Impact of the evaluations and follow-up activities

M. Assunção, 13 October 2008

EUA Institutional Evaluation Programme, Workshop for Universities: round 2008 – 2009, Brussels

Contents

• CRE audit and follow-up process ( 1995/1997)

• EUA institutional evaluation (2007)

– recommendations in the external report and implementation of

concrete actions

– other impacts of the evaluation process

CRE audit (1995) and follow-up: three key issues (1)

• Reinforce the role of department heads:

– promote the appointment of senior professors as heads of

department;

– appoint qualified administrative staff to assist heads of

department ;

– provide training for departments’ main representatives;

• Adapt configuration and functioning of University structures:

– “transversal” Institutes to give coherence to matrix structure

• Improve management of human resources, namely those allocated to

teaching:– pay careful attention to the allocation of administrative and technical staff

to departments (avoid tendency of central administration to keep the best);– pursue and step up continuing professional training for administrative and

technical staff;– rethink ways of rewarding teaching ability, including the identification of

objective evidence for consideration in career advancement (in addition to scientific merit).

Three key issues (2)

• dissemination of the external report inside and outside the University,

coupled with discussions in the Senate and other main bodies of the

University, to make aware and motivate members of the community for

change:

– choosing objectives and building a vision;

– taking care of the human environment;

– paying attention to a complex organisation - consolidating an organic

structure appropriated to the University.

Other consequences of the 1995 evaluation (1)

• Initiatives triggered by the external audit– re-evaluation of teaching/learning taking (also) into account results from

evaluated undergraduate studies (national programme), self-evaluation internal report for 1st year in Science and Technology, internal report on factors for success/failure;

– reinforcement of post-graduation policy following approval of a strategic document at the Senate;

– Senate approval of a strategic charta for interaction with external partners;– setting up of a study regarding Professional Placement of University

Graduates;– creation of structures in the field of Quality, Evaluation and Procedures;– merging of departments (?)

Other consequences of the 1995 evaluation (2)

• “Immaterial” impacts of the evaluation

– contribution (along with other evaluation programmes going to) to

an institutional culture of increasing concern for evaluation and

quality;

– “quite often is much easier to convince the institution about

necessary steps if they are pointed out by someone from outside”;

Other consequences of the 1995 evaluation (3)

EUA Institutional evaluation (2007) – recommendations and concrete actions (1)

• Regarding strategy

– put the University at the centre of regional development

– “to stay alone or form alliances with one or more universities?”

– create the right structures for doctoral education

– find balance between specialisation and breath

– “the mix of young and older students (traditional publics and new

publics) as a contribution to a stimulating environment”

• To ensure a sound quality culture (along with ENQA guidelines)

– evaluation of departments, research units and administrative services

two pilot projects aiming at the definition of a methodology to be used

institution wide

– evaluation questionnaires (extended also for alumni and employers)

– better exploitation of the Integrated Information System

EUA Institutional evaluation (2007) – recommendations and concrete actions (2)

Organic Unit 1…..

Organic Unit n

Management

Edu

catio

n

Res

earc

h

Adm

inis

trat

ive

sup

port

CentralManagement

Operational role

Edu

catio

n

Res

earc

h

Adm

inis

trat

ive

sup

port

LocalManagement

– re-structuring QA

EUA Institutional evaluation (2007) – recommendations and concrete actions (3)

• Regarding service to society– outreach to the community

“internal task force” to promote regional cooperation– knowledge transfer

incubator as a network, science park (?), clusters at regional and national level

EUA Institutional evaluation (2007) – recommendations and concrete actions (4)

• Action plan (from self-evaluation – SWOT, contribution by external

evaluators and consulting team)– key performance indicators– related tasks regarding

• development and consolidation of the University• asserting UA as a centre of international excellence• promotion of partnerships with society

working document being used for dialogue with Ministry

EUA Institutional evaluation (2007) – recommendations and concrete actions (5)

Other impacts at internal and external level (1)

• The self evaluation process contributed to:

– mobilisation of main University actors and representatives for (the

necessary discussion regarding) the development of a strategy

based on shared understanding, analysis and data

Other impacts at internal and external level (2)

• The self-evaluation report allowed:

– to gain self-awareness and to improve internal communication

regarding

• strategic goals

• strengths (ex. in research)

• weaknesses (ex.: in monitoring quality, lack of specific indicators)

• Expert visits concurred to:

– an (internally) enlarged perception of how participation is important

for an appropriate opinion making process

– stimulate the relationship between the University and the region

through the involvement of main regional players (UA perceived as

part of the region; the region understanding the importance of

participating in University life)

Other impacts at internal and external level (3)

• External report and dissemination lead to:

– (internally) the valorisation (through an external eye) of important

institutional aspects “hidden” due to everyday proximity and routine

– added trustworthiness, either internally and externally, to initiatives

already taken or about to be implemented

– added evidence for both the quality of the institution and the

correctness of its strategic choices (to stakeholders, particularly HE

Ministry) righteousness

Other impacts at internal and external level (4)