequently each KPI is reviewed together with a list of stakeholders

responsible for its review.

10

Recommendation 6:

6.1 Structure, roles and responsibilities of the Governing Body

The panel recommends that SQT revisits the structure, roles and responsibilities of the Governing

Body to provide a clear separation from the Board of Directors and to act as a buffer and a bridge

between the commercial imperatives of the company and the academic governance of the

organisation.

6.2 Membership of the Governing Body:

SQT should strengthen the Governing Body by including faculty and learner membership along

with invited external membership. This will ensure better advice being provided to the Board of

Directors and the Academic Committee, whilst underpinning the transparency and accountability

obligations of accreditation by HETAC.

Status: COMPLETE

Recommendation 7:

7.1 Number of Committees:

The panel recommends that the organisation reviews its committee structures with a view to

reducing complexity and duplication of function.

7.2 New Academic Committee:

The panel recommends that SQT considers establishing an Academic Council (that would include

second provider representatives [ASST] from each subject area) as well as learner and tutor

representatives.

Status: COMPLETE

Taking into account the recommendations of the Expert Panel, SQT have significantly revised its

governance structures with effect from 1st June 2013.

In doing so, it has arrived at a governance structure that best fits the size of the current organisation

and its learner profile. This makes best use of the available independent and executive personnel. It

addresses the issues raised in terms of separation of responsibilities and roles, inclusive

membership, transparency, accountability, complexity and independence.

The inaugural meeting of the Academic Council took place in June 2013. Learner representation has

been encouraged at all Programme Board and Academic Council meetings. Given the logistical

constraints associated with learner representatives who are generally full-time employees based

11

outside of Limerick, representation is provided via a tele-conference or web conference link via

Adobe Connect. A Learner representative is given the opportunity to voice issues pertaining to the

programmes. Relevant staff may provide a response at the time of the meeting or as a follow up

after the meeting if external discussions are required.

The academic governance structure as set out in the QA manual is presented in Figure 1 below. This

new structure has allowed for a clear separation of corporate governance, operational management,

quality assurance, delivery and academic decision making.

Figure 1: Academic Governance

Professor Tom Kennedy was appointed as Chairperson to both the Board of Directors and Academic

Council in June 2013. He is Emeritus Professor of Accounting, University of Limerick, having held

various lecturing, Head of Department and Professorship roles since 1984. Professor Kennedy

contributes a wealth of insight to SQT, drawing from his academic, management and strategic

planning experience.

The Board of Directors now comprises of two Non-Executive Directors and the Managing Director.

Academic Council membership is as follows:

Independent Non-Executive Director

Managing Director

Director of Quality and Academic Affairs

HETAC student representative

HETAC programme leader

Examination Secretary

Tutor representative(s) for following validated subject areas:

o HETAC

Board of Directors

Academic Council

Examination Board

Disciplinary Committee

Appeals Committee

Programme Board(s)

Quality Commitee

Managing Director

12

o FETAC

o NEBOSH

Minutes from various board meetings clearly demonstrate how these combined recommendations

have been fully embraced across the organisation. The function, membership and frequency of

meetings for all boards is presented in Appendix 2.

13

Objective 3: Quality Assurance

“To assess the effectiveness of the Quality Assurance arrangements operated by the College”.

Element 1: Policy and Procedures for Quality Assurance

“Institutions should have a policy and associated procedures for the assurance of the quality and standards of their programmes and awards. They should also commit themselves explicitly to the development of a culture which recognises the importance of quality, and quality assurance, in their work. To achieve this, institutions should develop and implement a strategy for the continuous enhancement of quality. The strategy, policy and procedures should have a formal status and be publicly available. They should also include a role for students and other stakeholders”.

Recommendation 8: SQT is required to devise and expand Quality Assurance policy and

procedures to address omissions in the current manual as identified in Objective 3: Quality

Assurance under Element 1: Policies and Procedures for Quality Assurance.

Status: COMPLETE

Please refer to ‘Review of Quality Assurance’ section on page 3.

Recommendation 9: SQT should review its policies and procedures by which it ensures it is

compliant with regulatory and legal demands, including HETAC policies such as Sectoral

Conventions.

Status: COMPLETE

SQT has carried out a review of its policies and procedures and is compliant with regulatory and legal

demands, including HETAC policies such as Sectoral Conventions. SQT’s compliance with such

conventions is set out in section 4.4 of the QA manual. This information is also available within the

SQT Tutor and Student Handbook.

Recommendation 10: SQT needs to adopt a suite of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for quality

assurance and improvement. These need to be reviewed on an annual basis to provide essential

intelligence to SQT on the effectiveness of all procedures in place.

Status: COMPLETE

14

As noted in Recommendation 5, an extensive review and update of all KPI’s have been undertaken

and are reviewed on an ongoing basis (See Appendix 1).

Recommendation 11: SQT needs to formalise policy and procedures on reviewing, amending and

approving quality assurance procedures.

Status: COMPLETE

SQT has revised its procedures in order to address this recommendation. These are documented

throughout the new QA manual.

In order to ensure that policy and procedures remain relevant, fit for purpose and compliant with

changes to statutory, legal, and accrediting body requirements, the quality framework is subject to

on-going monitoring and review. To support this ongoing review, internal SQT staff are tasked to

perform internal audits on a systematic basis. This ensures that all procedures are audited at least

once per year. Major changes and updates are discussed and approved by the Academic Council and

a comprehensive supporting internal audit documentation system is maintained.

A schedule of seven internal audits are confirmed in January each year and take place over the

course of an 11 month period. The output of each internal audit is an audit report which includes a

completed checklist specific to each audit area and a quality improvement plan. The overall Quality

Improvement plan is monitored on a weekly basis by the Director of Quality and Academic Affairs

and on a quarterly basis by the Quality Committee. The cumulative reports for all audits is available

for review and discussion at the last Academic Council meeting each year at which stage all seven

audits are complete. This new internal audit system commenced in January 2014, five audits have

been completed to date, and the remaining two audits are scheduled to take place in the coming

weeks.

In addition to the above, a number of safeguards have also been put in place as follows:

Internal Work Instruction (WI-001 Documentation Control) – this describes the process for

managing documentation controls within the organisation.

SQT Master Document Listing – this file provides a list of all documents associated with the

QA system including work instructions, forms, records and specifications. The file includes an

area for documenting all changes, which have been made to any document noting the date,

version number and person responsible for the update.

15

Control Forms – these are maintained for central documents such as the QA manual,

Student and Tutor Handbooks and Course Curriculums. Changes to these documents must

be approved by the Director of Quality and Academic Affairs.

16

Element 2: Approval, Monitoring and Periodic Review of Programmes and Awards

“Institutions should have formal mechanisms for the approval, periodic review and monitoring of their programmes and awards”.

Recommendation 12: SQT should develop policy and procedures on what constitutes major and

minor changes to programmes and to agree these with QQI (formerly HETAC). Such procedures

should make reference to SQT communication with HETAC to finalise and agree formal methods

and transparent arrangements for the approval of major changes in the programme/assessment

design following Programmatic Review or other processes that lead to proposed major changes.

Status: COMPLETE

SQT, in consultation with QQI have developed a policy and procedure in order to address this

recommendation. This is set out in the QA manual Section 3.2.2 Changes to a Programme as follows:

When making any proposals for modification, initial feedback is sought from the Director of Quality

and Academic Affairs to confirm whether the proposed change is minor or major. Minor

modifications are approved internally by the Programme Board, whereas major modifications

require QQI approval prior to implementation.

Minor Modifications include but are not limited to:

Changes to the admissions process, for example, the timing of outcomes to applicants or the

process of allocating places

Changes to the module content that doesn’t impact on the learning outcomes of the module

A change in the assessment methods in a particular module, as long as these are consistent

with the approved programme schedule, the overall stated programme aims, learning

outcomes and assessment strategy, for example changes in the assessment tool utilised for

the percentage of the module that is assessed by continuous assessment.

Major modifications include but are not limited to:

The addition of modules

Changes to the programme title

The addition of a new route / minor award

Changes to module or programme learning outcomes

Changes to the approved programme schedule

Change to credit weightings of modules or programmes

17

Recommendation 13: SQT should follow-up with QQI (formerly HETAC) to ensure the

programmatic review changes in the ECTS credit rating are fully documented as appropriate,

including the timing of implementation.

Status: COMPLETE

This recommendation has been fully adopted, previous correspondence with QQI in relation to the

above noted:

“SQT viewed the change in credit level as a major change. Relevant documentation was submitted to

HETAC who subsequently gave approval to the change at HETAC’s February 2012 Academic Council

meeting. On receipt of (HETAC) approval the change was immediately implemented by SQT. SQT has

now submitted a copy of the relevant documentation to QQI (formerly HETAC)”.

Recommendation 14: SQT should submit a report to QQI (formerly HETAC) updating it on the

completion of the recommendations of the Programmatic Review.

Status: COMPLETE

SQT submitted a report to QQI (formerly HETAC) updating it on the completion of the

recommendations of the Programmatic Review.

18

Element 3: Assessment of Students

“Students should be assessed using published criteria, regulations and procedures which are applied consistently”.

Recommendation 15: While being mindful of the commercial sensitivity of some of the projects

undertaken by learners, SQT should explore ways in which learners could learn from the project

work of former learners to support their understanding of the centrality of the project process in

the Lean Six Sigma award.

Status: COMPLETE

SQT have explored ways in which the project work of former learners can be made available to

current learners in a confidential and controlled manner. It has incorporated the development of a

Storyboard as a component of the project assessment within the Certificate in Process Engineering

(L7)2. Learners are instructed to omit sensitive data and are advised that the documents may be

made available within the public domain. At present these storyboards are available within SQT’s

Moodle VLE and are accessible by all learners on QQI validated Lean Six Sigma programmes. Going

forward, it is also planned to showcase such documents on the redeveloped SQT website.

Recommendation 16: SQT should make opportunities available for tutors/practice mentors to

discuss External Examiner reports and other external academic commentary. This should be

designed to support the tutors’/practice mentors’ understanding of their important contribution

to the academic endeavor.

Status: COMPLETE

SQT has addressed this recommendation as follows:

Lean Six Sigma Programme Leaders and Tutors meet with the External Examiner on site prior

to each Examination Board meeting.

Once received by the Director of Quality and Academic Affairs, External Examiner reports are

distributed to all members of the Examination Board, which include programme

Tutors/practice mentors. Recommendations and items for discussion are dealt with in a

timely fashion and a follow-up report outlining actions which have been undertaken is

prepared and distributed to the Programme Board and External Examiner.

2 Special Purpose Award (10 ECTS Credits).

19

All relevant documentation and reports with respect to external examination are available

on the SQT Moodle VLE and are accessible to all programme board members, which include

Tutors/practice mentors on the validated programmes.

20

Element 4: Quality Assurance of Teaching Staff

“Institutions should have ways of satisfying themselves that staff involved with the teaching of students are qualified and competent to do so. They should be available to those undertaking external reviews, and commented upon in reports”.

Special Consideration: The Institutional Review should consider the implications for the SQT quality assurance arrangements and any other arrangements (if any) arising from the model of tutor engagement used by SQT. According to the provider, it has a team of over thirty very experienced tutors. SQT tutors are not direct employees of SQT but work for a number of independent companies with whom SQT has formal contracts to deliver SQT’s training. For example, the tutors who deliver SQT’s Lean Six Sigma programmes work with ASST (Applied Six Sigma Technology Ltd), whose principals are John Ryan and Éamon Ó Béarra. ASST have been providing Lean Six Sigma training for SQT for the past 11 years. Their other area of activity is Lean Six Sigma consultancy. The tutors work for these companies and SQT refers to the principals of these companies (up to approximately 16 in number) as principal tutors (also known as lead tutors). All tutors hold qualifications relevant to their subject areas, some up to PhD level. No tutor delivers training without undergoing prior training. According to SQT, this model of tutor engagement is very flexible, holds many advantages and has been in place since the initial engagement with HETAC. SQT states that there is very low tutor turnover. A full list of SQT approved tutors is included in the Quality Manual.

Recommendation 17: SQT is advised to develop policies and procedures that fully describe the

responsibilities of SQT, ASST and the tutors when problems arise, as well as grounds and

procedures for dismissal. Given that SQT is not the employer of tutors this needs to be drafted

carefully.

Status: COMPLETE

Following the Institutional Review, SQT with the assistance of a legal advisor, QQI and Professor Tom

Kennedy, developed a legal agreement which set out the responsibilities of ASST with respect to

their delivery of SQT’s QQI (HETAC) programmes. The agreement ultimately acknowledges that,

while the relevant ASST personnel continue to be employed by ASST, ASST devolves full authority to

SQT to:

Monitor and control such ASST personnel in connection with the provision of any of the

Validated Programmes; and

Monitor and control the quality of output and/or teaching by such ASST personnel in

connection with all or any Validated Programmes.

As a result, SQT has incorporated the relevant policies and procedures into its QA manual. These are

presented within Chapter 5 - Quality Assurance of Teaching Staff within the following sections:

5 QUALITY ASSURANCE OF TEACHING STAFF

5.1 Staff Recruitment and Selection

5.1.1 Recruitment and Selection Procedure of Teaching Staff for

QQI/HETAC Programmes

21

5.2 Staff Induction, Training and CPD

5.2.1 Induction

5.2.2 Training and CPD

5.3 Roles and Responsibilities

5.4 Effectiveness of Tutors

5.4.1 Monitoring Effectiveness of Tutors

5.4.2 Supports for Poorly Performing Tutors

5.4.3 Removal of Poorly Performing Tutors

5.5 Staff Disciplinary Procedures

The SQT/ASST legal agreement was used as the basis for the development of the policies and

procedures within this chapter. In addition to the policies and procedures set out in the QA manual,

a number of internal measures such as a recruitment and induction checklist have also been put in

place to safeguard their implementation.

22

Element 5: Learning Resources and Student Support

“Institutions should ensure that the resources available for the support of student learning are adequate and appropriate for each programme offered.”

Special Consideration: The Institutional Review should consider the quality assurance arrangements in place

for the SQT model of out-centre provision. SQT Training Ltd delivers all its programmes at hotels and at

companies’ own facilities.

Recommendation 18: The panel recommends that SQT considers extending its virtual library facility

to current learners whilst pursuing their programme.

Status: COMPLETE

Given its ‘Out-Centre’ model of provision, SQT has invested significant resources to the development

of an online virtual learning platform, (Moodle) which was launched in October 2013. This system

now incorporates the content of the old virtual library facility, as well as access to many more

resources. The system has been very well received since its launch in late 2013. It is now operational

for all LSS Green Belt and Black Belt learners registered as of November 2013. It continues to be

developed to further enhance the learner experience on a phased basis. Each phase incorporates

additional features and functionality which has been specifically customised for individual

programmes.

Below is a summary of how the project has been rolled out to date with activities specific to QQI LSS

programmes:

Aug 2013 Evaluation of online platforms including consultation with experts in the field

Sept 2013 Moodle implemented (Deployed, customised and hosted by Enovation Solutions

Dublin, only approved Moodle partner in the Republic of Ireland)

Nov 2013 Pilot for QQI accredited Lean Six Sigma Programmes. Initially the system was used

as a portal to reduce the constant flow of emails between the Course Manager and the

learner. Given the success of the pilot phase, additional functionality has been incorporated

over time such as the upload of transcripts prior to course commencement and upload of

learner assessment. This is now compulsory from Sept 2014.

Dec 2013 Launch of Lean Six Sigma Network Site incl Discussion Forums. This system was

previously developed using WordPress.

Dec 2013 Launch of Lean Six Sigma Support Library

Dec 2013 Repository for Academic Council Members and Lean Six Sigma Programme Board

Members

Feb/Mar 2014 Roll out to all LSS Green Belt courses

23

Aug 2014 Launch of Tutor Portal

Sept 2014 Rollout of mandatory assignment submissions via Moodle for all QQI accredited

Lean Six Sigma programmes. An automatic email is sent to the relevant Tutor when a draft

or final submission is made. This allows for timely communication between the Tutor and

learner. Tutors now provide feedback on draft assignments via Moodle. This ensures that all

feedback is centrally located within Moodle for tracking and review purposes. Appropriate

administration staff have full access to this system at all times.

Oct 2014 Deployment of customised Moodle forms to replace QQI Assessment coversheets.

Information is captured from learners and exported to a text format which is subsequently

uploaded directly to the QBS (QQI Business System). This eliminates the manual process of

registering learners and ensures that Tutors are not responsible for collecting hardcopy

documents. A plagiarism disclaimer must be accepted before learners can submit any

assignment.

Recommendation 19: The panel recommends that SQT considers whether learners might be

afforded access to additional virtual library resources such as an online business abstracts

database (such as ABI/Inform) or through partnership with another higher education institution.

Status: In Progress - Advanced Stage

SQT have considered this recommendation and are satisfied that the course information provided

within the new Moodle VLE and supplementary Moodle support sites more than adequately meets

learner requirements. It will continue to review information available to learners to ensure that it

addresses the changing needs of learners.

24

Element 6: Information Systems

“Institutions should ensure that they collect, analyse and use relevant information for the effective management of their programmes of study and other activities”.

Recommendation 20 - The panel recommends that SQT devises information systems that will

permit the organisation to collect, analyse and use relevant data and information for the effective

management of programmes and to inform quality improvement initiatives.

Status: In Progress - Advanced Stage

SQT maintains a fully integrated, bespoke information system that allows for the collection, analysis

and use of relevant data and information. The system has been supported, upgraded, maintained

and customised by a local IT service company since its initial development in 1998. The data

available allows for the generation of a wide range of reports which are used for the effective

management of the organisation and to inform ongoing quality improvement initiatives through the

generation of specific KPI reports.

To date, a number of manual forms have been automated within the Moodle system. It is envisaged

that over time, much of the data which is currently processed on a manual basis will be captured

within Moodle. The reason for this is twofold - the system allows for the generation of customisable

reports that can be easily exported into statistical analysis software. It can also be imported to the

organisations information system to reduce manual processing of data.

SQT are satisfied that this recommendation has been realised as far as is possible at this stage but

recognise that further ongoing work is required to streamline its data collection methods and

integrate various systems in so far as is possible taking into consideration the constraints posed by

the underlying technologies used to build each system.

25

Element 7: Public Information

“Institutions should regularly publish up to date, impartial and objective information, both quantitative and qualitative, about the programmes and awards they are offering”.

Recommendation 21: The panel recommends that SQT reviews the comprehensiveness,

impartiality and objectivity of its public information to ensure that it complies fully with the

European Standards and Guidelines on accurate, impartial and readily accessible quantitative as

well as qualitative information on its learners, programmes and awards.

Status: COMPLETE

SQT have taken action to comply with this recommendation. Further commentary is provided in

respect of public information within Condition 1 on page 4.

The following information is available on the SQT website.

Programmes offered by SQT

Intended programme learning outcomes

Qualifications

Teaching, learning and assessment procedures used

Learning opportunities available

Views and employment of past students (Learner testimonials)

This information is always accurate, impartial, objective and readily accessible to all potential

learners. Additional information will also be incorporated into the revised SQT website which is due

to be launched in January.

26

Objective 4: Qualifications Framework, Access, Transfer & Progression

“To confirm the extent that the College has implemented the National Framework of Qualifications

and procedures for Access, Transfer and Progression”.

Condition 2: SQT needs to develop a policy and procedures in respect of the Accreditation of Prior

Experiential Learning (APEL) where it is used to grant admission onto a HETAC accredited

programme (now awarded by QQI). For the purpose of transparency, SQT needs to devise a policy

and procedure for external moderation of this process of admission and its outcome.

Status: COMPLETE

Policies and procedures relating to APEL have been subject to rigorous review. SQT have

implemented a number of actions in order to address this condition. Due regard was given to best

practice guidelines in the area and each action involved extensive consultation with Programme

Leaders, the Course Manager, Chairman of the Academic Council Prof. Tom Kennedy and the

External Examiner. The actions which were implemented are as follows:

SQT has developed and implemented an APEL policy and procedure which is set out in

section 4.9 of the QA manual.

The procedure has been supplemented by a set of criteria against which applications are

evaluated. This criteria was developed by the Programme Leaders and was consequently

endorsed by the Programme Board (Programme Board Meeting 15/11/13) and approved by

the External Examiner (Exam Board Meeting 15/11/13).

SQT has amended its online booking form with a view to capturing additional information

from applicants with respect to APEL criteria. This new form has resulted in a noticeable

improvement in the admission process.

The External Examiner has moderated the APEL process and associated documentation at all

Examination board meetings from 2013 onwards.

Statistical data concerning learners accepted onto HETAC programmes on the basis of APEL

has been reviewed at each LSS programme and Examination Board meeting. Specifically:

o Correlation of results for learners accepted on the basis of APEL versus those who

were accepted on the basis of academic achievement

o Statistical information relating to APEL applicants

% of applicants accepted on the basis of APEL

% of APEL learners who withdrew from the programme or did not submit

% of APEL learners who achieved an award

o This will remain a standing agenda item for all such boards.

27

28

Objective 6: Recommendations for Enhancement

“To provide recommendations for the enhancement of the education and training provided by the

College”.

Recommendation 22: The panel recommends that the organisation proceeds with the plans and

actions identified in its SER and the quality improvement plan.

Status: COMPLETE

SQT has completed all actions contained in its ‘Recommendations for Enhancement’ set out in its

own Self Evaluation Report for Institutional Review.

29

APPENDIX

30

Chapter Relevant KPI Frequency of Review: Reviewed By:

2. Policy and Procedures for Quality Assurance

Quarterly QA Audit Report - A quality report outlining the findings, recommendations and key actions of the Quality Committee is prepared each quarter and is reviewed by the Academic Council. This report contains relevant KPI’s referenced within this table, of particular interest are those relating to the overall quality of programme provision

Quarterly Quality Committee Academic Council

KPI Summary Report – This report is generated on a weekly basis and includes quality indicators and KPIs relating to both programme provision and the day to day running and strategic objectives of SQT.

Weekly Managing Director Director of Quality and Academic Affairs

3. Approval, Monitoring and Periodic Review of Programmes

Completion Rate (%) Twice Yearly Examination Board Programme Board Academic Council

Withdrawal / Non Submission Rate (%) Twice Yearly Examination Board Programme Board Academic Council

No. Registered Students Twice Yearly Examination Board Programme Board Academic Council

Progression Rate (%) Twice Yearly Examination Board Programme Board Academic Council

Student Course Assessment Form (CAF) Ratings (review period, annual and cumulative)

Weekly (KPI summary Report) Interim and End of Course Twice Yearly

Managing Director Director of Quality and Academic Affairs Tutor Course Manager Director of Quality and Academic Affairs Programme Board

31

Chapter Relevant KPI Frequency of Review: Reviewed By:

No. Potential for Improvement Notice (PIN) Weekly Twice Yearly

Relevant Internal Personnel Managing Director Director of Quality and Academic Affairs Programme Board & Academic Council

No. New Programmes Offered Twice Yearly Academic Council

4. Assessment of Students

Assessment Results Twice Yearly Examination Board Programme Board Academic Council (high level detail only)

Pass / Fail Rate Twice Yearly Examination Board Programme Board

Completion Rate (%) Twice Yearly Examination Board Academic Council

Withdrawal / Non Submission Rate (%) Twice Yearly Programme Board Academic Council

APEL Statistics

% students admitted on basis of APEL

Comparison of assessment results for those admitted on basis of APEL vs Educational History

Twice Yearly Examination Board Programme Board Academic Council

No. Reviews, Rechecks and Appeals Twice Yearly Examination Board Programme Board Academic Council

No. Extension Requests / Deferrals Examination Board Programme Board Academic Council

5. Quality Assurance of Academic Staff

Tutor Rating Interim and End of Course As necessary

Course Manager Director of Quality and Academic Affairs Individual Tutor Meetings

32

Chapter Relevant KPI Frequency of Review: Reviewed By:

Course Rating Interim and End of Course As necessary

Course Manager Director of Quality and Academic Affairs Individual Tutor Meetings

Staff Turnover Twice Yearly Managing Director Board of Directors

No. Staff Training Days Attended Twice Yearly Managing Director Director of Quality and Academic Affairs Academic Council

No. Potential for Improvement Notice (PIN) Weekly Twice Yearly

Relevant Internal Personnel Managing Director Director of Quality and Academic Affairs Programme Board & Academic Council

6. Learning Resources and Student Support

Student Course Assessment Form (CAF) Ratings – wrt student support and relevant resources

Interim and End of Course As necessary

Course Manager Director of Quality and Academic Affairs Individual Tutor Meetings Programme Board

No. Health and Safety incidents Weekly Managing Director Health and Safety Officer

No. Students with disabilities / specific learning difficulties Twice Yearly Academic Council

7. Information Systems No. Failed Backups Weekly Director of Quality and Academic Affairs

IT Statistics (website, Moodle etc.) As necessary Director of Quality and Academic Affairs Marketing Manager (website statistics)

33

Chapter Relevant KPI Frequency of Review: Reviewed By:

Bi-Annual IT Staff Survey Results Bi-annual Director of Quality and Academic Affairs

8. Public Information Satisfaction with public information rating - Survey to students who have withdrawn (This is also reviewed as part of the student CAF’s which is monitored as above)

Annually Director of Quality and Academic Affairs Managing Director Marketing Manager Programme Board

Appendix 1: KPI Indicators per QA Manual Chapter

34

Body Function Membership

(Chairperson in red) Meeting Frequency

Board of Directors Oversight and advice concerning strategic planning and

development

Oversight of compliance with quality assurance procedures and legal obligations

Guardianship of corporate and academic governance best practice

Budgetary / financial governance

Independent Non-Executive Director

Managing Director

Non-Executive Director

Four times per year

Academic Council Responsible for the academic regulation of the organisation

Approve new programme proposals

Review and approve updates and amendments to any aspect of the quality assurance system

Review annual programme review reports and feedback from awarding bodies and make recommendations based on same

Formally assess and approve reports for awarding bodies such as programmatic and institutional review documentation

Review reports and recommendations received from its sub-committees and make recommendations based on same

Form ad-hoc sub-committees where considered beneficial and appropriate

Review cases of academic misconduct and plagiarism when appropriate (when escalated from disciplinary or appeals committee)

Review External Examiner reports

Independent Non-Executive Director

Managing Director

Director of Quality and Academic Affairs

HETAC student representative

HETAC programme leader

Examination Secretary

Tutor representative(s) for following validated subject areas:

o HETAC o FETAC o NEBOSH

Twice per year

Quality Committee QA audit & reporting

Monitor adherence to QA policies, procedures and internal work instructions

Informal training and provision of information re QA updates to relevant stakeholders

Review External Examiner reports

Director of Quality and Academic Affairs

Examination Secretary

Course Manager(s)

Four times per year

35

Body Function Membership

(Chairperson in red)

Meeting Frequency

Programme Board Operational planning

Monitor student progression and retention

Manage the effectiveness of teaching, learning and assessment methods and procedures as applied to the programme(s)

Review student, tutor and industry feedback and take action where required

Participate on reviews as determined by relevant awarding bodies (i.e. institutional and programmatic reviews)

New programme identification

Review annual programme review reports and make recommendations based on same

Review External Examiner reports

Director of Quality and Academic Affairs and / or Managing Director

Course Manager(s)

Programme Tutors

Programme Leader

Student representative (for QQI/HETAC programmes only)

Twice per year

Examination Board Review outcomes of External Examiner moderation of

programme(s) under consideration

Ratify assessment results for all students of programme(s) under consideration

Review penalties applied to assessment activities of programme(s) under consideration

Review statistics/trends regarding assessment results of programme(s) under consideration

Director of Quality and Academic Affairs

Examination Secretary

Programme Tutors

Programme Leader

External Examiner

Twice per year

Appeals Committee Review appeals of examination and assessment grades or against

the decisions of the academic committees To be convened by the Managing Director; membership based on significance of appeal (level, module etc.). Minimum 3 persons, including Director of Quality and Academic Affairs and independent Tutor).

Ad-hoc as required

Disciplinary Committee Hear unresolved cases of alleged misconduct and academic

impropriety To be convened by the Independent Non-Executive Director, as necessary; membership based on the nature of the alleged disciplinary offence. Minimum 3 persons including Director of Quality and Academic Affairs and / or Managing Director.

Ad-hoc as required

Appendix 2: Boards and Committees