Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
UNIT FOR QUALITY PROMOTION
THIRD QUARTERLY REPORT: 2014 September 2014
2
UNIT FOR QUALITY PROMOTION:
THIRD QUARTERLY REPORT: 2014
Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................... 3
1. OPERATING CONTEXT ........................................................................................................... 6
1.1 Governance Structure ...................................................................................................... 6
3. STRATEGIC FOCUS ................................................................................................................ 8
3.1 UQP Goals for 2014 .......................................................................................................... 8
3.2 UQP Strategic Plan ......................................................................................................... 10
4. PROGRESS ............................................................................................................................ 10
4.1 Quality Reviews ............................................................................................................. 10
4.2 Supporting and Improving the UJ Quality Promotion System: Progress .................. 12
4.3 Effective Functioning of the UQP: Progress ................................................................ 14
5.1 Human Resources .......................................................................................................... 18
5.2 Financial Management ................................................................................................... 19
6. STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT ........................................................................................... 19
6.1 National Involvement ..................................................................................................... 19
6.2 Internal Engagement ...................................................................................................... 19
7. ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY .................................................................................... 20
8. LEADERSHIP FOOTPRINT ................................................................................................... 20
9. CONCLUSION AND THE WAY FORWARD ............................................................................ 20
3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The goals of the UQP (aligned with UJ Strategic Objectives 2 and 6) are to:
i) provide leadership and support with the implementation of the UJ Strategic Plan 2025
w.r.t. quality reviews.
ii) sustain, support and improve the UJ Quality Promotion System.
iii) enhance the effective functioning of the UQP.
The UQP oversees and facilitates the implementation of different kinds of quality reviews that
range from module and programme reviews to faculty and campus reviews, and also reviews
of service and support divisions.
The following progress (up to the end of September 2014) has been made with reviews in
faculties:
Table 1: Progress with reference to targets for 2014
Type of review Target for
2014
Progress
Site visit
completed
Site visit later in
2014
Programmes 10 13 12
Non-subsidised whole
programmes
8 2
Research M and D programmes
(as faculty clusters)
3* 1
Academic departments 4 3
Centres 1
Modules 15 12 3
Faculty reviews 2 2
The discrepancies in the targets and the actual reviews often results from faculties’ changing
priorities, e.g. to review subsidised rather than non-subsidised programmes (i.e. Faculty of
Management), and to exclude departmental reviews from the module and programme reviews
(i.e. Faculty of Science).
* Reviews of research-based M and D programmes are conducted as a cluster of
programmes per faculty. This means that one panel can review up to 66 M and D
programmes during a site visit (e.g. Faculty of Management), because the focus is on
underpinning governance, processes and student success.
Progress w.r.t quality reviews in the service and support domain is as follows:
4
Table 2: Progress with reference to targets for 2014
Type of review Target for
2014
Progress
Site visit
completed
Site visit later in
2014
Service and Support Divisions 4 2
Campus 1
Scheduling of reviews is often influenced by restructuring or change of leadership, e.g.
Soweto Campus. A vacancy (from Feb – May) and the appointment of a new staff member in
June also impacted on the progress made in the service and support divisions.
As far as the UJ Quality Promotion System is concerned, the following have been achieved:
a) Programme reviews 2013: A report on the programme reviews conducted in 2013 was
presented to the STLC. Individual faculty reports as well as an institutional overview
were developed. Key commendations and recommendations w.r.t. programmes were
reported. The main concerns include teaching and learning, curriculum and programme
management.
b) Faculty reviews: The UQP provided support to the two faculties, namely the Faculty of
Economic and Financial Sciences and the Faculty of Management with their
preparations for the reviews. Site visits were conducted from 28-31 July (FoM) and 11-
14 August (FEFS). Preparations started for the review of the Faculty of Engineering and
the Built Environment in 2015.
c) Sustained and committed participation in UJ committees and structures, i.e. the STLC,
Faculty Quality Discussion Forum, PWG, QWG, CE Advisory Board. UQP staff
members are members of all these committees - attend meetings regularly and provide
support as required.
d) Monitor and support the submission of improvement plans and progress reports to the
STLC and other committees (according to the reporting lines): A Quality Working Group
(QWG) has been established to screen improvement plans and progress reports. The
QWG reports to both the STLC and MECO by means on joint reports i.e. QWG-Faculty
reports on individual plans or reports to the STLC, and joint QWG-Division plans and
reports to MECO.
e) Benchmarking UJ Quality system: Contributing to external/national higher education
structures, associations and forums, e.g. HEQC, SAAIR, international conferences,
GARMIN Group, etc. In March, six staff members from the Copper Belt University in
Zambia visit the UJ. Two UQP staff members discussed a number of quality-related
matters with them and provided them with a copy of our programme review manual.
5
f) QEPTT: Facilitate and support the UJ Quality Enhancement Project as part of the CHE’s
second cycle of institutional reviews. The institutional submission was approved by
SENEX and submitted to the CHE.
g) Client satisfaction: Evaluations up to end June indicated that 96% of respondents
thought UQP presentations were relevant and the content of presentations was deemed
either excellent or good by 85% of respondents.
With reference to the effective leadership and management of the Unit to optimise the UQP’s
core functions, the following have been achieved:
a) Mr Mthu Vongo resigned at the end of January 2014. The vacancy has been
advertised, interviews conducted and an appointment was made: Mr Rajen Padayachi
has commenced duties on 1 June 2014.
b) Develop a culture of performance by implementing the UJ Performance Contract
system in the Unit. Performance contracts have been drawn up, signed and submitted
by the end of April. Progress reports were discussed with individual staff members and
submitted in August.
c) Wellness and transformation activities have been developed and a combined program
for UQP and DIPEM was developed.
d) The revision of quality review manuals to align criteria with the UJ Strategic Plan, is
continuing.
e) Oversee and support the development and regular updating of a tracking system for
the UQP. One UQP staff member, D Weistra, is responsible for the regular updating of
the UQP Tracking System.
f) Regular research seminars are scheduled. The Unit has to determine and finalise its
research focus for 2014. Three research projects have been identified, namely the
Perceptions and Experiences of Peer Review Panels (of the programme review
process at UJ) (D Weistra), Enhancement of Learning by Using Tutors (I Pretorius) and
Student Involvement in Quality Processes (R Padayachi). The planning should be
finalised by the end of 2014, and data collection, etc. conducted in 2015.
g) H Geyser and I Pretorius were requested to review submitted papers for the SAAIR
Forum in September. H Geyser is the supervisor for a UFS Master’s student.
---oOo---
6
UNIT FOR QUALITY PROMOTION
THIRD QUARTERLY REPORT: 2014
SEPTEMBER 2014
1. OPERATING CONTEXT
1.1 Governance Structure
The Unit for Quality Promotion (UQP) reports to the Registrar. The UQP oversees and
facilitates the implementation of different kinds of quality reviews that range from module and
programme reviews to faculty and campus reviews, and also reviews of service and support
divisions. At institutional level, the UQP supports the UJ Quality Promotion System.
1.2 Physical Location
The UQP offices are situated on the APK campus and staff members travel regularly to other
campuses to conduct workshops, consult with management committees and provide support
to individuals or small groups w.r.t. quality reviews and related matters. Often, UJ staff
members prefer attending meetings in the UQP offices as they are a ‘safe’ environment to
discuss confidential matters.
The UQP shares the bigger office space on A Ring 1 (APK) with the Division for Institutional
Planning, Evaluation and Monitoring (DIPEM). The office space was subdivided into two
sections, one for UQP and one for DIPEM. Facilities such as the kitchen and a lounge area
are shared. The lack of a boardroom to conduct meetings is an ongoing concern.
2. RISKS AND MANAGEMENT OF RISKS
2.1 Risk 1: Lack of Commitment to the Quality Review Process
UQP initially identified the lack of buy-in into quality review processes as a risk within the
Registrar’s portfolio. The UQP regards itself as the custodian of the quality review processes
to ensure credible peer review reports to faculties and divisions. Guarding against
practices/approaches that may have a negative impact on the credibility of the review process
7
and ultimately on the peer review report is an ongoing responsibility of the UQP. Factors that
may have a negative influence include:
development of a superficial or incomplete self-evaluation report (SER), i.e. no real
self-evaluation in the SER; lack of evidence; lack of writing skills or not enough staff to
develop the SER (e.g. in a service and support division); submitting the approved SER
too late to the panel (i.e. not enough time for them to scrutinise the document), no buy-
in into the development of the SER
not enough experts on the panel (e.g. not enough academics; majority from industry);
no curriculum expert (w.r.t. programme and module reviews); insufficient transparency
of the review process, etc.
insufficient time for the site visit; interview groups not representative; not enough
reflection time for the panel
2.2 Risk 2: Superficial Improvement Plans and Lack of Commitment to Real
Improvement
Buy-in and commitment from staff w.r.t. implementation of improvement plans are a serious
concern. The value of a review is seriously diminished if a superficial improvement plan is
developed and/or the improvement plan is not implemented to focus on real improvement.
Insufficient attention to the development and implementation of improvement plans result in
not always addressing the depth and scope of the peer review panels’ reports.
2.3 Risk Mitigation: Risk 1 and 2
The UQP continuously addresses the potential risks by means of:
(i) A Quality Discussion Forum for Faculties that meets 2-3 times a year. The purpose is
to inform, consult, etc. with faculty quality managers on quality matters, including
reviews.
(ii) A Quality Discussion Forum that was initiated (in 2012) for S&S divisions. The purpose
is to inform, consult, etc. with quality managers/unit representatives on quality reviews.
(iii) Regular meetings/consultations with faculty quality managers, departments and
programme groups.
(iv) UQP staff members that act as critical readers of the SERs and provide extensive
feedback as needed.
(v) Workshops/small group consultations on SER development, evidence management
and the logistics of the site visit.
(vi) Training of UJ staff as chairpersons for peer review panels is an on-going undertaking.
(vii) Training of peer review report writers by means of workshops and discussions of
individual reports.
(viii) Continuous improvement of the processes through research, reflection and
benchmarking with other universities (e.g. the identification of key elements in the
quality review processes as quality checks by the UQP).
8
(ix) A questionnaire to determine client satisfaction with UQP services is sent after the site
visit has been conducted.
(x) Establishment of a Quality Working Group to review improvement plans and progress
reports. Practices concerning improvement plans and their implementation will be
explored, both nationally (e.g. Unisa) and internationally (U21 Universities during the
EQAF conference in Spain – Nov 2014) to inform future activities.
3. STRATEGIC FOCUS
3.1 UQP Goals for 2014
The UQP goals for 2014 are aligned with UJ Strategic Plan 2025 as follows:
Table1: UQP goals
UJ objectives and related
KPAs and KPIs
UQP goals
UQP objectives: 2014
Objective 2: Excellence in teaching and learning
KPA 2: Intellectually rigorous curricula which responds to the challenge of the 21st century
2.4 Programmes that
are internationally accredited
2.5: Programmes that
are regularly quality assured and enhanced
Objective 6: Fitness for
global excellence and stature
KPA 6: Good governance:
6.1 Legal and ethical compliance: Quality control and assurance
1. Provides leadership and support with the implementation of the UJ Strategic Plan 2025 w.r.t. quality reviews.
2. Sustain, support and improve
the UJ Quality Promotion System.
1.1 Facilitate and support the review of:
10 subsidised programmes (including undergraduate diplomas)
3 research-based M and D programme clusters (1 per faculty)
8 non-subsidised whole programmes
15 modules
2 faculties 4 academic departments
1 campus (SWC)
4 service and support divisions/units.
2.1 Sustain, support and
improve the UJ quality promotion system w.r.t:
policy reviews.
establishment and facilitation of the Quality Working Group to monitor and screen the submission of improvement plans to the STLC.
benchmarking key elements of the UJ quality reviews with SA and overseas universities to improve the UJ system.
sustained and committed
9
UJ objectives and related
KPAs and KPIs
UQP goals
UQP objectives: 2014
participation in UJ committees and structures, i.e. the STLC, UJ Quality Conferences, PWG, WIL Task Team, QEPTT, QWG.
organise at least two Faculty Quality Discussion Forums to discuss relevant institutional quality matters.
enhance and support scholarship in quality assurance.
2.2 Facilitate and support the UJ Quality Enhancement Project as part of the HEQC second cycle of institutional reviews.
2.3 Enhance and support
scholarship in the quality assurance domain.
2.4 Participate in and
contribute to national and regional discussion forums and conferences.
Objective 6: Fitness for
global excellence and stature
KPA 6: Good governance
3. Enhance effective functioning
of the UQP.
3. Enhance the effective
functioning through ethical and good governance of the UQP w.r.t:
performance management to achieve pre-determined objectives
management of vacancies
management of temporary appointments within budget
professional and career development of staff capacity
financial management with a budget variance not more than 5%
capital expenditure within budget
infra-structure and facilities.
10
3.2 UQP Strategic Plan
One of the UQP’s main goals is focused on the implementation of the quality reviews as
stated in the UJ Strategic Plan 2025, with special reference to the targets for 2020. The UQP
is developing its own strategic plan with operational targets for the quality reviews. This is
being done in consultation with the faculties and S&S divisions.
4. PROGRESS
4.1 Quality Reviews
The tables below provide an overview of the progress (as by the end of September 2014)
made with the achievement of the UQP goal on providing leadership and support with the
implementation of the UJ Strategic Plan 2025, with special reference to quality reviews:
(a) Programme and Faculty Reviews: Progress
Table 2 below provides an overview of reviews up to the end of September 2014.
Table 2: Reviews in faculties
EDU FADA FEBE FEFS H SC HUM LAW MAN Sc TOTAL Reviews completed up to site visit
1 9 3 13
Reviews in progress – site visit in 2014
2 3 1 5 1 12
Non- subsidised whole completed up to site visit
Non-subsidised whole for review in 2014
2 2
Improvement plans: submitted to QWG
1 1 10 12
Progress reports: submitted to QWG
1 3 4
Progress w.r.t UQP targets for 2014 is indicated in Table 3.
11
Table 3: Progress with reference to targets for 2014
Type of review Target for 2014
Progress
Site visit completed
Site visit later in 2014
Programmes 10 13 12
Non-subsidised whole programmes 8 2
Research M and D programmes (as faculty clusters)
3* 1
Academic departments 4 3
Centres 1
Modules 15 12 3
Faculty reviews 2 2
The discrepancies in the targets and the actual reviews often results from faculties’ changing priorities,
e.g. to review subsidised rather than non-subsidised programmes (i.e. Faculty of Management), and to
exclude departmental reviews from the module and programme reviews (i.e. Faculty of Science).
* Reviews of research-based M and D programmes are conducted as a cluster of programmes per
faculty. This means that one panel can review up to 66 M and D programmes during a site visit (e.g.
Faculty of Management), because the focus is on underpinning governance, processes and student
success.
(b) Quality Reviews in Divisions: Progress
The following progress has been made up to September 2014:
Table 4: Reviews in divisions
Division
Reviews up to site visits
Site visits pending in 2014
Improvement plan submitted to QWG
Progress report submitted to QWG
Academic Development and Support
1
Expenditure
1
Human Resources
1
Occupational Safety
1
Student Affairs
Transportation
1
IOHA
1
Commercialisation and Technology Transfer
1
12
Campus Health Services
1
TOTAL 1 3 2 2
Progress w.r.t UQP targets for 2014 is indicated in Table 5.
Table 5: Progress with reference to targets for 2014
Type of review Target for 2014
Progress
Site visit completed
Site visit later in 2014
Service and Support Divisions 4 1 3
Campus 1
Scheduling of reviews is often influenced by restructuring or change of leadership, e.g.
Soweto Campus.
4.2 Supporting and Improving the UJ Quality Promotion System: Progress
The following progress has been made with the achievement of the UQP goal on sustaining,
supporting and improving the UJ Quality Promotion System:
Table 4: Supporting the UJ Quality Promotion System
Performance indicators
Progress towards targets
a) Implementation of the UJ Strategic Plan w.r.t. quality reviews
A report on the programme reviews conducted in 2013 was presented to the STLC. Individual faculty reports as well as an institutional overview were developed. Key commendations and recommendations w.r.t. programmes were reported. The main concerns include teaching and learning, curriculum and programme management.
b) Faculty reviews The UQP provided support to the two faculties, namely
the Faculty of Economic and Financial Sciences and the
Faculty of Management with their preparations for the
reviews. Site visits were conducted from 28-31 July
(FoM) and 11-14 August (FEFS).
Preparations started for the review of the Faculty of
Engineering and the Built Environment in 2015.
13
Performance indicators
Progress towards targets
c) Sustained and
committed participation
in UJ committees and
structures, i.e. the
STLC, Faculty Quality
Discussion Forum,
Division Quality
Discussion Forum,
Committee, UJ Quality
Conferences, PWG,
QWG, CE Advisory
Board.
UQP staff members are members of all these
committees - attend meetings regularly and provide
support as required.
It was decided to postpone the UJ Quality Conference for
2014 to 2015.
d) Monitor and support the
submission of
improvement plans and
progress reports to the
STLC and other
committees (according
to the reporting lines).
A Quality Working Group has been established to screen
improvement plans and progress reports. The QWG
reports to both the STLC and MECO by means on joint
reports i.e:
- QWG-Faculty reports on individual plans or reports to the STLC, and
- joint QWG-Division plans and reports to MECO.
e) Benchmarking UJ
Quality system;
contributing to
external/national higher
education structures,
associations and
forums, e.g. HEQC,
SAAIR, international
conferences, GARMIN
Group, etc.
(i) In February 2014, two UQP delegates attended the
Garmin Group – an inter-institutional quality
discussion forum. Institutions which attended were
NMMU, NWU, TUT, VUT, UL and UJ. On the first
day, the discussions focused on Scholarship in QA
and on the second day on Extraordinary reviews. All
attendees participated and shared challenges as well
as best practice. Feedback from other participants
confirmed UJ’s perception that the Discussion Group
was worthwhile and very informative.
(ii) In March, six staff members from the Copper Belt
University in Zambia visit the UJ. Two UQP staff
members discussed a number of quality-related
matters with them and provided them with a copy of
our programme review manual.
(iii) R Padayachi attended the 2nd Biennial QA &
Accreditation HE Conference from 3-5 Sept 2014. He
presented a paper entitled Understanding the
processes involved in the execution of an external
evaluation.
14
Performance indicators
Progress towards targets
(iv) All UQP staff members attended the SAAIR Forum
on 18 September 2014. Hester Geyser and Ina
Pretorius presented a paper entitled Faculty reviews:
Strategic alignment and quality assurance.
f) Facilitate and support the UJ Quality Enhancement Project as part of the HEQC second cycle of institutional reviews.
The UJ QEP Plan was approved in 2013 and the QEP
Task team held its first meeting. A follow-up discussion
was held with the identified writers to discuss the
information needed for the different sections, timelines,
etc. The institutional submission was approved by
SENEX and submitted to the CHE.
g) Provide support as described above to the satisfaction of the relevant clients in the faculties as reflected in the evaluations conducted after site visits.
Evaluations up to end June indicated that 96% of
respondents thought UQP presentations were relevant
and the content of presentations was deemed either
excellent or good by 85% of respondents. The only
negative feedback received focused on catering provided
at meetings.
4.3 Effective Functioning of the UQP: Progress
The following progress has been made with the achievement of UQP goal on the
enhancement and contribution to the effective functioning of the Unit for Quality Promotion:
Table: Effective functioning of the UQP
Performance indicators
Progress towards targets
a) Provide effective
leadership and
management of the
human resources of the
Unit to optimise the
Unit’s core functions.
(i) Monthly staff meetings are held with a formal agenda
and minutes (decision register) of the previous
meeting.
(ii) Monthly updating of the UQP Tracking System (by all
staff members, but managed by D Weistra) is
undertaken. This is an important tool in HR
management in the UQP.
(iii) Similarly, Ina Pretorius is responsible for the
management of peer review report writers.
(iv) Dragana Weistra is responsible for overseeing the
student assistants (1 for UQP and 1 for DIPEM).
(v) Mthu Vongo resigned at the end of January 2014.
15
The vacancy has been advertised, interviews
conducted and an appointment was made: Mr Rajen
Padayachi has commenced duties on 1 June 2014.
(vi) Ms Dragana Weistra has taken over Mr Vongo’s
responsibilities w.r.t. programme and module reviews
in Management, FEFS and FADA. Redistribution of
responsibilities is scheduled for November.
(vii) Dr Elise van Staden was appointed from February to
the end of July to take over Ms Weistra’s
responsibilities w.r.t. manual reviews, the tracking
system, the UQP website, etc.
b) Provide effective
leadership and
management of financial
resources of the Unit to
optimise the Unit’s core
functions by limiting
budget variance
expenditure to not more
than 5%; c) keeping capital
expenditure within
budget, and by
complying with the
institutional indicator on
encumbrances
transferred to next year.
Monthly staff meetings are held with a formal agenda and
minutes (decision register) of the previous meeting. A
standing item on the agendas of these meetings is the
financial record of the Unit’s expenses, management of
financial resources, etc. Violet Pienaar is responsible for
financial administration in the Unit.
A budget for 2015 was submitted as part of the
Registrar’s portfolio.
d) Provide effective
leadership and
management of
infrastructural resources
of the Unit to optimise
the Unit’s core functions.
On-going. This is also a standing item on the UQP
agendas for the monthly meetings.
Asset registers were updated for both the Unit and
individual staff members.
e) Develop a culture of
performance by
implementing the UJ
Performance Contract
system in the Unit.
Performance contracts have been drawn up, signed and
submitted by the end of April. Progress reports were
discussed with individual staff members and submitted in
August.
f) Oversee and contribute
to activities that address
the professional
development, wellness
and overall resilience of
Wellness and transformation activities have been
combined and a combined program for UQP and DIPEM
was developed. Up to the end of September this included:
(i) An “All Saints” celebration (ii) Birthday celebrations
16
the UQP staff.
g) Increase participation in
cultural integration
activities to at least two
(institutional/ UQP)
events.
(iii) A bachelor’s party (iv) A visit to Ennerdale community to explore community
engagement opportunities. (v) UQP actively participated in the UJ Staff Day
(especially the Registrar’s stall/exhibition on achievements over the past 10 years).
(vi) UQP participated in the Diversity Day celebrations on 19 September.
h) Establish an open and
conducive climate, e.g.
via periodic
brainstorming and self-
reflection sessions.
One break-away session was held in February. The UQP
reflected on its goals for 2014, quality review processes
and the revision/development of manuals. A follow-up
session was held in March.
The revision of manuals to align criteria with the UJ
Strategic Plan, is continuing.
i) Liaise with partners in
the support sector of the
University and external
role players.
(i) Regular meetings with the ED: ADS are held to
discuss matters of mutual concern, e.g. the need for
curriculum experts in the ADS division. A workshop is
planned for UJ chair persons in June – on curriculum
coherence and programme review criteria.
(ii) See the Garmin Group (4.2 (e) above).
(iii) A group of academics in the Faculty of Science
attended a workshop on curriculum matters on 16
September. These staff members will in future serve
on panels for reviews in Science, FEBE and Health
Sciences as available.
j) Oversee and guide the
development and
regular updating of a
website for the UQP.
D Weistra updated the exciting UQP website.
k) Oversee and support
the development and
regular updating of a
tracking system for the
UQP.
One UQP staff member, D Weistra, is responsible for the
regular updating of the UQP Tracking System. Six
meetings have been held to achieve this.
l) Oversee the
management of the
student assistants in
UQP.
One staff member in the UQP, Dragana Weistra, has
taken on this responsibility.
m) Policy review The revised Assessment Policy was sent (via STLC) to the faculties for comments. Further developments in this regard are managed by the Executive Director: ADS.
n) Scholarship Regular research seminars are scheduled. The Unit has to
determine and finalise its research focus for 2014. Three
17
research projects have been identified, namely the
Perceptions and Experiences of Peer Review Panels (of
the programme review process at UJ) (D Weistra),
Enhancement of Learning by using Tutors(I Pretorius) and
Student Involvement in Quality processes (R Padayachi).
The first can only be finalised by the end of 2014 (w.r.t.
data collection), while the intention is to finalise the other
two for implementation/presentation at conferences during
2015.
H Geyser and I Pretorius were requested to review
submitted papers for the SAAIR Forum in September.
H Geyser is the supervisor for a UFS Master’s student.
o) Ad hoc requests UQP collaborated with DIPEM on the completion of a CHE
questionnaire on continuing education programmes.
18
5. RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
5.1 Human Resources
The UQP consists of five staff members and one student assistant. All five staff members
have permanent appointments.
Figure 1: UQP organogram
REGISTRAR
UNIT FOR QUALITY PROMOTION
HEAD: UQP
Prof Hester Geyser
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
Ms Violet Pienaar
COORDINATOR: QUALITY PROMOTION
Mr Rajen Padayachi (since 1 June)
Temporary appointment: Dr Elise van Staden
(until end July) (1 Feb – 31 July 2014)
COORDINATOR: QUALITY PROMOTION
Ms Ina Pretorius
FACILITATOR: QUALITY PROMOTION
Ms Dragana Weistra
STUDENT ASSISTANT
Ms Boiitumelo Matshana
19
As far as gender is concerned, the UQP staff component (including student-assistants)
consists of:
Males: 1 (14.3%)
Females: 6 (85.7%).
In terms of race, the staff component consists of:
African: 1 (14.3%)
White: 5 (71.4).
Indian: 1 (14.3%)
5.2 Financial Management
In UQP, the secretary, Ms Violet Pienaar, provides support w.r.t. procurement, payments, and
related financial transactions. All purchases are discussed in the Unit. The financial
statements are included in all the agendas for staff meetings.
6. STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
6.1 National Involvement
National engagement includes attendance of/visits to:
(i) A small inter-institutional quality discussion forum (the Garmin Group) – UJ hosted the
event in February 2013. See 4.2(e).
6.2 Internal Engagement
Within UJ, staff members of UQP were involved in the following engagement activities:
(i) One Quality Discussion Forum was held on 4 February, attended by 13 persons from 7
faculties. A number of quality-related matters were discussed, e.g. HEQSF alignment
of programmes, submission of Category B programmes, reviews planned for 2014,
QEPTT and the Quality Conference. The second Quality Discussion Forum (held on
13 May) was devoted to planning reviews up to 2020 and feedback on reviews done in
2013.
(ii) UQP members serve on a number of UJ committees, task teams and working groups
such as the STLC, the PWG, CEAB, the Quality Working Group, the Faculty Review
Management Committee and the QEPTT.
20
7. ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
The use of paperless meetings has been cascaded down within the institution and UQP staff
members are being encouraged to implement paperless meetings.
Environmental sustainability efforts include full support of UJ’s waste management and
recycling initiatives by recycling paper, limiting printing to both sides and switching off lights at
night.
8. LEADERSHIP FOOTPRINT
Internally, the UQP provides leadership/expertise in a number of areas, such as:
(i) The development of the UJ submission to the HEQC as part of the national QEP.
(ii) The faculty reviews conducted in 2013 and 2014, especially with the site visits, SER
development, etc.
(iii) The establishment of a Quality Working Group to review improvement plan and
progress reports.
9. CONCLUSION AND THE WAY FORWARD
The flexibility of the UJ Quality Plan, combined with the decision to review all programmes by
2015, poses an on-going challenge to the UQP: customising support for the different kinds of
reviews (e.g. module reviews, combined programme and departmental reviews, non-
subsidised programmes, etc.) and keeping track of the progress in faculties and in the service
and support units are on-going challenges. The UQP remains responsible for the
custodianship of the quality review processes.
---oOo---
21
Above a photograph of the UQP staff. From left to right: Ms Ina Pretorius, Ms Violet Pienaar,
Ms Dragana Weistra, Prof Hester Geyser and Mr Rajen Padayachi.
Below a photograph of UQP staff members at the Registrar’s stall during the UJ Staff Day on
30 May. From left to right: Ina Pretorius, Hester Geyser, Violet Pienaar, Elise van Staden and
Dragana Weistra.
22
