Audit of Quality Work

Transcription

1 1 J. L. Davies, H. Hietala, S. Kolehmainen, M. Parjanen & C. Welander Audit of Quality Work Vaasa Polytechnic PUBLICATIONS OF THE FINNISH HIGHER EDUCATION EVALUATION COUNCIL 16:2002

2 2 Korkeakoulujen arviointineuvosto Pikseri Julkaisupalvelut Helsinki 2002

3 3 Preface Since its creation in the early 1990 s, Finnish institutional evaluation has been primarily concerned with the development and improvement of Finnish higher education institutions, both universities and polytechnics. In the polytechnic sector, the Finnish Higher Education Evaluation Council (FINHEEC) has conducted evaluations for the purpose of accrediting polytechnics, and also initiated quality audits of polytechnics, in close collaboration with the institutions concerned. Following an internal audit conducted by Vaasa Polytechnic in June 2001, the Polytechnic s Management Group decided that an external evaluation of the institution should be undertaken in After a visit to FINHEEC, in August 2001, the implementation and schedule was agreed on. The over-arching objectives of the audit were agreed as being supporting the improvement processes of the Polytechnic feedback on the operation for the Polytechnic and its owner (the City of Vaasa) clarification of core processes and their effectiveness determining effective action priorities providing an international comparative perspective promoting change processes. This audit was/is regarded by the Polytechnic as its first significant attempt to chart for itself a strategic future after a relatively turbulent five years which was primarily concerned with institution building and urgent post-merger business. The preparations for the Self Evaluation took place in Autumn 2001 and early spring 2002 and the visit of the external team occurred in March 13 th 15 th, The issues identified by the Polytechnic for analysis are a reflection of this priority, and are discussed in substantial detail in the body of this Report, together with the processes employed by the Polytechnic to conduct the evaluation. FINHEEC has been responsible for the logistics behind the planning and organisation of the evaluation, and for the costs of the external evaluators, and publication. It has not sought to provide a detailed template for the Polytechnic to follow in producing a Self Evaluation, leaving its design and the format of the visit to the Polytechnic. This publication reports the findings and recommendations of the five member expert team appointed by FINHEEC. The expert team is responsible for the contents of the Report, but it has been mindful of national priorities for polytechnics, and the character and nature of FINHEEC s expectations. It is hoped that the processes undertaken and the team s Report itself will prove an

4 4 important milestone in the development of the institution and the many dimensions of its activity, and as is normal, it is hoped that a follow-up evaluation will take place in due course. FINHEEC would like to thank the team members for their professional work, and for their contribution to the evolution of Vaasa Polytechnic. Tapio Huttula Secretary General Outi Kinttula Senior Adviser

5 5 Contents Composition of the expert team 6 1 Introduction 8 2 The evaluation process itself 9 3 Institutional context 11 4 Education 13 5 Student administration and support services 16 6 Quality arrangements 17 7 Research and service activities 19 8 Financial administration 22 9 Managership and organisational principles Conclusion 28 Appendices 1: Programme for Audit Visit 29 2: Representatives of the polytechnic in the interviews 31 3: Organisational chart 33

6 6 Composition of the expert team Chairman Matti Parjanen Matti Parjanen, Ph.D. (Sociology of Education), is Senior Consultant of Quality Assurance and Evaluation, University of Tampere. He has previously been a Professor of Quality Assessment and Director of the Unit of Quality Assurance at Tampere University. He is expert in educational policy and teaching improvement, continuing higher education and quality assurance. He has been a President of Senate and Vice-Rector at Tampere University. He has been acquainted with the evaluation of higher education in USA as a Fulbright grantee. He is working nowadays with FINHEEC and several Finnish and foreign universities and polytechnics in the field of evaluation. Team Members Hanna Hietala Hanna Hietala is a student of Tampere Polytechnic. She is active in student organisations in her school and also nationwide. Seppo Kolehmainen Seppo Kolehmainen has a long experience as a teacher in the field of engineering education. He has also performed various management tasks, e.g. been ten years principal of a local institute of the Häme Polytechnic. Last six years he has been the Director of the Evaluation and Quality activities at Häme Polytechnic. Seppo Kolehmainen has a Ph.D. degree and nowadays his main interest is quality of the teaching learning process. Christine Welander Christine Welander is M.S.Sc. Senior Lecturer, Programme Director, Sydväst Polytechnic.

7 7 Secretary and International Member John L. Davies John Davies is Dean of the Graduate School at Anglia Polytechnic University, and also Professor of Higher Education Management at the International Centre for Higher Education Management at the University of Bath, UK. Professor Davies has previously been a Pro Vice Chancellor at both Anglia Polytechnic University and La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia. He is an experienced consultant in the field of higher education policy and management with UNESCO, EC, European Universities Association, OECD, the World Bank, and with numerous governments and higher education institutions world wide. He has worked with several Finnish universities and FINHEEC, and chaired two evaluations of the University of Oulu. His principal interests are strategic evaluation, planning and change.

8 8 1 Introduction At the very outset, the Evaluation Team would like to place on record its appreciation to FINHEEC for the invitation to visit Vaasa Polytechnic at a most interesting point in its development, and to Rector Pentti Ruotsala and his colleagues for their excellent hospitality, friendship, and for a series of stimulating, open and frank discussions. These were made all the more purposeful by a very penetrating Self Assessment document which revealed a willingness to confront issues, and made our conversations all the more fruitful. The Report contains many comments and recommendations, born out of extensive reflections and these are emboldened in the text. They are based on our belief that the Polytechnic has emerged from a turbulent few years in good shape, and is ready to embark on the next phase of its evolution with confidence. We wish the Polytechnic well, and trust that our observations will help it on its way.

9 2 The evaluation process itself 9 1. As has been indicated, the process which was followed in this evaluation was very much a jointly agreed exercise between FINHEEC and Vaasa Polytechnic. The team was interested to note that it seemed a combination of a quality audit and a strategic institutional evaluation. The assessment of the quality of teaching and research was no part of the process, and the team does not offer any comment on the academic standards of these two domains. It is the practice of FINHEEC to encourage institutions to select the issues for evaluation, and to determine the internal processes to be used to this end, in the interests of securing institutional commitment to, and ownership of the process and its outcomes. The team is comfortable with this approach, and applauds its maturity, and the fitness for purpose philosophy which this reflects. However, it is possible that 1.1 some institutions could omit analysis of really important issues, either by intent or default. 1.2 inter-institutional comparisons of common nationally strategic phenomena may be more difficult as a consequence. Notwithstanding, the team is more than happy to endorse this general approach, in the interests of collaboration, mutual respect and ownership, especially since teams may well be able to identify weak areas or ambiguous policy positions which are related to the main issues being discussed. As a result of the extensive number of recent evaluations, however, FINHEEC may find it helpful to consider the worthwhileness of producing notes on good practice in conducting these exercises, without ascribing to them any regulatory properties. 2. The team was pleased to see that the Polytechnic had identified this evaluation as an important phase in the development of the Polytechnic, and paragraph 4 indicates some of the principal factors in this evolution. As far as the internal process itself is concerned, the team was interested in assessing what this indicated about the quality culture of the Polytechnic itself. The following points emerged: 2.1 there were six main areas/issues identified for the (self)evaluation : managership operating principles and strategy education research and service activities financial administration

10 10 student administration which were largely set by the Management Group of the Polytechnic, and whilst not formally ratified, were generally accepted as legitimate as was evident from the discussions with Vaasa colleagues. These were considered at different organisational levels. 2.2 There was a strong focus on processes, however, rather than longer term strategy in respect of the domains, which was understandable in terms of the evolution of the organisation, but the Self Assessment was a little short on policy options, though these trickled out in some areas though almost by default. 2.3 the process of producing a Self Assessment was managed by a Quality Group, and included questionnaires to members of staff (with rather low returns in some constituencies and for certain questions like job satisfaction) visits to departments, and departmental discussions (both as whole departments or in small groups). Opinions and returns were submitted to the Quality Group who collated the responses into the Self Evaluation Report. This was ratified by the Management Group, but no other bodies, and posted on the intranet. The Board s opinions were not asked for, which seems a shortcoming. 2.4 on the whole, the team felt that the approach was quite thorough and comprehensive, and revealed a considerable element of criticism and self criticism, beyond what is normal in these situations. This clearly reflects deep-seated concerns, which the Report addresses later, but also reflects favourably on the Polytechnic culture, that such criticisms emerged from the process. 2.5 the exercise was clearly action oriented, in that a whole section of the Self Evaluation (Section 4) was devoted to Development Plans, including Development Ideas, Development Tasks and Persons in Charge. Of these, it can be said that many of these tasks have already been commenced, which is commendable some tasks are defined in ambiguous terms some problems identified in the analysis and evaluation have not been picked up in the Development Tasks (we shall comment on this during the Report) The Polytechnic is urged to cross-check on the above, but the team commends the Polytechnic on its general approach. 3. The visit of the team was well organised by the Polytechnic, with an excellently structured programme and access to a wide variety of colleagues (25% of the total staff), students and external stakeholders which provided ample opportunity for testing various propositions and cross-checking perspectives. The hospitality was splendid.

11 3 Institutional context As was indicated previously, the context at the time of the evaluation is a critical factor. Vaasa Polytechnic started as a temporary polytechnic in 1996, based on five institutions : Vaasa Institute of Technology, Vaasa Commercial College, Vaasa College of Hotel and Catering Services, Vaasa College of Health Care and Vaasa College of Household and Social Services. During the temporary licence, these were rationalised into three Institutes for Technology, Business Economics and Tourism, and Health Care and Social Services, which in 1999 formed the main educational Units of the new Polytechnic, together with three service units (Development and Study Affairs, Research and Business Services, and Administration and Finance). The Vision, Mission, Concept and Board Strategic Goals are clearly outlined in the Self Assessment. 5. By any standards, this has been a turbulent period, and the evaluation, to be helpful, should be able to propose directions to move the Polytechnic to its next phase of development. Among the factors the team has recognised in this process are the following 5.1 the merger has constitutionally and legally occurred, but some of the benefits have still to be recognised, in terms of creating a common organisational culture and norms of behaviour among the three former colleges spatial re-allocation to this end academic synergy in terms of genuine inter-disciplinarity creating a common unified strategy for centre administrative services resource efficiency. 5.2 the pre-occupation to date quite naturally has been with the nuts and bolts of reorganisation. The next phase needs to be about strategic intent and the future shape, profile and size of the Polytechnic, to move beyond the possibility of just incremental growth. 5.3 there is the clear importance of creating a genuine higher education/ Polytechnic academic community, to avoid some of the current atomisation. The statements of vision, mission and concepts of activity are fine, but in some respects, some distance away from the current reality. Effective instruments are clearly needed to deliver these statements with reality.

12 the above are likely only to be realised through a pro-active staffing and human resource strategy, designed to provide staff competence (both qualitative and quantitative) appropriate to current and future challenges. 5.5 whilst the internal world of the Polytechnic has been demonstrably turbulent, so has the external setting. Without citing particular details at this stage, this calls for a more outward looking orientation, attuned to market possibilities, with appropriate elements of an entrepreneurial culture, and a measure of decentralised decision-making to facilitate this. These points are developed in following paragraphs.

13 4 Education The Self Assessment in this particular domain was very self critical, and since education is the major activity of the Polytechnic, this needs to be taken very seriously. The principal shortcomings identified, with which the team agrees, include 6.1 the apparent gulf between the decision-making level on degree programme (Deputy Rectors), and the operational/implementation level (teachers, subject groupings, departments). 6.2 an apparent deficiency in the synchronisation of academic and resource planning. 6.3 a lack of effective formal mechanisms to ensure lateral co-operation in programme development across Units, and to reduce duplication of effort. 6.4 some considerable ambiguity regarding the adequacy of learning objectives described in degree regulations, the quality manual and study guides, and the manner in which they are realised in practice. There were clearly a set of additional messages contained in the Self Assessment and subsequent discussions, which relate not only to educational processes, but to organisational culture and the distribution of authority. 7. We return to the above points shortly, but the team would also wish to point out some good developments which deserve commendation. These include 7.1 the apparent sensitivity of programme development to the perceived needs and expressed demands of external stakeholders and the changing patterns of employee and workforce expectations. 7.2 the development of the practical experience and problem-based learning dimensions of programmes and the links with the professions and working life, which are evidently well regarded. 7.3 the growth of the international dimension of education, the extension of student mobility and the parallel development of multi-lingualism, which, though at a relatively early stage, is very promising. 7.4 student support services.

14 the advent of relatively informal development groups for emerging topics (like problem-based learning), which seem to be largely initiated by the Rector as an instrument of preparing for new potential developments. However, their position within the organisation is ambiguous, as is their visibility. 8. The Development Tasks for Education outlined in the Self Assessment focus principally on the means of improving lateral co-operation, and updating the degree programmes. Whilst these are reasonable as far as they go, they do not address all the issues identified in the Self Assessment, nor those which emerged from discussions. The team would thus recommend the Polytechnic also seriously considers the following 8.1 revisiting the overall academic profile of the Polytechnic, and engaging in a deep internal debate, informed by a stakeholder dialogue, on the future size, shape, characteristics, learning strategies and course profile of the institution over a five-year period, as a means of putting individual course developments into a strategic and agreed framework. 8.2 as part of this, developing a view on what are the generic characteristics of the Vaasa Polytechnic graduate : how would she/he be recognised externally? It is not for the team to say what these characteristics are, but other similar institutions have identified IT literacy, research literacy, team skills, project skills, language skills as being core, no matter what the main discipline is. 8.3 this concept of under-graduateness could well be paralleled by a consideration of postgraduateness, for the postgraduate area, perhaps understandably, is one which did not figure strongly in discussions. The team feels the Bologna process should give added impetus to this, especially in terms of student mobility. 8.4 the Development Task on co-operation between fields of study ought also to promote discussion on the Polytechnic s philosophy on multi/interdisciplinary study the further exploitation of the credit system to this end means of learning about good practice in other parts of the Polytechnic (which has implications for the more effective use of the development group, and also for the use of quality assurance processes) 8.5 in respect of the Development Task on updating the degree programmes, the precise relationship between quality assessment and curriculum renewal should be established a rigorous process of determining how to abandon old courses is needed the credit/modular system should be explored as a means of achieving speedy course renewal.

15 the development of Open Polytechnic learning is commended, and the institution is urged to consider how life long learning activities relate to mainstream education : is there/should there be any demonstrable connection? Can e-learning usefully permeate mainstream education? 8.7 international elements have developed agreeably (see para. 11). But the impression gained is that a more precise policy framework for this is now needed, which might contain views on balance of trade internationalisation of the curriculum across the board targets for development (countries, institutions, numbers) a proactive stance on partnerships. 8.8 various items regarding quality approaches are considered in paras whilst the part-time teachers are generally regarded by students as being very refreshing, there is the counter that their pedagogical skills may have shortcomings. There is thus probably a need for in-service training and counselling. 9. Finally, it did seem to the team that the Polytechnic was at the point where it really does need an internal Academic Board to act as a forum for discussing educational policy, determining broad directions, and for building up a common culture of beliefs and expectations. This is discussed further in para

16 16 5 Student administration and support services 10. The Polytechnic has successfully attempted to create an unified organisation and systems from the original three colleges in a relatively short period, which the team applauds. The Development and Student Affairs Unit exercises general responsibility for placement co-ordination, student counselling, careers advice, student exchanges and international mobility, student assessment of the degree programme, and assessment of graduate destinations. In addition, the Unit has a strong client/customer orientation, sees itself in a problem identification and resolution role, and has a network of partners in the academic Units. 11. The Self Assessment reveals generally supportive conclusions, and the Development Tasks proposed are on the whole closely related to the issues identified. The main area not adequately picked up in the Development Tasks is that of international students. There do also appear to be inconsistencies in the quantitative data on international student and staff flows in Appendix 4 (pages 2 and 4 respectively), as agreed with Ministry and City, and numbers offered us by staff in discussions. This should be clarified, since it has obvious implications for the work of the Unit, finding placements and accommodation, and language training. This clarification is also important in terms of the Ministry s plans for internationalisation of the polytechnic sector as a whole. The above comment is consistent with paragraph 8.7 which advocates a closer look at internationalisation strategy. 12. The Library services are generally commended for their helpfulness and efficiency.

17 6 Quality arrangements This is an aspect which should permeate all domains of institutional life, and reference is made to it in the Self Assessment in relation to Management, Education and Student Administration, which is encouraging. Understandably, as a very new institution and founded from a succession of mergers, the quality dimension is not well developed as a cohesive feature of Polytechnic life as yet, though several good aspects may be discerned : there is a Quality Group (though this may be mainly a creation for this specific Evaluation); at senior level, the Director of Administration and Finance is the responsible officer; there seems to be a desire to create a proactive quality strategy which should cover teaching, research and administration; and a willingness to explore various forms of quality assurance, including ISO All this is good, and it may be that FINHEEC has a role in assisting the Polytechnics to develop a distinctive quality philosophy and regime on a fitness for purpose basis. In short, the time is probably now ripe for a systematic Polytechnic wide discussion, to conceptualise and design a coherent, sustainable system. 14. Against this background, the team would make the following comments: 14.1 the attention to the quality of organisational processes as indicated in the various Development Tasks is commendable, especially in relation to communication, motivation, ownership and co-operation the emerging implicit quality philosophy seems to be developmental and improvement oriented rather than control based, which the team strongly supports the Quality Manual prepared by the Quality Group seems a good first step, but the team detected some lack of its visibility in the Institution, and apparently it is not yet available in the Swedish language. We understand a second edition is being planned, which may be at two levels the generic and specific which is fine. The team would urge the institution to consider how its contents might be accepted/actioned/enforced at all levels. This is where an Academic Board could be particularly useful the quality evaluation instruments seem a little patchy as yet, and apparently research and services are only partially covered. We support the principle of monitoring with periodic course reviews at 3 4 year periods, with alumni and employer feedback, and linked to a clear curriculum renewal cycle.

18 whilst course monitoring takes place, discussants felt there was something of a black hole in terms of subsequent visible action. We recommend that an overt quality cycle is established with visible connections between monitoring reports, remediation, staff development and course development processes, and this should figure in the next edition of the Manual to give effect to the above, supporting structures and responsibilities probably need to be appraised the Quality Group, whilst doing good things, does seem to operate in a policy vacuum for ongoing business. We therefore recommend it reports to the new Academic Board which we advocate in other paragraphs without doubting the capability of the Director of Administration and Finance in his quality responsibilities, it is worth asking whether this is the right place, or whether Study Affairs may be a better location the team would also ask the institution to check whether or not the Pro Rectors and heads of departments have quality in their terms of reference and job descriptions. If not, they probably should over time, the Polytechnic would need to ensure it has a good database of institutional performance in various domains in order to analyse trends etc whilst there were good examples of the student questionnaires contributing to reforms of course content, students have some concerns regarding the time available to complete the evaluations. There would also seem to be a case for greater publicity for the aggregate conclusions of evaluations, and for a less technologically oriented basis to the questionnaire design. 15. In short, the Polytechnic seems at a transitional point in its policies over quality, and some further systematisation would yield good dividends. In many respects, the foundation is clearly present, and the performance indicators the institution has agreed with the City Council and Ministry are good evidence of progress made and the will to integrate quality instruments into institutional life.

19 7 Research and service activities The Self Assessment was reasonably self critical in these two, but related domains, but, as has been indicated previously, the focus on organisational matters tended to obscure the strategic positioning of research and service activities within the Polytechnics. The sections on Vision, Mission and Concept (1.3) allude to regional role, information society, applied research, research community, close co-operation with business, industrial and other working life. However, these statements fall rather short of a strategy, and the impression obtained is of a steadily growing volume of activity (FM 12m. in 2001; FM 16m target 2002) without a guiding framework of strategic policy. The fact that 70% of this is apparently in Technology indicates another issue relating to whether this domain is mainstream or rather, marginal. 17. The team would certainly corroborate the Polytechnic s definition and identification of the issues and current shortcomings, as a result of our discussions, in terms of project and service assignments, control and implementation of projects, co-operation with partners and project evaluation and follow-up. The team welcomes the Development Ideas and Plans and believes these constitute a good basis for improving performance. However, a number of problems were identified in the analysis for which no apparent development task has been proposed. These include 17.1 achieving more sustained and consistent growth across all units, not just Technology the progressive development of staff competence in contract research across the board i.e. methodological expertise credibility with clients skills in project management spotting opportunities maximising the spin-offs between contract research and professional teaching, and 17.4 making students more aware of the possibilities in this field accessing Small and Medium sized Enterprise s for contract research clearing time for Polytechnic staff to participate in externally oriented activities, through flexible timetabling, modular systems of courses, buy-out of time with external money.

20 devising a dynamic costing and pricing policy, which contains incentives to Units in terms of the means of ploughing overheads and surpluses into unit developments i.e. within a more devolved budget model. The Polytechnic is strongly recommended to develop approaches to the above, to identify development tasks and a relevant timescales. Clearly, Unit strategic plans are vital in this regard. 18. At the root of some of the above, of course, is the development of an appropriate research culture, which is a common issue for most polytechnic type institutions. The team commends the attempts to increase the interest of staff in research matters via Masters and Ph.D. studies, but other instruments are likely to be helpful in this regard. The team recommends a consideration of the outcomes of a recent project undertaken by the IMHE programme of OECD on research strategies in polytechnics and new universities which contains the bones of a strategy the Polytechnic will find helpful. 19. Given the location and orientation of the Polytechnic, the team would recommend the enhanced co-operation with other regional institutions in the context of Teknobothnia and other appropriate forms, which potentially is helpful to the Polytechnic in assisting research transfer, especially with regard to SME s. 20. Adult and continuing education, which is outside education leading to degree, is the second major dimension of the Polytechnic s service activities, and the scope for increasing this would seem to be promising, building on a reasonable starting point. In this endeavour, the team would recommend to the Polytechnic consideration of 20.1 the diversity of the new student populations associated with lifelong learning through part time study those who missed out on higher education initially for various reasons those who participated, but failed to complete those engaged in professional updating in their chosen field those engaged in career conversion. The team feels the Polytechnic to be potentially well qualified to serve those groups to serve the groups effectively however, several pre-conditions would need to be satisfied, e.g. flexible credit-based course structures to allow for credit transfer accumulation and interrupted studies

21 21 access to e-based learning and here, the Open polytechnic holds great promise the possibility of operating in the postgraduate arena, where the Bologna discussions are pertinent learning methods and support services sensitive to the needs of the adult learner 20.3 in addition, the Polytechnic might consider the specific areas of continuing education in which it might develop (a) niche national market(s). The Polytechnic may like to reflect on the above as a part of its strategic discussions. In the implementation of adult and continuing education there should be cooperation with the education units. 21. Interestingly, but perhaps not surprisingly in the light of the Polytechnic s origins and recent traditions, research and service activities have been grouped under one umbrella, the Research and Business Services Unit. This makes sense as: 21.1 the Polytechnic should have a customer oriented approach (internal and external) and in the early years, a common philosophy and approach can be promoted. There is sound evidence of this in terms of project planning mechanisms marketing arrangements project management financial control and follow-up general ground rules it implies a one-stop shop which potentially makes contacts easier for external clients for contract research and continuing education. This does not in anyway remove the obligation on the Deputy rectors to be active in activating external business links with the City and elsewhere. However, research consultancy and continuing education are rather different activities, and as the Polytechnic expands its profile in these fields, a possible organisational split between research (staff research, contract research, research training, and student research) and other customer services may be worth considering in due time. This would be a function of growing maturity.

22 22 8 Financial administration 22. Again, the analysis in the Self Assessment is coherent and corresponds with the team s undertaking of the documentation and with the discussions provides adequate basic data for this purpose (Operation Plan ). It is noted that the financial responsibilities for funding the Polytechnic are held by the Ministry of Education and the City of Vaasa, apart from income generated through business activities (15% of total in 2001). The team concludes that the funding required on the whole is sensible, constructive, supportive, reasonably generous, and transparent in terms of the agreements on objectives and performance between the Polytechnic and Ministry (Appendix 3) and City Council (Appendix 4). 23. Reviewing the Development Ideas and Associated Tasks, the team feels that not all the issues identified in the Self Assessment have been fully picked up. Attention is rightly given to the needs of the Units and departments, increasing the co-operation in the budget preparation, and intensifying the follow-up, but perhaps the Tasks set lack a certain ambition, radicality and precision. In particular, the team would recommend further consideration of the following 23.1 a revised budget timetable, e.g. initial preparation by the Management Group of developmental and financial scenarios from Ministry and City and a notional overall budget envelope for the forthcoming year, together with a performance assessment of the Units detailed discussions of the above with each Unit, including its departments, in the light of past Unit and department performance and projected developments formulation by Units of their projected operating plans and budget for forthcoming year synthesis at Polytechnic level, by Administrative Director and Financial Manager and Management Group, and interaction with Units as necessary finalisation for onward transmission complete transparency in terms of income and expenditure projections for Units and departments, which would clarify assumptions, facilitate ownership and financial responsibility.

23 the designation of Units as budget centres in a much more devolved system, again to increase financial responsibility, but also to create incentives for generating additional non public income (research, training etc.) 23.4 a competitive internal development fund administered by the Rector and Management group to stimulate new initiatives. In the above ways, revisions in financial administration would serve strategic academic objectives rather more obviously. 24. Finally, it did seem to the team that these was scope for achieving greater financial efficiency by scrutinising the cost effectiveness of the learning/ teaching processes. In this respect, the team would recommend 24.1 an assessment of the size of the student teaching load per week, which seems excessive 24.2 an assessment of the extent to which student managed learning can be an effective substitute for teacher-led instruction 24.3 a review of class sizes and course option proliferation. It may be that economies gained here would release more staff time for research related and external services, as advocated in other paragraphs.

24 24 9 Managership and organisational principles 25. Although these are separate sections in the Self Assessment, it is convenient to comment on them together, owing to the overlapping nature of the issues presented. Also these are treated at the end of this Report since managership and organisational priorities ought to derive from many of the academic directions and processes mentioned earlier. The level of selfcriticism in these sections is high, and seems to reflect a feeling that, whilst leadership and organisational arrangements have been very effective in moving the institution to its current position, the polytechnic is entering the next phase of its evolution as a maturing institution, and organisational arrangements need to evolve at the same time. The team, on the whole, concurs with this point of view. 26. The principal concerns expressed in the Self Assessment may be summarised as 26.1 despite the open way in which the objective and performance control is developed with the Ministry, and the binding objectives with the City Council, there is a deficit in operational plans of action at Unit and departmental level, and a consequent issue of commitment communication flows, though considerable, are probably insufficiently systematised and focused on the planning directions of the polytechnic there is a perception of authoritarian and hierarchic management, with something of a confidence and trust issue there is perception that routine administration supersedes developmental thinking 26.5 overarching polytechnic values, core beliefs and their expressions in vision and planning are seen to need nourishment, which may avoid a perception of different treatment of Units and departments the role of stakeholders in decision-making varies across the polytechnic lateral communication is said to be weak.

25 the connection between academic and resource planning is felt to be weak in some domains, and the connection between evaluations of performance and subsequent development plans tenuous there is some perception that the rector s methods are rather authoritarian, though students confirm an open door approach. It is fair to say that many of these are growing pains in any expanding institution, especially one which has had such a turbulent five years, and thus, not altogether unexpected. However, the teams feels that the time is certainly ripe to act, and the Development Tasks specified would be a helpful contribution to resolving the above, though these of themselves, are likely to be insufficient changes. 27. Accordingly, the team recommends the following for consideration by the Polytechnic the Board of the Polytechnic is seen to be a fairly distant body from within, which is not uncommon, though its membership (a combination of City political figures, interests representative of the main areas of Polytechnic activity, and internal staff) is conventional, as are its duties. It may be that an enhanced presence useful to the polytechnic could be secured by e.g. its greater participation in the strategic thinking and planning progress having a greater proportion of members with high level business experience providing more targeted individual assistance to units in areas such as research and development perhaps one joint session a year with the Management Group and other senior officers on a consideration of past performance, further opportunities and threats, and developmental priorities, especially in terms of the economic development of the area. greater visibility for its deliberations and publication of its decisions. However, there would need to be clear differentiation of function between governing and management, which is the proper domain of the Rector the Rectorate has brought the polytechnic some distance in a relatively short time, which is commendable, and given the likely development of the next few years, the role of the Rector perhaps should focus more on strategy than operations; should have a greater external orientation towards the regional and international positioning of the institu-

26 26 tion, including external political negotiations; should have space for vision; and by definition, adopt a more decentralised style the Rectorate perhaps now should adopt a more corporate functional role than hitherto. Deputy Rectors are primarily deans of their Units as the Regulations made clear. Yet there are now a series of institutional wide policy areas which are growing in significance, especially in relation to Ministry policy and societal needs, and which call for lateral cross-fertilisation, problem resolution and consistent policy development. These include internationalisation, e-learning, lifelong learning and regional development. It may be the case that the time is ripe for the existing Deputy Rectors to assume an institution wide portfolio in addition to their Unit responsibilities. This would also broaden their perspectives, and also relieve the Rector of much detailed work, which would be helpful criticism is made of the hierarchic nature of the Polytechnic, with its three levels of top management, Units and departments, which is held to be a cause of communication failures. If this is so, the Polytechnic may wish to create a flatter structure by abolishing the Unit level creating 6/7 schools in their place, by amalgamating relevant departments decentralising more operating authority to the new Schools making the Deputy Rector role more of an institution wide function (see also paragraph 27.1 above) there would seem to be a very strong case for creating a new Polytechnic Academic Board or Committee, since there seems to be an absence of a genuine academic forum, which is essential to the creation and nourishment of an academic community and culture. It would also generate academic policy open up understanding beyond the Management Group assist in broadening out from the Technology focus enhance academic accountability provide a reference point for the Quality Group go some way to eliminate the black holes discussed elsewhere be widely representative. Many existing models can be scrutinised the strategic planning process needs to be revisited, since it suffers from an evident deficit of expression at Unit and department level. The Polytechnic level agreements as indicated in Appendices 3 and 4 are fine at institutional level, but, to become operational and

27 owned, need operating plans lower down, and in turn should be informed by the ideas and initiatives of departments. It is not for the team to propose the content of the plans, but an iterative, interactive model is proposed in paragraph 23, of this Report. Clearly, over time, various themes discussed in the Report would be picked up in a more systematic manner. Such a process, if visible and transparent would also serve to neutralise criticisms heard of a certain bias in favour of technological subjects. 27

28 28 10 Conclusion 28. It is hoped these observations and recommendations will be helpful to the Polytechnic. As we have indicated, the Polytechnic and its leadership have done much in a short period of time, and this is very commendable. Our observations are intended to help the Polytechnic move to its next stage of development, which requires some further strategic conceptualisation. The Self Assessment envisaged the implementation of the plans and development tasks during the Year The team feels this is rather unrealistic and would urge a more careful rescheduling, especially to enable the polytechnic to consider the recommendations made in this report. The end of 2003 would probably be more appropriate. The fact that the Self Assessment identifies issues in the way in which it did, is encouraging, and if the Development Tasks, supplemented by our own suggestions are fully implemented, there is no reason why the Polytechnic s processes and structure should not be appropriate adjusted and improved to provide a solid infrastructure for subsequent development. This is as long as sufficient time and thought is devoted to strategy. We wish the Polytechnic every success in its future evolution, and look forward to a follow-up visit with enormous interest.

29 APPENDIX 1: Programme for Audit Visit 29 FINNISH HIGHER EDUCATION EVALUATION COUNCIL Audit of Vaasa Polytechnic Topics Leadership Principles of operation and strategy Processes Programme for Audit Visit Thursday, Meeting in the lobby, Hotel Vaakuna Transfer to Vaasa Polytechnic, representative to Vaasa Polytechnic, Vesa Sirén Preparatory planning meeting of the Audit Team, A Management Group Pentti Ruotsala, Erkki Hakkarainen, Elisabeth Malka, Regina Nurmi, Tuomas Hemminki, Leena Vilkuna, Henna Kokko Lunch and meeting of the Audit Team Department Heads, A162 Martti Laaja, Jorma Tuominen, Pasi Tuominen, Matti Ylivainio, Kirsti Melin, Kenneth Norrgård, Elina Myllymäki, Regina Nurmi Quality Co-ordinators, A162 Tuomas Hemminki, Ritta Asikkola, Martti Laaja, Kim Skåtar, Erkki Penttinen, Sirkka Soini, Kati Laasanen Coffee break, meeting of the Audit Team, A Teachers 1 st interview (Technology), A162 Tapani Hahtokari, Mikael Jakas, Olavi Mäkinen, Seppo Mäkinen, Lotta Saarikoski, Smail Menani, Sanna-Liisa Koski, Pertti Lindberg, Antti Virtanen Teachers 2 nd interview (Business and Administration), A162 Jouko Hovi, Marit Nilsson-Väre, Päivi Sampola, Henrik Virtanen, Jukka Paldanius, Mika Ylinen, Kerstin Siegfrids, Maj-Lis Backman Board, A164 Markku Routonen, Asko Blåfield, Sami Ilomäki, Jorma Korpela, Risto Känsälä, Pentti Ruotsala Transfer to Hotel Vaakuna, representative of Vaasa Polytechnic, Vesa Sirén Meeting of the Audit Team, conclusions of the day, Hotel Vaakuna, cabinet

30 30 Friday, Meeting in the lobby, Hotel Vaakuna Transfer to Vaasa Polytechnic, representative of Vaasa Polytechnic, Vesa Sirén Meeting of the Audit Team Members of Staff of Support Services Tarja Gromov, Karl Ingberg, Arto Hänninen, Päivi Hollanti, Erkki Kokkonen, Tuija Tammi, Hilkka Vuorensivu, Kristina Österholm, Leena Saarvio Team A: Matti Parjanen and Christine Welander Teachers 3 rd interview (Health Care and Social Welfare), A162 Maj-Britt Råholm, Inkeri Laitinen, Hans Frantz, Pirkko Parkkonen Team B: John Davies, Seppo Kolehmainen and Hanna Hietala Teachers 4 th interview (Tourism and Hospitality), A137 Benita Gullkvist, Pirkko Salmo, Katarina Ivars, Peter Smeds Team A: Matti Parjanen and Hanna Hietala Meeting with Students, A162 Juho Antila, Juho Nevala, Raine Hakala, Juha Stenfors, Antti Lahti, Lotta Koivula, Hannu Uusitalo, Johanna Matalanmäki Team B: John Davies, Seppo Kolehmainen and Christine Welander Members of Staff of Research and Business Services, A137 Leena Vilkuna, Seija Juopperi, Vesa Katajisto, Riitta Niemelä, Reijo Salmela, Sirkka Soini, Pasi Tuominen Lunch and meeting of the Audit Team Meeting of the Audit Team, A Feedback, C134 Transfer to the airport, Vesa Sirén Flight to Helsinki

31 APPENDIX 2: Representatives of the polytechnic in the interviews 31 Audit of Vaasa Polytechnic Management Group Pentti Ruotsala, Rector Erkki Hakkarainen, Deputy Rector, Technology and Communication Elisabeth Malka, Deputy Rector, Business Economics and Tourism Regina Nurmi, Principal Lecturer, Health Care and Social Services Leena Vilkuna, Service Director, Research and Business Services Tuomas Hemminki, Administrative Director, Administration and Finance Henna Kokko, Secretary General, Students Union Department Heads Martti Laaja, Principal Lecturer, Building and Environmental Engineering Jorma Tuominen, Principal Lecturer, Mechanical and Production Engineering Pasi Tuominen, Principal Lecturer, Information Technology Matti Ylivainio, Senior Lecturer, Electrical Engineering Kirsti Melin, Principal Lecturer, Business Economics Kenneth Norrgård, Principal Lecturer, Information Processing Elina Myllymäki, Senior Lecturer, Tourism and Restaurant Services Regina Nurmi, Principal Lecturer, Health Care and Social Services Quality Coordinators Tuomas Hemminki, Administrative Director Ritta Asikkola, Manager of Study Affairs Martti Laaja, Principal Lecturer, Technology and Communication Kim Skåtar, Principal Lecturer, Business Economics and Tourism Erkki Penttinen, Senior Lecturer, Health Care and Social Services Sirkka Soini, Project Co-ordinator, Research and Business Services Kati Laasanen, Student Teachers (Technology and Communications) Tapani Hahtokari, Principal Lecturer Mikael Jakas, Principal Lecturer Olavi Mäkinen, Principal Lecturer Seppo Mäkinen, Principal Lecturer Lotta Saarikoski, Principal Lecturer Smail Menani, Principal Lecturer Sanna-Liisa Koski, Senior Lecturer Pertti Lindberg, Senior Lecturer Antti Virtanen, Senior Lecturer

32 32 Teachers (Business Economics) Jouko Hovi, Principal Lecturer Marit Nilsson-Väre, Principal Lecturer Päivi Sampola, Principal Lecturer Henrik Virtanen, Principal Lecturer Jukka Paldanius, Senior Lecturer Mika Ylinen, Senior Lecturer Kerstin Siegfrids, Senior Lecturer Maj-Lis Backman, Senior Lecturer Teachers (Tourism and Hospitality) Benita Gullkvist, Principal Lecturer Pirkko Salmo, Principal Lecturer Katarina Ivars, Senior Lecturer Peter Smeds, Senior Lecturer Teachers (Health Care and Social Services) Maj-Britt Råholm, Principal Lecturer Inkeri Laitinen, Principal Lecturer Hans Frantz, Senior Lecturer Pirkko Parkkonen, Senior Lecturer Support Services Maj-Gret Berg, Office Secretary Tarja Gromov, Information and Marketing Manager Karl Ingberg, Janitor Arto Hänninen, Laboratory Engineer Päivi Hollanti, Head Librarian Erkki Kokkonen, Development Director Tuija Tammi, International Co-ordinator Hilkka Vuorensivu, Study Counsellor Kristina Österholm, Placements Co-ordinator Seija Juopperi, Service Co-ordinator Students Juho Antila, Technology and Communication Raine Hakala, Technology and Communication Juha Nevala, Technology and Communication Juha Stenfors, Business Economics and Tourism Antti Lahti, Business Economics and Tourism Lotta Koivula, Business Economics and Tourism Hannu Uusitalo, Health Care and Social Services Johanna Matalamäki, Health Care and Social Services Board Markku Routonen, Personnel Manager, Chairman Asko Blåfield, Wire-man Sami Ilomäki, Planner Jorma Korpela, Engineer Risto Känsälä, Development Manager Pentti Ruotsala, Rector

33 APPENDIX 3: Organisational chart 33

34 34 PUBLICATIONS OF THE FINNISH HIGHER EDUCATION EVALUATION COUNCIL POB 1425, FIN HELSINKI Tel Fax :2000 Lehtinen, E., Kess, P., Ståhle, P. & Urponen, K.: Tampereen yliopiston opetuksen arviointi. Helsinki: Edita. 2:2000 Cohen, B., Jung, K. & Valjakka, T.: From Academy of Fine Arts to University. Same name, wider ambitions. Helsinki: Edita. 3:2000 Goddard, J., Moses, I., Teichler, U., Virtanen, I. & West, P.: External Engagement and Institutional Adjustment: An Evaluation of the University of Turku. Helsinki: Edita. 4:2000 Almefelt, P., Kekäle, T., Malm, K., Miikkulainen, L. & Pehu-Voima, S.: Audit of Quality Work. Swedish Polytechnic, Finland. Helsinki: Edita. 5:2000 Harlio, R., Harvey, L., Mansikkamäki. J., Miikkulainen, L. & Pehu-Voima, S.: Audit of Quality Work. Central Ostrobothnia Polytechnic. Helsinki: Edita. 6:2000 Moitus, S. (toim.): Yliopistokoulutuksen laatuyksiköt Helsinki: Edita. 7:2000 Liuhanen, A.-M. (toim.): Neljä aikuiskoulutuksen laatuyliopistoa Helsinki: Edita. 8:2000 Hara, V., Hyvönen, R., Myers, D. & Kangasniemi, J. (Eds.): Evaluation of Education for the Information Industry. Helsinki: Edita. 9:2000 Jussila, J. & Saari, S. (Eds.): Teacher Education as a Future-moulding Factor. International Evaluation of Teacher Education in Finnish Universities. Helsinki: FINHEEC. 10:2000 Lämsä, A. & Saari, S. (toim.): Portfoliosta koulutuksen kehittämiseen. Ammatillisen opettajankoulutuksen arviointi. Helsinki: Edita. 11:2000 Korkeakoulujen arviointineuvoston toimintasuunnitelma Helsinki: Edita. 12:2000 Finnish Higher Education Evaluation Council Action Plan for Helsinki: Edita. 13:2000 Huttula, T. (toim.): Ammattikorkeakoulujen koulutuksen laatuyksiköt Helsinki: Edita. 14:2000 Gordon, C., Knodt, G., Lundin, R., Oger, O. & Shenton, G.: Hanken in European Comparison. EQUIS Evaluation Report. Helsinki: Edita. 15:2000 Almefelt, P., Kekäle, T., Malm, K., Miikkulainen, L. & Kangasniemi, J.: Audit of Quality Work. Satakunta Polytechnic. Helsinki: Edita. 16:2000 Kells, H.R., Lindqvist, O. V. & Premfors, R.: Follow-up Evaluation of the University of Vaasa. Challenges of a small regional university. Helsinki: Edita. 17:2000 Mansikkamäki, J., Kekäle, T., Miikkulainen, L., Stone, J., Tolppi, V.-M. & Kangasniemi, J.: Audit of Quality Work. Tampere Polytechnic. Helsinki: Edita. 18:2000 Baran, H., Gladrow, W., Klaudy, K., Locher, J. P., Toivakka, P. & Moitus, S.: Evaluation of Education and Research in Slavonic and Baltic Studies. Helsinki: Edita. 19:2000 Harlio, R., Kekäle, T., Miikkulainen, L. & Kangasniemi, J.: Laatutyön auditointi. Kymenlaakson ammattikorkeakoulu. Helsinki: Edita. 20:2000 Mansikkamäki, J., Kekäle, T., Kähkönen, J., Miikkulainen, L., Mäki, M. & Kangasniemi, J.: Laatutyön auditointi. Pohjois-Savon ammattikorkeakoulu. Helsinki: Edita. 21:2000 Almefelt, P., Kantola, J., Kekäle, T., Papp, I., Manninen, J. & Karppanen, T.: Audit of Quality Work. South Carelia Polytechnic. Helsinki: Edita. 1:2001 Valtonen, H.: Oppimisen arviointi Sibelius-Akatemiassa. Helsinki: Edita. 2:2001 Laine, 1., Kilpinen, A., Lajunen, L., Pennanen, J., Stenius, M., Uronen, P. & Kekäle, T.: Maanpuolustuskorkeakoulun arviointi. Helsinki: Edita. 3:2001 Vähäpassi, A. (toim.): Erikoistumisopintojen akkreditointi. Helsinki: Edita. 4:2001 Baran, H., Gladrow, W., Klaudy, K., Locher, J. P., Toivakka, P. & Moitus, S.: kspertiza obrazowaniq i nau^no-issledowatelxskoj raboty w oblasti slawistiki i baltistiki (Ekspertiza obrazovanija i nauc` no-issledovatelskoj raboty v oblasti slavistiki i baltistiki). Helsinki: Edita. 5:2001 Kinnunen, J.: Korkeakoulujen alueellisen vaikuttavuuden arviointi. Kriteerejä vuorovaikutteisuuden arvottamiselle. Helsinki: Edita.

35 6:2001 Löfström, E.: Benchmarking korkeakoulujen kieltenopetuksen kehittämisessä. Helsinki: Edita. 7:2001 Kaartinen-Koutaniemi, M.: Korkeakouluopiskelijoiden harjoittelun kehittäminen. Helsingin yliopiston, Diakonia-ammattikorkeakoulun ja Lahden ammattikorkeakoulun benchmarkingprojekti. Helsinki: Edita. 8:2001 Huttula, T. (toim.): Ammattikorkeakoulujen aluekehitysvaikutuksen huippuyksiköt Helsinki: Edita. 9:2001 Welander, C. (red.): Den synliga yrkeshögskolan. Ålands yrkeshögskola. Helsingfors: Edita. 10:2001 Valtonen, H.: Learning Assessment at the Sibelius Academy. Helsinki: Edita. 11:2001 Ponkala, O. (toim.): Terveysalan korkeakoulutuksen arvioinnin seuranta. Helsinki: Edita. 12:2001 Miettinen, A. & Pajarre, E.: Tuotantotalouden koulutuksen arvioinnin seuranta. Helsinki: Edita. 13:2001 Moitus, S., Huttu, K., Isohanni, I., Lerkkanen, J., Mielityinen, I., Talvi, U., Uusi-Rauva, E. & Vuorinen, R.: Opintojen ohjauksen arviointi korkeakouluissa. Helsinki: Edita. 14:2001 Fonselius, J., Hakala, M.K. & Holm, K. : Evaluation of Mechanical Engineering Education at Universities and Polytechnics. Helsinki: Edita. 15:2001 Kekäle, T. (ed.): A Human Vision with Higher Education Perspective.Institutional Evaluation of the Humanistic Polytechnic. Helsinki: Edita. 1:2002 Kantola, I. (toim.): Ammattikorkeakoulun jatkotutkinnon kokeilulupahakemusten arviointi. Helsinki: Edita. 2:2002 Kallio, E.: Yksilöllisiä heijastuksia. Toimiiko yliopisto-opetuksen paikallinen itsearviointi? Helsinki: Edita. 3:2002 Raivola, R., Himberg, T., Lappalainen, A., Mustonen, K. & Varmola, T.: Monta tietä maisteriksi. Yliopistojen maisteriohjelmien arviointi. Helsinki: Edita. 4:2002 Nurmela-Antikainen, M., Ropo, E., Sava, I. & Skinnari, S.: Kokonaisvaltainen opettajuus. Steinerpedagogisen opettajankoulutuksen arviointi.helsinki: Edita. 5:2002 Toikka, M. & Hakkarainen, S.: Opintojen ohjauksen benchmarking tekniikan alan koulutusohjelmissa. Kymenlaakson, Mikkelin ja Pohjois-Savon ammattikorkeakoulut. Helsinki: Edita. 6:2002 Kess, P., Hulkko, K., Jussila, M., Kallio, U., Larsen, S., Pohjolainen,T. & Seppälä, K.: Suomen avoin yliopisto. Avoimen yliopisto-opetuksen arviointiraportti. Helsinki: Edita. 7:2002 Rantanen, T., Ellä, H., Engblom, L.-Å., Heinonen, J., Laaksovirta, T., Pohjanpalo, L., Rajamäki, T.& Woodman, J.: Evaluation of Media and Communication Studies in Higher Education in Finland. Helsinki: Edita. 8:2002 Katajamäki, H., Artima, E., Hannelin, M., Kinnunen, J., Lyytinen, H. K., Oikari, A. & Tenhunen, M.-L.: Mahdollinen korkeakouluyhteisö. Lahden korkeakouluyksiköiden alueellisen vaikuttavuuden arviointi. Helsinki: Edita. 9:2002 Kekäle, T. & Scheele, J.P: With care. Institutional Evaluation of the Diaconia Polytechnic. Helsinki: Edita. 10:2002 Härkönen, A., Juntunen, K. & Pyykkönen, E.-L. : Kajaanin ammattikorkeakoulun yrityspalveluiden benchmarking. Helsinki: Edita. 11:2002 Katajamäki, H. (toim.): Ammattikorkeakoulut alueidensa kehittäjinä.näkökulmia ammattikorkeakoulujen aluekehitystehtävän toteutukseen. Helsinki: Edita. 12:2002 Huttula, T. (toim.): Ammattikorkeakoulujen koulutuksen laatuyksiköt Helsinki: Edita.. 13:2002 Hämäläinen, K. & Kaartinen-Koutaniemi, M. (toim.): Benchmarking korkeakoulujen kehittämisvälineenä. Helsinki: Edita. 14:2002 Ylipulli-Kairala, K. & Lohiniva, V. (eds.): Development of Supervised Practice in Nurse Education. Oulu and Rovaniemi Polytechnics. Helsinki: Edita. 15:2002 Löfström, E., Kantelinen, R., Johnson, E., Huhta, M., Luoma, M., Nikko, T., Korhonen, A., Penttilä, J., Jakobsson, M. & Miikkulainen, L.: Ammattikorkeakoulun kieltenopetus tienhaarassa. Kieltenopetuksen arviointi Helsingin ja Keski-Pohjanmaan ammattikorkeakouluissa. Helsinki: Edita. 35