Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
UNIT FOR QUALITY PROMOTION
THIRD QUARTERLY REPORT September 2013
2
UNIT FOR QUALITY PROMOTION:
THIRD QUARTERLY REPORT 2013
Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................ ………..3
1. OPERATING CONTEXT ........................................................................................................... 5
1.1 Governance Structure ...................................................................................................... 5
3. STRATEGIC FOCUS ................................................................................................................ 6
3.1 UQP goals for 2013 .......................................................................................................... 6
3.2 UQP strategic plan: 2013-2020 ........................................................................................ 7
4. PERFORMANCE ...................................................................................................................... 8
4.1 Implementation of the Quality Promotion Plan ............................................................. 8
4.2 Supporting and improving the UJ Quality Promotion System: Progress .................. 11
4.3 Effective functioning of the UQP: Progress ................................................................. 15
5. RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ................................................................................................. 18
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
UNIT FOR QUALITY PROMOTION:
THIRD QUARTERLY REPORT 2013
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The goals of the UQP (aligned with UJ Strategic Thrusts) are to
i) facilitate, support and oversee the implementation of the UJ Quality Promotion Plan:
2010 – 2016.
ii) sustain, support and improve the UJ Quality Promotion System.
iii) enhance and contribute to the effective functioning of the Unit for Quality Promotion.
As far as the implementation of the UJ Quality Promotion Plan is concerned, the UQP is
providing support with the preparations for:
i) a large number of programme reviews that has been scheduled for 2013 and 2014 (a
break-down per faculty is provided in the report).
ii) two faculty reviews in 2013 (the Faculties of Humanities and Health Sciences) and
three faculty reviews scheduled for 2014 (FEFS, Faculty of Law and Faculty of
Management).
iii) four reviews in service and support divisions (i.e. Residences, IOHA, Transportation
and HR).
The following support has been provided to the UJ Quality Promotion System:
(i) Annual updating of the UJ Progress Report by means of contributions from different
role players in the UJ and submitting Progress Report II to the HEQC by March 2013.
(ii) A report on the implementation of the UJ Quality Promotion Plan in 2012 was
presented to the STLC as a PPT presentation, while a full written report was submitted
and presented to the ELG. Key commendations and recommendations w.r.t.
programmes were reported.
(iii) The framework for non-subsidised programmes was reworked as a policy with
separate procedures (by the Dean of the Faculty of Law) and submitted to MECA for
approval. It was decided that one document should be developed and that the
outstanding issues should be addressed by a task team with the DVC: Planning as
chairperson.
(iv) A proposal on the HEQSF alignment of non-subsidised whole programmes was
approved and the relevant programmes reviewed and submitted to Senex (Aug 2013)
for approval.
(v) As far as student involvement in quality assurance is concerned, one UQP staff
member (Mr Vongo) is exploring the topic. He presented a workshop on the topic to the
Garmin Group (an inter-institutional discussion forum for staff in quality offices at SA
4
universities) in February 2013. He attended a conference in Glasgow, Scotland in June
– one of the conference themes was student involvement in quality enhancement. He
also met with individuals from Edinburgh University to explore the topic further.
(vi) Professional councils that accredit UJ programmes: An initial list of professional
councils has been drawn up. Permission from the Registrar has been obtained to
collect more information from the faculties, e.g. on the status of the council/statutory
body, purpose of campus visits, etc. Information was received from 8 faculties thus far.
iv) The UQP provide support with the two faculty reviews planned for 2013, namely the
Faculty of Humanities and the Faculty of Health Sciences. The Faculty Review
Management Committee has met four times so far, and the two staff members involved
in these reviews (i.e. Ina Pretorius and Hester Geyser) have met several times with the
Faculty of Health Sciences to discuss their preparations, etc. Preparations for faculty
reviews scheduled for 2014 (FEFS, Faculty of Law and Faculty of Management) were
initiated.
(vii) The Faculty Quality Discussion Forum met on 12 March 2013. A number of quality-
related matters were discussed, e.g. HEQSF alignment of programmes, including non-
subsidised programmes; programme reviews, etc.
(viii) Two UQP delegates attended the CHE Quality Assurance Forum. The workshop
focussed on the 2nd cycle of audits; the national review of social work, and an update
on the HEQSF.
(ix) On February 2013, UJ hosted the Garmin Group (an inter-institutional discussion
group). Institutions which attended were NMMU, NWU, UFS, UCT, SU and UJ. On the
first day, the discussions centred on Student engagement in quality processes. The
attendance of three members of UJ’s SRC was especially encouraging: we hope to
follow-up on the contacts made. On the second day, Challenges encountered during
the peer review process were discussed. 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.
(x) ESA/SA-EU QA Colloquium on 3-5 April in Stellenbosch. Main themes included the
roles of quality managers and the shift in focus from QA to QE of teaching and
learning. (A report has served at the R-Exco of April 2013).
(xi) An in-house Quality Conference was conducted on 15 Aug. Speakers included: Prof
Diane Grayson (Director: Institutional Audits, CHE), Prof Vivienne Bozalek (Director:
Teaching and Learning, UWC), Ms Mariaan Klopper (Institutional Manager: Teaching
and Learning, NWU) and Mr Mthu Vongo (Coordinator: Quality Promotion, UJ).
As far as the effective functioning of the UQP is concerned:
The UQP has held a strategic breakaway and conducted a SWOT analysis in February 2013.
A follow-up session was conducted in April; combined with a reflection on insights gained
during the Garmin group and the HESA conference. One of the goals, to identify a relevant
research project for the office, has been addressed and the UQP is planning a project on the
role of external panels in quality reviews.
---oOo---
5
UNIT FOR QUALITY PROMOTION
THIRD QUARTERLY REPORT 2013:
September 2013
1. OPERATING CONTEXT
1.1 Governance Structure
As from January 2012, the Unit for Quality Promotion (UQP) reports to the Registrar. The
UQP oversees and facilitates the implementation of the UJ Quality Promotion Plan in faculties
and academic development, service and support divisions. At institutional level, it supports
and continuously improves the UJ Quality Promotion System.
Although the UQP offices are situated on the APK campus, 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.
1.2 Physical Location
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 a boardroom, the kitchen, the
storeroom, etc. are shared. DIPEM has recently made new appointments and office space is
an ongoing concern.
2. RISKS AND MANAGEMENT OF RISKS
UQP identified the lack of buy-in into quality processes as a risk within the Registrar’s
portfolio. This could lead to reputational risk because of the (poor) quality of UJ programmes.
Quality reviews are conducted to improve the quality of programmes as well as service and
support divisions. The UQP regards itself as the custodian of the quality review processes to
ensure credible peer review reports to faculties and divisions. These reports, together with
other information, are used to inform decisions in faculties and divisions. The UQP has to
constantly guard against practices/approaches that may have a negative impact on the
6
credibility of the review process and ultimately on the peer review report. Factors that may
have a negative influence include:
development of the 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
peer review panels, i.e. not enough/relevant experts on the panel; no curriculum expert
(w.r.t. programme and module reviews); insufficient transparency of the review process
and the department’s/unit’s interaction with the panel
site visit schedule, i.e. insufficient time; interview groups not representative; not
enough reflection time for the panel.
The UQP continuously addresses the potential risk by means of:
(i) A Quality Discussion Forum for Faculties that meets regularly (at least 3 times per
year). The purpose is to inform, consult, etc. with faculty quality managers on quality
matters, including reviews.
(ii) Regular meetings/consultations with faculty quality managers, departments and
programme groups.
(iii) UQP staff members that act as critical readers of the SERs and provide extensive
feedback as needed.
(iv) Workshops on SER development, evidence management and the logistics of the site
visit.
(v) 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.
(vi) Training of UJ staff as chairpersons for peer review panels is an on-going undertaking.
One workshop was presented in 2012, and a second one in January 2013. A total of
20 persons have been trained.
(vii) Training of peer review report writers by means of workshops (16 April and 12 June
2013) 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).
(ix) A questionnaire to determine client satisfaction with UQP services has been
developed. A pilot run was done in 2012, while full implementation is undertaken in
2013. The results will be included in the UQP annual report for 2013.
3. STRATEGIC FOCUS
3.1 UQP goals for 2013
The UQP goals for 2013 are aligned with UJ Strategic Thrusts as follows:
7
Table: UQP goals
UJ Strategic Thrusts UQP Goals
UJ Thrust 1: Sustained excellence of
academic programmes, research and
community engagement.
Provides leadership and support with the
implementation of the UJ Quality
Promotion Plan: 2010 – 2016. This
includes support with at least:
i) two faculty reviews ii) 30 programme reviews iii) 3 service and support divisions/units.
UJ Trust 6: Leadership that matters in the
institution and in civil society.
Sustain, support and improve the UJ
Quality Promotion System w.r.t:
i) a framework for non-subsidised programmes
ii) the HEQSF alignment of non-subsidised whole programmes
iii) policy reviews iv) RPL guidelines for UJ staff.
UJ Thrust 8: Generate, cultivate and
sustain resources and structures.
Enhance the effective functioning of the
Unit for Quality Promotion w.r.t:
i) governance and management ii) human resources iii) financial resources iv) infrastructure.
3.2 UQP strategic plan: 2013-2020
The following should be kept in mind when the UQP goals for 2013 to 2020 are studied:
One of the UQP’s two main goals is focused on the implementation of the UJ Quality
Promotion Plan. The existing plan expires at the end of 2016. A new plan should be
developed, taking the following into consideration:
(i) the outcomes of the programme reviews conducted up to 2016 (i.e. the main concerns
expressed in the peer review reports);
(ii) the University’s quality-related needs;
(iii) the focus of the second cycle of institutional reviews (i.e. teaching and learning), and
(iv) international trends in the quality domain.
While UQP cannot by itself enhance the quality of teaching and learning, partnerships with
other UJ academic staff and support units/divisions will be crucial. Buy-in of staff and leaders
is – as always – crucial for the effective implementation of a quality plan/project and the
resulting improvement in quality.
8
The UQP goals up to 2020 are as follows:
Table: UQP goals up to 2020
UJ Strategic
Thrusts
UQP Goals: 2013-2014 2015 - 2017 2020
UJ Thrust 1:
Sustained
excellence of
academic
programmes,
research and
community
engagement.
Provides leadership and
support with the
implementation of the UJ
Quality Promotion Plan:
2010 – 2016. This includes
support with:
i) faculty reviews ii) programme reviews
(including non-subsidised programmes and research-based M and D programmes)
iii) quality reviews of service and support divisions/units.
Provides leadership and
support with the
implementation of the UJ
Quality Promotion Plan: 2010
– 2016. This includes
support with:
i) faculty reviews ii) programme reviews
(including non-subsidised programmes and research-based M and D programmes)
iii) quality reviews of service and support divisions/units.
Provides leadership and
support with the
implementation of the new
UJ Quality Promotion Plan.
Proposed projects include:
i) curriculum design ii) assessment audit iii) improving student
engagement in quality enhancement.
UJ Trust 6:
Leadership that
matters in the
institution and in
civil society.
Sustain, support and
improve the UJ Quality
Promotion System by
means of:
i) policy development and revision
ii) membership of committees such as the STLC, CE Forum; RPL working group, WIL task team, etc.
iii) research on quality management (i.e. presentations at conferences, etc.).
Sustain, support and improve
the UJ Quality Promotion
System by means of:
i) the development of a new UJ Quality Promotion Plan (see proposed projects below).
ii) quality enhancement of teaching and learning
iii) providing support with UJ submissions and presentations as part of the second cycle of institutional reviews
iv) membership of committees such as the STLC, CE Forum; RPL working group, WIL task team, etc.
v) research on quality enhancement.
Sustain, support and
improve the UJ Quality
Promotion System by means
of:
i) quality enhancement of teaching and learning
ii) providing support with UJ submissions and presentations as part of the second cycle of institutional reviews
iii) membership of committees such as the STLC, CE Forum; RPL working group, WIL task team, etc.
iv) research on quality enhancement (see Project 3 below).
4. PERFORMANCE
4.1 Implementation of the Quality Promotion Plan
9
The tables below provide a summary of the progress (as by the end of July 2013) made with
the achievement of the UQP goal on providing leadership and support with the
implementation of the UJ Quality Promotion Plan:
10
(a) Programme and faculty reviews: Progress
Table: Reviews in faculties
Faculties FEBE
FEFS
HUMANITIES
FADA
LAW
HEALTH SCIENC
ES
SCIENCE EDUCATION
MANAGEMENT
TOTAL
Reviews up to site visits
4
3
3
2
0
4
1
2
5
24
SERs completed
1 4 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 9
Reviews with site visits later in 2013
1
6
0
0
3
5
4
0
12
31
Preparations for reviews (site visit in 2014)
2
4
1
2
0
1
2
0
7
19
Improvement plans in development (including those submitted to the STLC)
3
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
8
19
Faculty reviews: site visits in 2013
1 (in Aug)
1 (in Sept)
2
Faculty reviews: site visits in 2014
1
1
1
3
(b) Quality reviews in the divisions: Progress
The following progress has been made up to July 2013:
Table: Reviews in divisions
Divisions
Reviews up to site visit Student Accommodation and Residence Life
SERs completed HR, Transportation Services, IOHA
Reviews with site visits later in 2013 Institutional Office for HIV and Aids (IOHA) (October 2013), HR, Transportation Services
Preparations for reviews (site visit in 2014)
2 underway; 9 to be contacted by the end of 2013.
Improvement plans in development
11
(incl. those submitted to MECO) Expenditure
Reviews cancelled/postponed indefinitely
Protection Services (Director has resigned)
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: Supporting the UJ Quality Promotion System
Performance indicators
Progress towards targets
a) UJ Quality Progress
Report.
The second UJ Progress Report was approved by the
MEC in March 2013 and submitted to the HEQC at the
end of March 2013.
b) Implementation of the UJ Quality Promotion Plan
A report on the programme reviews conducted in 2012 was presented to the STLC as a PPT presentation, while a full written report was submitted and presented to the ELG. Key commendations and recommendations w.r.t. programmes were reported. The main concern, namely curriculum design and the subsequent need for support, was discussed with the ED: ADS and then flagged at a meeting of the STLC (July 2013). The need for institutional support was expressed and Dr Van Zyl (ADS) noted the need for support from his unit.
c) Finalise the Quality
Framework for Non-
subsidised Programmes
for approval by the MEC
and/or Senate.
(i) The Framework was reworked as a policy with
separate procedures (by the Dean of the Faculty
of Law) and submitted to MECA for approval. It
was decided that one document should be
developed and that the outstanding issues should
be addressed by a task team with the DVC:
Planning as chairperson.
(ii) A proposal on the HEQSF alignment of non-
subsidised whole programmes has been
developed and submitted to MECA for approval in
April 2013. In collaboration with DIPEM, the
submissions were reviewed and comments sent to
the faculties for resubmission. The final
submission did serve at Senex on 13 Aug 2013.
d) Develop a set of A set of guidelines (for UJ staff) on the implementation of
12
guidelines for UJ
academic and support
staff on the
implementation of RPL.
RPL has been developed and presented at a meeting
with faculty and SEC representatives. Comments from
the faculties are awaited.
e) Oversee and guide the
development of a
framework for student
involvement in quality
promotion.
(i) One UQP staff member (Mr Vongo) is exploring the
topic. He presented a workshop on the topic to the
Garmin Group (an inter-institutional discussion forum
for staff in quality offices at SA universities) in
February 2013.
(ii) He has attended a conference in Glasgow, Scotland
in June – one of the conference themes was student
involvement in quality enhancement. He also met
with the quality unit at the University of Edinburgh to
explore the topic further.
(iii) He contributed a presentation at the in-house Quality
Conference (15 Aug 2013) on student engagement.
(iv) He is also working on his PhD (on the same topic)
with Prof Gerrie Jacobs as supervisor.
f) Oversee and guide
research on the roles,
criteria, etc. of relevant
professional councils
with a view to develop a
UJ protocol for
professional council
visits.
An initial list of professional councils has been drawn up.
Permission from the Registrar has been obtained to
collect more information from the faculties, e.g. on the
status of the council/statutory body, purpose of campus
visits, etc. Dragana Weistra is in the process of collecting
additional information from the faculties. Information was
received from 8 faculties.
g) Faculty reviews The UQP provided support with the two faculty reviews
planned for 2013, namely the Faculty of Humanities and
the Faculty of Health Sciences. The Faculty Review
Management Committee has met five times so far. The
two staff members involved in these reviews (i.e. Ina
Pretorius and Hester Geyser) provided support to
discuss the process, site visit etc.
Preparation for faculty reviews scheduled for 2014
(FEFS, Faculties of Law and Management) are initiated.
h) Sustained and
committed participation
in UJ committees and
structures, i.e. the
STLC, Faculty Quality
Discussion Forum,
Division Quality
UQP staff members are members of all these
committees - attend meetings regularly and provide
support as required:
The following meetings were organised and conducted
by the UQP:
(i) Faculty Quality Discussion Forum met on 12 March
13
Discussion Forum,
Community
Engagement
Committee, Faculty of
Humanities Quality
Committee , UJ Quality
Conferences, PWG,
RPL Task Team, WIL
Task Team, CE
Advisory Board.
2013. A number of quality-related matters were
discussed, e.g. HEQSF alignment of programmes,
including non-subsidised programmes; programme
reviews, etc.
(ii) An in-house Quality Conference was conducted on
15 Aug. Speakers included:
- Prof Diane Grayson (Director: Institutional Audits:
Teaching and Learning, CHE): The 2nd cycle of
institutional reviews
- Prof Vivienne Bozalek (Director: teaching and
Learning, UWC): Assessment and rubrics
- Ms Mariaan Klopper (Institutional manager:
Teaching and Learning, NWU): The scholarship of
teaching and learning
- Mr Mthu Vongo (Coordinator: Quality Promotion,
UJ): Involving students in quality enhancement.
i) Monitor and support the
submission of
improvement plans and
progress reports to the
STLC and other
committees (according
to the reporting lines).
Preparation of improvement plans has been identified as
one of the potential risk areas. Prof Geyser and the
relevant faculty contact persons in UQP will provide
support, but also serve as critical readers before these
plans are approved in the faculty.
j) Benchmarking UJ
Quality system;
contributing to
external/national higher
education structures,
associations and
forums, e.g. HEQC,
SAAIR, international
conferences, GARMIN
Group, etc.
(i) Two UQP delegates attended the CHE Quality
Assurance Forum. The workshop focussed on the 2nd
cycle of audits; the national review of social work;
and an update on the HEQSF.
(ii) On February 2013 UJ hosted the Garmin Group.
Institutions which attended were NMMU, NWU, UFS,
UCT, SU and UJ. On the first day, the discussions
centred on Student engagement in quality processes.
The attendance of three members of UJ’s SRC was
especially encouraging: we hope to follow-up on the
contacts made. On the second day, Challenges
encountered during the peer review process was
discussed. 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.
(iii) ESA/SA-EU QA Colloquium on 3-5 April in
Stellenbosch. Main themes were the roles of quality
managers and the shift in focus from QA to QE of
14
teaching and learning. (A report has served at the R-
Exco of April 2013).
(v) Mr Mthu Vongo attended a conference in Glasgow
from 11 – 13 June: one of the conference themes
was student involvement in quality enhancement. He
also met with the quality unit at the University of
Edinburgh to explore the topic further.
(vi) On 28 June 2013, a few staff members from the
Mount Kenya University visited UQP. UJ staff
members from the faculty administration of the
Faculty of Science, Student Finances and DIPEM
also had information sessions with the Kenyans. See
the photo below.
(iv) Proposals for a paper on the quality reviews of
research-based M and D programmes have been
submitted to two conferences, i.e. HELTASA and
SAAIR.
(v) A proposal to present a paper on student
engagement in quality enhancement has been
submitted to SAAIR.
k) Contribute to an
increasing focus on
scholarly engagement,
involvement and
outputs.
(i) The UQP has held a strategic breakaway and
conducted a SWOT analysis in February 2013. A
follow-up session was scheduled for April; combined
with a reflection on insights gained during the Garmin
group and the HESA conference. One of the goals
was to identify a relevant research project for the
office.
(ii) An in-house workshop was conducted by Dragana
Weistra on Interactive Qualitative Analysis – as a
possible methodology for a research project on
external panels in quality reviews. A follow-up
discussion was held in UQP to revisit the
methodology. Dr Elise van Staden is the coordinator
of the research-project – regular discussions have
been scheduled to plan and implement the research
project.
l) Oversee and support
the implementation of
the MoU with Edge Hill
University.
Ina Pretorius serves as the UJ contact person. A quick
survey by the Registrar indicated that the Faculty of
Health Sciences will be continuing interactions and
collaborations with EHU in 2013.
15
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 Dragana 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
three student assistants (2 for UQP and 1 for DIPEM)
and a set of guidelines and allocation of
responsibilities have been developed in consultation
with DIPEM.
(v) Dragana Weistra is on maternity leave until end of
October. Ms Elise van Staden has been appointed to
take on some of Dragana’s responsibilities, including
the research project.
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
c) than 5%; 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.
Budget for 2014 has been submitted.
16
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.
e) Develop a culture of
performance by
implementing the UJ
Performance Contract
system in the Unit.
Performance contracts have been drawn up. Individual
meetings with the staff members were done in April 2013.
Progress discussions are being held in July - Aug.
f) Oversee and contribute
to activities that address
the professional
development, wellness
and overall resilience of
the UQP staff.
g) Increase participation in
cultural integration
activities to at least two
(institutional/ UQP)
events.
Wellness and transformation activities have been
combined and a combined program for UQP and DIPEM
was developed. This includes:
(i) Birthday celebrations, baby showers and cultural
celebrations.
(ii) All the UQP staff attended the UJ Staff day on 20
March 2013 on SWC. The Unit played an
instrumental role in the development of the
Registrar’s poster, depicting one of the UJ values.
(iii) All the staff members participated in Mandela Day (18
June) by providing support with the distribution of
food parcels at Helen Joseph Hospital.
(iv) In July 2013, staff members of UQP and DIPEM
celebrated our diversity with a lunch at the famous
Wandie’s Restaurant in Soweto. Everybody also
shared experiences of their holiday during the “show
and tell” session. See the photo below.
h) Establish an open and
conducive climate, e.g.
via periodic
brainstorming and self-
reflection sessions.
One break-away session was held in January and
included a SWOT analysis of the office. The follow-up
activities, combined with a reflection on insights gained
during the Garmin Group and the HESA colloquium was
done.
Informal/formal discussions are held as and when needed
– this is possible because of the small number of staff
members in the UP.
i) Liaise with partners in
the support sector of the
University and external
role players.
(i) The Quality Discussion Forum for Faculties required a closer collaboration with DIPEM.
(ii) The HEQSF alignment of non-subsidised whole programmes was done in collaboration with DIPEM and central Academic Administration.
(iii) Regular meetings with the ED: ADS are held to discuss matters of mutual concern, e.g. the need for
17
curriculum experts in the ADS division.
j) Oversee and guide the
development and
regular updating of a
website for the UQP.
Dragana Weistra has developed the UQP website in
February 2013. Further updating, as needed, will also be
undertaken by Dragana.
k) Oversee and support
the development and
regular updating of a
tracking system for the
UQP.
One UQP staff member, Dragana Weistra, is responsible
for the regular updating of the UQP Tracking System.
Regular meetings are held with UQP staff members to
achieve this.
l) Oversee the
management of the
student assistants in
UQP.
One staff member in the UQP has taken on this
responsibility. See staff organogram below.
18
5. RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
5.1 Human Resources
The UQP consists of five staff members and two student assistants. All five staff members
have permanent appointments.
Figure: UQP organogram
REGISTRAR
UNIT FOR QUALITY PROMOTION
HEAD: UQP
Prof Hester Geyser
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
Ms Violet Pienaar
COORDINATOR: QUALITY PROMOTION
Mr Mthu Vongo
COORDINATOR: QUALITY PROMOTION
Ms Ina Pretorius
FACILITATOR: QUALITY PROMOTION
Ms Dragana Weistra
STUDENT ASSISTANTS
Ms Zanele Mtwecu
Ms Andile Ngobese
19
As far as gender is concerned, the UQP staff component (including student-assistants)
consists of:
Males: 1 (29%)
Females: 6 (71%).
In terms of race, the staff component consists of:
African: 3 (14%)
White: 4 (86%).
The UQP organises regular in-house capacity development opportunities for its own staff. The
following opportunities were conducted in April-May:
(i) Curriculum design
(ii) Interactive Qualitative Analysis Research Methodology.
Development opportunities external to the UJ were also utilised. See Stakeholder
Engagement (at national level) below.
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. Twelve persons attended (see (j) on benchmarking above).
(ii) A CHE Quality Assurance Forum attended by Mthu Vongo and Dragana Weistra on 18
March 2013.
(iii) A HESA/SA-EU QA Colloquium from 3-5 April in Stellenbosch.
6.2 Internal Engagement
Within UJ, staff members of UQP were involved in the following engagement activities:
20
(i) One Quality Discussion Forum was held on 12 March, attended by 20 persons from 7
faculties. A number of quality-related matters were discussed, e.g. HEQSF alignment
of programmes, including non-subsidised programmes; programme reviews, etc.
(ii) UQP members serve on a number of UJ committees, task teams and working groups
such as the STLC, the PWG, CEAB, the RPL working group and the WIL working
group.
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 framework, Quality management of Continuing and
Professional Development Programmes in collaboration with a staff member from
DIPEM.
(ii) A set of guidelines for academics/staff on the implementation of RPL in faculties.
(iii) The development of a framework for student engagement in quality promotion (in
process).
(iv) The development (in consultation with UJ staff members) of the UJ Progress Report II
(in response to the UJ Improvement Plan) and the identification of follow-up activities.
(v) The faculty reviews conducted in 2013, especially with the site visits, SER
development, etc.
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. Regular communication with the faculties,
21
more specifically HoDs, as a way to address this concern, was initiated in 2012 and must be
continued and extended in 2013.
---oOo---
The photo shows guests from the Mount Kenya University with UQP and DIPEM staff.
22
The famous Wandie’s Place in Soweto where UQP and DIPEM staff celebrated their diversity.
