SQT Training Ltd · one-year, part-time Diploma programme. The AUA is a consortium of three...
Transcript of SQT Training Ltd · one-year, part-time Diploma programme. The AUA is a consortium of three...
0
SQT Training Ltd
October 2014
1
Table of Contents
Introduction 2
Review of Quality Assurance Structures 3
Objective 1: Public Confidence 5
Objective 2: Strategic Planning and Governance 9
Objective 3: Quality Assurance 13
Element 1: Policy and Procedures for Quality Assurance 13
Element 2: Approval, Monitoring and Periodic Review of Programmes and Awards 16
Element 3: Assessment of Students 18
Element 4: Quality Assurance of Teaching Staff 20
Element 5: Learning Resources and Student Support 22
Element 6: Information Systems 24
Element 7: Public Information 25
Objective 4: Qualifications Framework, Access, Transfer & Progression 26
Objective 6: Recommendations for Enhancement 28
APPENDIX 29
2
Introduction
This report seeks to outline the progress made by SQT Training Ltd (hereafter SQT) on the actions
arising from its Institutional Review which was undertaken by HETAC (now QQI) in May 2012. The
organisation remains fully committed to embracing the conditions and recommendations set out in
the final report of the Expert Panel and have been thorough and reflective in their approach to
fulfilling the actions outlined in the implementation plan which was provided to QQI in October
2013.
The panel made a total of 5 commendations, 2 conditions and 22 recommendations in relation to
the five objectives of the review. The objectives related to:
1. Public Confidence
2. Strategic Planning and Governance
3. Quality Assurance
4. Qualifications Framework, Access, Transfer and Progression
5. Recommendations for Enhancement
Below is a summary of progress with respect to both the conditions and recommendations.
Objective No. Condition Recommendation TOTAL Complete In-Progress
TOTAL
#1 Public Confidence 1 4 5 4 1 5
#2 Strategic Planning and Governance
3 3 3 3
#3 Quality Assurance 14 14 12 2 14
#4 Qualifications Framework, Access, Transfer & Progression
1 1 1 1
#6 Recommendations for Enhancement
1 1 1 1
TOTAL 2 22 24 21 3 24
Given the overlap in actions and in the interest of clarity and conciseness some of the
recommendations have been combined and progress has been reported accordingly.
3
Review of Quality Assurance Structures
Many of the recommendations made by the Expert Panel and the consequential actions set out in
the Implementation Plan, involved a review and update of SQT’s Quality Assurance System. This
section seeks to provide an overview of the revised QA system in an effort to set the context for the
remainder of this report.
SQT invested considerable time in undertaking a root and branch review and subsequent update of
its Quality Assurance System. In broad terms, the outcome of this review culminated in the
following:
A new Quality Assurance Manual (hereafter QA manual) which was submitted to QQI in
December 2013 following approval by SQT’s Academic Council on 6th December 2013. The
document is a total revision of that which was previously compiled for submission to HETAC
in seeking accreditation for SQT Training Ltd. The original manual was compiled using an
overarching quality framework which aimed to accommodate the provision of programmes
accredited by a range of awarding bodies, each of which imposed distinct requirements on
providers. As the number of awarding bodies have grown, it was found that the layout of the
original QA manual was complex, particularly when used by external stakeholders. The
revised document has been simplified to incorporate the delivery of QQI HET (Higher
Education & Training) programmes only. Additional documents have been developed to
satisfy the requirements of the other awarding bodies.
The framework of the manual has been organised around seven chapters based on the
Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area, Part
one. Supporting documents provided by QQI and other relevant organisations and bodies
have been utilised to ensure necessary compliance across the entire framework. Such
documents are referenced at the beginning of each section.
A revised set of Internal work instructions and associated forms, checklists, specifications
and reports safeguard the implementation of all policies and procedures.
A Student and Tutor handbook has been developed to provide relevant information for
learners and other stakeholders. Such documents are made available via SQT’s Moodle VLE,
which was implemented in late 2013 and is accessible by Tutors and all learners enrolled on
QQI HET programmes.
An Internal Audit system which is fit for purpose and ultimately ensures that all policies,
procedures and related documentation are monitored on an ongoing basis and formally
reviewed at least once per year. Each of the 7 elements of the quality system are audited
4
once per year, this system has been operational since January 2014. To date, five major
audits have taken place and the remaining two are scheduled to take place over the coming
weeks.
5
Objective 1: Public Confidence
“To enhance public confidence in the quality of education and training provided by the College and
the standards of the awards made”.
Condition 1: In its publicity material (e.g. in its prospectus/website etc.) and information to
stakeholders, SQT must make explicit the Named Award, its Type, its Title and its Level.
Status: COMPLETE
Following the Institutional Review, SQT amended its publicity material and information to its
stakeholders so that all information now explicitly states the Named Award, its Type, its Title and its
Level. The organisation strives to ensure consistency and clarity across all documentation. Each
course brochure maintains a standard format as follows:
Awarding Body
Programme Title
Award Type and Code
Award Title (Named Award)
Award Level
Credits
Background
Programme Learning Outcomes
Who Should Attend
Module Learning Outcomes
Teaching Approach and Supports Provided
Assessment (including breakdown of assessment)
Course Tutor
Testimonials
Course Times
Course Cost
A comprehensive work instruction has also been developed (WI-045 Brochure Updates) to safeguard
updates and ensure compliance with QQI standards and protocols as well as other legal and
statutory obligations.
6
Recommendation 1: While SQT has begun to establish links with other organisations, especially
through its membership of Independent Providers of Higher Education (IPHE), and has tentative or
tangential links with other HEIs in Ireland and abroad, the panel recommends that it establishes
formal links with providers of similar programmes in Europe and elsewhere for the purpose of
programme benchmarking.
Status: In Progress – Advanced Stage
Whilst SQT are in agreement with this recommendation and recognise the benefits associated with
benchmarking, it has faced difficulties in finding comparable data sources with which to accurately
benchmark its programmes. At present, benchmarking is carried out through informal feedback
from stakeholders such as employers, External Examiner report feedback and internal review and
comparisons of assessment data. Ongoing work is planned in relation to benchmarking. Progress and
relevant actions will be monitored by the Programmed Board and Academic Council.
In addition, important new links and associations have been developed in the last year as follows:
SQT have recently joined HECA (Higher Education Colleges Association). This provides the
opportunity to discuss common concerns and issues with other HECA member institutions
and is open to the possibility of future collaborations based on mutually beneficial
initiatives.
Éamon O’Béarra, (Programme Leader of the Certificate in Process Engineering1) is engaged
as a Project Supervisor on the Atlantic University Alliance (AUA) Lean Diploma programme, a
one-year, part-time Diploma programme. The AUA is a consortium of three Universities: NUI
Galway, University of Limerick and University College Cork.
A link has also been developed with the UCD/Mater Lean Academy. Two of SQT’s Lean Six
Sigma Tutors are currently co-presenting on the new UCD Accredited Green Belt programme
for the Healthcare sector.
SQT will remain dedicated to fostering these links in the context of its strategic objectives and is
committed to pursuing new associations on a phased basis, as appropriate. This is a standing agenda
item on all Programme Board and Academic Council meetings.
1 QQI Accredited Special Purpose Award, Level 7 (10 ECTS Credits)
7
Recommendation 2: SQT should review its policy of providing validated and non-validated
versions of the Lean Six Sigma programmes in tandem. Some 1.8% of SQT's learners were
registered on un-validated Lean Six Sigma programmes in 2011. While this is not a significant
number in relation to the overall operation, it represents 46% of those registered on Lean Six
Sigma Programmes.
Status: COMPLETE
Recommendation 3: The panel recommends that SQT, in its publicity information, makes clear the
distinction between receiving a HETAC certificate and being professionally certified and point out
to potential learners how they can gain both academic credentials and professional certification.
Status: COMPLETE
The organisation continues to actively market QQI validated programmes and these are the only
versions available on a public course basis. SQT seeks to ensure that all potential learners
understand the differences between validated and non-validated programmes and this information
is clearly set out within the programme brochures which are available on the SQT website. SQT have
also recently published a blog article on the differences between validated, non-validated and
professionally certified programmes. As part of its website redevelopment, it is planned to maintain
this blog post within the Lean Six Sigma (LSS) area of the new site (due to go live in early 2015) so
that it is clearly visible and available to potential learners.
Non-validated programmes are only chosen where a company requires a very specific customised
programme which may result in the removal of certain elements of a prescribed curriculum or body
of knowledge (BOK) to meet specific requirements in the market.
Furthermore, access, transfer and progression polices ensures that learners enrolled on QQI
validated Lean Six Sigma programmes are not permitted to transfer to a non-validated programme
once they have commenced their programme. Over the past year, 79% of LSS Learners were
registered on QQI validated programmes and only 21% were registered on non-validated
programmes. This is in comparison to 46% on non-validated programmes at the time of the
institutional review. This statistic is testament to the actions which have been carried out in fulfilling
recommendations 2 and 3.
8
Recommendation 4: SQT needs to engage in wider external consultation when reviewing its
operations, programmes and graduate employability and further development. SQT needs to
devise mechanisms whereby its views, particularly in relation to the specific elements of quality
assurance and improvement that comprise programmatic and institutional reviews, can be
obtained and considered.
Status: COMPLETE
SQT remain committed to enhancing ongoing consultation and monitoring processes to methodically
feed into future programmatic and institutional reviews. This recommendation has been reviewed
and incorporated into the QA manual. Each chapter is preceded by a table which provides a synopsis
of the following information related to the specific quality element set out within the chapter:
Description of the European HET Quality Assurance standard
Supporting policy documents
On-going monitoring mechanisms
Relevant KPI’s
Continuous Improvement
Feedback is captured through these ‘On-going monitoring mechanisms’ associated with each quality
element which will ultimately feed more directly into future programmatic and institutional reviews.
9
Objective 2: Strategic Planning and Governance
“To contribute to coherent strategic planning and governance in the College”.
Recommendation 5: SQT should develop organisational Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) against
which achievement of strategic objectives can be measured.
Status: COMPLETE
SQT has carried out an extensive review and subsequent update of its KPI’s. In order to achieve this
recommendation, the following actions have been implemented:
Significant investment and development work has taken place on the SQT Management
Information System which has made the reporting of relevant information such as
assessment and other KPI’s much more meaningful.
KPI statistics are now mapped against strategic objectives which allows for transparent
analysis.
A KPI summary report is generated and reviewed on a weekly basis by the Managing
Director, Director of Quality and Academic Affairs and other relevant personnel. This report
provides vital information for monitoring strategic performance, operational aspects of the
organisation and the quality of programme provision and supporting services offered by
SQT.
Appropriate KPI’s are also reviewed by the Programme Board, Examination Board, Academic
Council, Board of Directors and at monthly internal staff meetings.
KPI’s are referenced throughout the QA manual. A list of KPI’s associated with each chapter
of the manual are presented on a summary page at the beginning of each chapter. Appendix
1 provides a summary of the key performance indicators categorised by each chapter. The
table includes how frequently each KPI is reviewed together with a list of stakeholders
responsible for its review.
10
Recommendation 6:
6.1 Structure, roles and responsibilities of the Governing Body
The panel recommends that SQT revisits the structure, roles and responsibilities of the Governing
Body to provide a clear separation from the Board of Directors and to act as a buffer and a bridge
between the commercial imperatives of the company and the academic governance of the
organisation.
6.2 Membership of the Governing Body:
SQT should strengthen the Governing Body by including faculty and learner membership along
with invited external membership. This will ensure better advice being provided to the Board of
Directors and the Academic Committee, whilst underpinning the transparency and accountability
obligations of accreditation by HETAC.
Status: COMPLETE
Recommendation 7:
7.1 Number of Committees:
The panel recommends that the organisation reviews its committee structures with a view to
reducing complexity and duplication of function.
7.2 New Academic Committee:
The panel recommends that SQT considers establishing an Academic Council (that would include
second provider representatives [ASST] from each subject area) as well as learner and tutor
representatives.
Status: COMPLETE
Taking into account the recommendations of the Expert Panel, SQT have significantly revised its
governance structures with effect from 1st June 2013.
In doing so, it has arrived at a governance structure that best fits the size of the current organisation
and its learner profile. This makes best use of the available independent and executive personnel. It
addresses the issues raised in terms of separation of responsibilities and roles, inclusive
membership, transparency, accountability, complexity and independence.
The inaugural meeting of the Academic Council took place in June 2013. Learner representation has
been encouraged at all Programme Board and Academic Council meetings. Given the logistical
constraints associated with learner representatives who are generally full-time employees based
11
outside of Limerick, representation is provided via a tele-conference or web conference link via
Adobe Connect. A Learner representative is given the opportunity to voice issues pertaining to the
programmes. Relevant staff may provide a response at the time of the meeting or as a follow up
after the meeting if external discussions are required.
The academic governance structure as set out in the QA manual is presented in Figure 1 below. This
new structure has allowed for a clear separation of corporate governance, operational management,
quality assurance, delivery and academic decision making.
Figure 1: Academic Governance
Professor Tom Kennedy was appointed as Chairperson to both the Board of Directors and Academic
Council in June 2013. He is Emeritus Professor of Accounting, University of Limerick, having held
various lecturing, Head of Department and Professorship roles since 1984. Professor Kennedy
contributes a wealth of insight to SQT, drawing from his academic, management and strategic
planning experience.
The Board of Directors now comprises of two Non-Executive Directors and the Managing Director.
Academic Council membership is as follows:
Independent Non-Executive Director
Managing Director
Director of Quality and Academic Affairs
HETAC student representative
HETAC programme leader
Examination Secretary
Tutor representative(s) for following validated subject areas:
o HETAC
Board of Directors
Academic Council
Examination Board
Disciplinary Committee
Appeals Committee
Programme Board(s)
Quality Commitee
Managing Director
12
o FETAC
o NEBOSH
Minutes from various board meetings clearly demonstrate how these combined recommendations
have been fully embraced across the organisation. The function, membership and frequency of
meetings for all boards is presented in Appendix 2.
13
Objective 3: Quality Assurance
“To assess the effectiveness of the Quality Assurance arrangements operated by the College”.
Element 1: Policy and Procedures for Quality Assurance
“Institutions should have a policy and associated procedures for the assurance of the quality and standards of their programmes and awards. They should also commit themselves explicitly to the development of a culture which recognises the importance of quality, and quality assurance, in their work. To achieve this, institutions should develop and implement a strategy for the continuous enhancement of quality. The strategy, policy and procedures should have a formal status and be publicly available. They should also include a role for students and other stakeholders”.
Recommendation 8: SQT is required to devise and expand Quality Assurance policy and
procedures to address omissions in the current manual as identified in Objective 3: Quality
Assurance under Element 1: Policies and Procedures for Quality Assurance.
Status: COMPLETE
Please refer to ‘Review of Quality Assurance’ section on page 3.
Recommendation 9: SQT should review its policies and procedures by which it ensures it is
compliant with regulatory and legal demands, including HETAC policies such as Sectoral
Conventions.
Status: COMPLETE
SQT has carried out a review of its policies and procedures and is compliant with regulatory and legal
demands, including HETAC policies such as Sectoral Conventions. SQT’s compliance with such
conventions is set out in section 4.4 of the QA manual. This information is also available within the
SQT Tutor and Student Handbook.
Recommendation 10: SQT needs to adopt a suite of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for quality
assurance and improvement. These need to be reviewed on an annual basis to provide essential
intelligence to SQT on the effectiveness of all procedures in place.
Status: COMPLETE
14
As noted in Recommendation 5, an extensive review and update of all KPI’s have been undertaken
and are reviewed on an ongoing basis (See Appendix 1).
Recommendation 11: SQT needs to formalise policy and procedures on reviewing, amending and
approving quality assurance procedures.
Status: COMPLETE
SQT has revised its procedures in order to address this recommendation. These are documented
throughout the new QA manual.
In order to ensure that policy and procedures remain relevant, fit for purpose and compliant with
changes to statutory, legal, and accrediting body requirements, the quality framework is subject to
on-going monitoring and review. To support this ongoing review, internal SQT staff are tasked to
perform internal audits on a systematic basis. This ensures that all procedures are audited at least
once per year. Major changes and updates are discussed and approved by the Academic Council and
a comprehensive supporting internal audit documentation system is maintained.
A schedule of seven internal audits are confirmed in January each year and take place over the
course of an 11 month period. The output of each internal audit is an audit report which includes a
completed checklist specific to each audit area and a quality improvement plan. The overall Quality
Improvement plan is monitored on a weekly basis by the Director of Quality and Academic Affairs
and on a quarterly basis by the Quality Committee. The cumulative reports for all audits is available
for review and discussion at the last Academic Council meeting each year at which stage all seven
audits are complete. This new internal audit system commenced in January 2014, five audits have
been completed to date, and the remaining two audits are scheduled to take place in the coming
weeks.
In addition to the above, a number of safeguards have also been put in place as follows:
Internal Work Instruction (WI-001 Documentation Control) – this describes the process for
managing documentation controls within the organisation.
SQT Master Document Listing – this file provides a list of all documents associated with the
QA system including work instructions, forms, records and specifications. The file includes an
area for documenting all changes, which have been made to any document noting the date,
version number and person responsible for the update.
15
Control Forms – these are maintained for central documents such as the QA manual,
Student and Tutor Handbooks and Course Curriculums. Changes to these documents must
be approved by the Director of Quality and Academic Affairs.
16
Element 2: Approval, Monitoring and Periodic Review of Programmes and Awards
“Institutions should have formal mechanisms for the approval, periodic review and monitoring of their programmes and awards”.
Recommendation 12: SQT should develop policy and procedures on what constitutes major and
minor changes to programmes and to agree these with QQI (formerly HETAC). Such procedures
should make reference to SQT communication with HETAC to finalise and agree formal methods
and transparent arrangements for the approval of major changes in the programme/assessment
design following Programmatic Review or other processes that lead to proposed major changes.
Status: COMPLETE
SQT, in consultation with QQI have developed a policy and procedure in order to address this
recommendation. This is set out in the QA manual Section 3.2.2 Changes to a Programme as follows:
When making any proposals for modification, initial feedback is sought from the Director of Quality
and Academic Affairs to confirm whether the proposed change is minor or major. Minor
modifications are approved internally by the Programme Board, whereas major modifications
require QQI approval prior to implementation.
Minor Modifications include but are not limited to:
Changes to the admissions process, for example, the timing of outcomes to applicants or the
process of allocating places
Changes to the module content that doesn’t impact on the learning outcomes of the module
A change in the assessment methods in a particular module, as long as these are consistent
with the approved programme schedule, the overall stated programme aims, learning
outcomes and assessment strategy, for example changes in the assessment tool utilised for
the percentage of the module that is assessed by continuous assessment.
Major modifications include but are not limited to:
The addition of modules
Changes to the programme title
The addition of a new route / minor award
Changes to module or programme learning outcomes
Changes to the approved programme schedule
Change to credit weightings of modules or programmes
17
Recommendation 13: SQT should follow-up with QQI (formerly HETAC) to ensure the
programmatic review changes in the ECTS credit rating are fully documented as appropriate,
including the timing of implementation.
Status: COMPLETE
This recommendation has been fully adopted, previous correspondence with QQI in relation to the
above noted:
“SQT viewed the change in credit level as a major change. Relevant documentation was submitted to
HETAC who subsequently gave approval to the change at HETAC’s February 2012 Academic Council
meeting. On receipt of (HETAC) approval the change was immediately implemented by SQT. SQT has
now submitted a copy of the relevant documentation to QQI (formerly HETAC)”.
Recommendation 14: SQT should submit a report to QQI (formerly HETAC) updating it on the
completion of the recommendations of the Programmatic Review.
Status: COMPLETE
SQT submitted a report to QQI (formerly HETAC) updating it on the completion of the
recommendations of the Programmatic Review.
18
Element 3: Assessment of Students
“Students should be assessed using published criteria, regulations and procedures which are applied consistently”.
Recommendation 15: While being mindful of the commercial sensitivity of some of the projects
undertaken by learners, SQT should explore ways in which learners could learn from the project
work of former learners to support their understanding of the centrality of the project process in
the Lean Six Sigma award.
Status: COMPLETE
SQT have explored ways in which the project work of former learners can be made available to
current learners in a confidential and controlled manner. It has incorporated the development of a
Storyboard as a component of the project assessment within the Certificate in Process Engineering
(L7)2. Learners are instructed to omit sensitive data and are advised that the documents may be
made available within the public domain. At present these storyboards are available within SQT’s
Moodle VLE and are accessible by all learners on QQI validated Lean Six Sigma programmes. Going
forward, it is also planned to showcase such documents on the redeveloped SQT website.
Recommendation 16: SQT should make opportunities available for tutors/practice mentors to
discuss External Examiner reports and other external academic commentary. This should be
designed to support the tutors’/practice mentors’ understanding of their important contribution
to the academic endeavor.
Status: COMPLETE
SQT has addressed this recommendation as follows:
Lean Six Sigma Programme Leaders and Tutors meet with the External Examiner on site prior
to each Examination Board meeting.
Once received by the Director of Quality and Academic Affairs, External Examiner reports are
distributed to all members of the Examination Board, which include programme
Tutors/practice mentors. Recommendations and items for discussion are dealt with in a
timely fashion and a follow-up report outlining actions which have been undertaken is
prepared and distributed to the Programme Board and External Examiner.
2 Special Purpose Award (10 ECTS Credits).
19
All relevant documentation and reports with respect to external examination are available
on the SQT Moodle VLE and are accessible to all programme board members, which include
Tutors/practice mentors on the validated programmes.
20
Element 4: Quality Assurance of Teaching Staff
“Institutions should have ways of satisfying themselves that staff involved with the teaching of students are qualified and competent to do so. They should be available to those undertaking external reviews, and commented upon in reports”.
Special Consideration: The Institutional Review should consider the implications for the SQT quality assurance arrangements and any other arrangements (if any) arising from the model of tutor engagement used by SQT. According to the provider, it has a team of over thirty very experienced tutors. SQT tutors are not direct employees of SQT but work for a number of independent companies with whom SQT has formal contracts to deliver SQT’s training. For example, the tutors who deliver SQT’s Lean Six Sigma programmes work with ASST (Applied Six Sigma Technology Ltd), whose principals are John Ryan and Éamon Ó Béarra. ASST have been providing Lean Six Sigma training for SQT for the past 11 years. Their other area of activity is Lean Six Sigma consultancy. The tutors work for these companies and SQT refers to the principals of these companies (up to approximately 16 in number) as principal tutors (also known as lead tutors). All tutors hold qualifications relevant to their subject areas, some up to PhD level. No tutor delivers training without undergoing prior training. According to SQT, this model of tutor engagement is very flexible, holds many advantages and has been in place since the initial engagement with HETAC. SQT states that there is very low tutor turnover. A full list of SQT approved tutors is included in the Quality Manual.
Recommendation 17: SQT is advised to develop policies and procedures that fully describe the
responsibilities of SQT, ASST and the tutors when problems arise, as well as grounds and
procedures for dismissal. Given that SQT is not the employer of tutors this needs to be drafted
carefully.
Status: COMPLETE
Following the Institutional Review, SQT with the assistance of a legal advisor, QQI and Professor Tom
Kennedy, developed a legal agreement which set out the responsibilities of ASST with respect to
their delivery of SQT’s QQI (HETAC) programmes. The agreement ultimately acknowledges that,
while the relevant ASST personnel continue to be employed by ASST, ASST devolves full authority to
SQT to:
Monitor and control such ASST personnel in connection with the provision of any of the
Validated Programmes; and
Monitor and control the quality of output and/or teaching by such ASST personnel in
connection with all or any Validated Programmes.
As a result, SQT has incorporated the relevant policies and procedures into its QA manual. These are
presented within Chapter 5 - Quality Assurance of Teaching Staff within the following sections:
5 QUALITY ASSURANCE OF TEACHING STAFF
5.1 Staff Recruitment and Selection
5.1.1 Recruitment and Selection Procedure of Teaching Staff for
QQI/HETAC Programmes
21
5.2 Staff Induction, Training and CPD
5.2.1 Induction
5.2.2 Training and CPD
5.3 Roles and Responsibilities
5.4 Effectiveness of Tutors
5.4.1 Monitoring Effectiveness of Tutors
5.4.2 Supports for Poorly Performing Tutors
5.4.3 Removal of Poorly Performing Tutors
5.5 Staff Disciplinary Procedures
The SQT/ASST legal agreement was used as the basis for the development of the policies and
procedures within this chapter. In addition to the policies and procedures set out in the QA manual,
a number of internal measures such as a recruitment and induction checklist have also been put in
place to safeguard their implementation.
22
Element 5: Learning Resources and Student Support
“Institutions should ensure that the resources available for the support of student learning are adequate and appropriate for each programme offered.”
Special Consideration: The Institutional Review should consider the quality assurance arrangements in place
for the SQT model of out-centre provision. SQT Training Ltd delivers all its programmes at hotels and at
companies’ own facilities.
Recommendation 18: The panel recommends that SQT considers extending its virtual library facility
to current learners whilst pursuing their programme.
Status: COMPLETE
Given its ‘Out-Centre’ model of provision, SQT has invested significant resources to the development
of an online virtual learning platform, (Moodle) which was launched in October 2013. This system
now incorporates the content of the old virtual library facility, as well as access to many more
resources. The system has been very well received since its launch in late 2013. It is now operational
for all LSS Green Belt and Black Belt learners registered as of November 2013. It continues to be
developed to further enhance the learner experience on a phased basis. Each phase incorporates
additional features and functionality which has been specifically customised for individual
programmes.
Below is a summary of how the project has been rolled out to date with activities specific to QQI LSS
programmes:
Aug 2013 Evaluation of online platforms including consultation with experts in the field
Sept 2013 Moodle implemented (Deployed, customised and hosted by Enovation Solutions
Dublin, only approved Moodle partner in the Republic of Ireland)
Nov 2013 Pilot for QQI accredited Lean Six Sigma Programmes. Initially the system was used
as a portal to reduce the constant flow of emails between the Course Manager and the
learner. Given the success of the pilot phase, additional functionality has been incorporated
over time such as the upload of transcripts prior to course commencement and upload of
learner assessment. This is now compulsory from Sept 2014.
Dec 2013 Launch of Lean Six Sigma Network Site incl Discussion Forums. This system was
previously developed using WordPress.
Dec 2013 Launch of Lean Six Sigma Support Library
Dec 2013 Repository for Academic Council Members and Lean Six Sigma Programme Board
Members
Feb/Mar 2014 Roll out to all LSS Green Belt courses
23
Aug 2014 Launch of Tutor Portal
Sept 2014 Rollout of mandatory assignment submissions via Moodle for all QQI accredited
Lean Six Sigma programmes. An automatic email is sent to the relevant Tutor when a draft
or final submission is made. This allows for timely communication between the Tutor and
learner. Tutors now provide feedback on draft assignments via Moodle. This ensures that all
feedback is centrally located within Moodle for tracking and review purposes. Appropriate
administration staff have full access to this system at all times.
Oct 2014 Deployment of customised Moodle forms to replace QQI Assessment coversheets.
Information is captured from learners and exported to a text format which is subsequently
uploaded directly to the QBS (QQI Business System). This eliminates the manual process of
registering learners and ensures that Tutors are not responsible for collecting hardcopy
documents. A plagiarism disclaimer must be accepted before learners can submit any
assignment.
Recommendation 19: The panel recommends that SQT considers whether learners might be
afforded access to additional virtual library resources such as an online business abstracts
database (such as ABI/Inform) or through partnership with another higher education institution.
Status: In Progress - Advanced Stage
SQT have considered this recommendation and are satisfied that the course information provided
within the new Moodle VLE and supplementary Moodle support sites more than adequately meets
learner requirements. It will continue to review information available to learners to ensure that it
addresses the changing needs of learners.
24
Element 6: Information Systems
“Institutions should ensure that they collect, analyse and use relevant information for the effective management of their programmes of study and other activities”.
Recommendation 20 - The panel recommends that SQT devises information systems that will
permit the organisation to collect, analyse and use relevant data and information for the effective
management of programmes and to inform quality improvement initiatives.
Status: In Progress - Advanced Stage
SQT maintains a fully integrated, bespoke information system that allows for the collection, analysis
and use of relevant data and information. The system has been supported, upgraded, maintained
and customised by a local IT service company since its initial development in 1998. The data
available allows for the generation of a wide range of reports which are used for the effective
management of the organisation and to inform ongoing quality improvement initiatives through the
generation of specific KPI reports.
To date, a number of manual forms have been automated within the Moodle system. It is envisaged
that over time, much of the data which is currently processed on a manual basis will be captured
within Moodle. The reason for this is twofold - the system allows for the generation of customisable
reports that can be easily exported into statistical analysis software. It can also be imported to the
organisations information system to reduce manual processing of data.
SQT are satisfied that this recommendation has been realised as far as is possible at this stage but
recognise that further ongoing work is required to streamline its data collection methods and
integrate various systems in so far as is possible taking into consideration the constraints posed by
the underlying technologies used to build each system.
25
Element 7: Public Information
“Institutions should regularly publish up to date, impartial and objective information, both quantitative and qualitative, about the programmes and awards they are offering”.
Recommendation 21: The panel recommends that SQT reviews the comprehensiveness,
impartiality and objectivity of its public information to ensure that it complies fully with the
European Standards and Guidelines on accurate, impartial and readily accessible quantitative as
well as qualitative information on its learners, programmes and awards.
Status: COMPLETE
SQT have taken action to comply with this recommendation. Further commentary is provided in
respect of public information within Condition 1 on page 4.
The following information is available on the SQT website.
Programmes offered by SQT
Intended programme learning outcomes
Qualifications
Teaching, learning and assessment procedures used
Learning opportunities available
Views and employment of past students (Learner testimonials)
This information is always accurate, impartial, objective and readily accessible to all potential
learners. Additional information will also be incorporated into the revised SQT website which is due
to be launched in January.
26
Objective 4: Qualifications Framework, Access, Transfer & Progression
“To confirm the extent that the College has implemented the National Framework of Qualifications
and procedures for Access, Transfer and Progression”.
Condition 2: SQT needs to develop a policy and procedures in respect of the Accreditation of Prior
Experiential Learning (APEL) where it is used to grant admission onto a HETAC accredited
programme (now awarded by QQI). For the purpose of transparency, SQT needs to devise a policy
and procedure for external moderation of this process of admission and its outcome.
Status: COMPLETE
Policies and procedures relating to APEL have been subject to rigorous review. SQT have
implemented a number of actions in order to address this condition. Due regard was given to best
practice guidelines in the area and each action involved extensive consultation with Programme
Leaders, the Course Manager, Chairman of the Academic Council Prof. Tom Kennedy and the
External Examiner. The actions which were implemented are as follows:
SQT has developed and implemented an APEL policy and procedure which is set out in
section 4.9 of the QA manual.
The procedure has been supplemented by a set of criteria against which applications are
evaluated. This criteria was developed by the Programme Leaders and was consequently
endorsed by the Programme Board (Programme Board Meeting 15/11/13) and approved by
the External Examiner (Exam Board Meeting 15/11/13).
SQT has amended its online booking form with a view to capturing additional information
from applicants with respect to APEL criteria. This new form has resulted in a noticeable
improvement in the admission process.
The External Examiner has moderated the APEL process and associated documentation at all
Examination board meetings from 2013 onwards.
Statistical data concerning learners accepted onto HETAC programmes on the basis of APEL
has been reviewed at each LSS programme and Examination Board meeting. Specifically:
o Correlation of results for learners accepted on the basis of APEL versus those who
were accepted on the basis of academic achievement
o Statistical information relating to APEL applicants
% of applicants accepted on the basis of APEL
% of APEL learners who withdrew from the programme or did not submit
% of APEL learners who achieved an award
o This will remain a standing agenda item for all such boards.
27
28
Objective 6: Recommendations for Enhancement
“To provide recommendations for the enhancement of the education and training provided by the
College”.
Recommendation 22: The panel recommends that the organisation proceeds with the plans and
actions identified in its SER and the quality improvement plan.
Status: COMPLETE
SQT has completed all actions contained in its ‘Recommendations for Enhancement’ set out in its
own Self Evaluation Report for Institutional Review.
29
APPENDIX
30
Chapter Relevant KPI Frequency of Review: Reviewed By:
2. Policy and Procedures for Quality Assurance
Quarterly QA Audit Report - A quality report outlining the findings, recommendations and key actions of the Quality Committee is prepared each quarter and is reviewed by the Academic Council. This report contains relevant KPI’s referenced within this table, of particular interest are those relating to the overall quality of programme provision
Quarterly Quality Committee Academic Council
KPI Summary Report – This report is generated on a weekly basis and includes quality indicators and KPIs relating to both programme provision and the day to day running and strategic objectives of SQT.
Weekly Managing Director Director of Quality and Academic Affairs
3. Approval, Monitoring and Periodic Review of Programmes
Completion Rate (%) Twice Yearly Examination Board Programme Board Academic Council
Withdrawal / Non Submission Rate (%) Twice Yearly Examination Board Programme Board Academic Council
No. Registered Students Twice Yearly Examination Board Programme Board Academic Council
Progression Rate (%) Twice Yearly Examination Board Programme Board Academic Council
Student Course Assessment Form (CAF) Ratings (review period, annual and cumulative)
Weekly (KPI summary Report) Interim and End of Course Twice Yearly
Managing Director Director of Quality and Academic Affairs Tutor Course Manager Director of Quality and Academic Affairs Programme Board
31
Chapter Relevant KPI Frequency of Review: Reviewed By:
No. Potential for Improvement Notice (PIN) Weekly Twice Yearly
Relevant Internal Personnel Managing Director Director of Quality and Academic Affairs Programme Board & Academic Council
No. New Programmes Offered Twice Yearly Academic Council
4. Assessment of Students
Assessment Results Twice Yearly Examination Board Programme Board Academic Council (high level detail only)
Pass / Fail Rate Twice Yearly Examination Board Programme Board
Completion Rate (%) Twice Yearly Examination Board Academic Council
Withdrawal / Non Submission Rate (%) Twice Yearly Programme Board Academic Council
APEL Statistics
% students admitted on basis of APEL
Comparison of assessment results for those admitted on basis of APEL vs Educational History
Twice Yearly Examination Board Programme Board Academic Council
No. Reviews, Rechecks and Appeals Twice Yearly Examination Board Programme Board Academic Council
No. Extension Requests / Deferrals Examination Board Programme Board Academic Council
5. Quality Assurance of Academic Staff
Tutor Rating Interim and End of Course As necessary
Course Manager Director of Quality and Academic Affairs Individual Tutor Meetings
32
Chapter Relevant KPI Frequency of Review: Reviewed By:
Course Rating Interim and End of Course As necessary
Course Manager Director of Quality and Academic Affairs Individual Tutor Meetings
Staff Turnover Twice Yearly Managing Director Board of Directors
No. Staff Training Days Attended Twice Yearly Managing Director Director of Quality and Academic Affairs Academic Council
No. Potential for Improvement Notice (PIN) Weekly Twice Yearly
Relevant Internal Personnel Managing Director Director of Quality and Academic Affairs Programme Board & Academic Council
6. Learning Resources and Student Support
Student Course Assessment Form (CAF) Ratings – wrt student support and relevant resources
Interim and End of Course As necessary
Course Manager Director of Quality and Academic Affairs Individual Tutor Meetings Programme Board
No. Health and Safety incidents Weekly Managing Director Health and Safety Officer
No. Students with disabilities / specific learning difficulties Twice Yearly Academic Council
7. Information Systems No. Failed Backups Weekly Director of Quality and Academic Affairs
IT Statistics (website, Moodle etc.) As necessary Director of Quality and Academic Affairs Marketing Manager (website statistics)
33
Chapter Relevant KPI Frequency of Review: Reviewed By:
Bi-Annual IT Staff Survey Results Bi-annual Director of Quality and Academic Affairs
8. Public Information Satisfaction with public information rating - Survey to students who have withdrawn (This is also reviewed as part of the student CAF’s which is monitored as above)
Annually Director of Quality and Academic Affairs Managing Director Marketing Manager Programme Board
Appendix 1: KPI Indicators per QA Manual Chapter
34
Body Function Membership
(Chairperson in red) Meeting Frequency
Board of Directors Oversight and advice concerning strategic planning and
development
Oversight of compliance with quality assurance procedures and legal obligations
Guardianship of corporate and academic governance best practice
Budgetary / financial governance
Independent Non-Executive Director
Managing Director
Non-Executive Director
Four times per year
Academic Council Responsible for the academic regulation of the organisation
Approve new programme proposals
Review and approve updates and amendments to any aspect of the quality assurance system
Review annual programme review reports and feedback from awarding bodies and make recommendations based on same
Formally assess and approve reports for awarding bodies such as programmatic and institutional review documentation
Review reports and recommendations received from its sub-committees and make recommendations based on same
Form ad-hoc sub-committees where considered beneficial and appropriate
Review cases of academic misconduct and plagiarism when appropriate (when escalated from disciplinary or appeals committee)
Review External Examiner reports
Independent Non-Executive Director
Managing Director
Director of Quality and Academic Affairs
HETAC student representative
HETAC programme leader
Examination Secretary
Tutor representative(s) for following validated subject areas:
o HETAC o FETAC o NEBOSH
Twice per year
Quality Committee QA audit & reporting
Monitor adherence to QA policies, procedures and internal work instructions
Informal training and provision of information re QA updates to relevant stakeholders
Review External Examiner reports
Director of Quality and Academic Affairs
Examination Secretary
Course Manager(s)
Four times per year
35
Body Function Membership
(Chairperson in red)
Meeting Frequency
Programme Board Operational planning
Monitor student progression and retention
Manage the effectiveness of teaching, learning and assessment methods and procedures as applied to the programme(s)
Review student, tutor and industry feedback and take action where required
Participate on reviews as determined by relevant awarding bodies (i.e. institutional and programmatic reviews)
New programme identification
Review annual programme review reports and make recommendations based on same
Review External Examiner reports
Director of Quality and Academic Affairs and / or Managing Director
Course Manager(s)
Programme Tutors
Programme Leader
Student representative (for QQI/HETAC programmes only)
Twice per year
Examination Board Review outcomes of External Examiner moderation of
programme(s) under consideration
Ratify assessment results for all students of programme(s) under consideration
Review penalties applied to assessment activities of programme(s) under consideration
Review statistics/trends regarding assessment results of programme(s) under consideration
Director of Quality and Academic Affairs
Examination Secretary
Programme Tutors
Programme Leader
External Examiner
Twice per year
Appeals Committee Review appeals of examination and assessment grades or against
the decisions of the academic committees To be convened by the Managing Director; membership based on significance of appeal (level, module etc.). Minimum 3 persons, including Director of Quality and Academic Affairs and independent Tutor).
Ad-hoc as required
Disciplinary Committee Hear unresolved cases of alleged misconduct and academic
impropriety To be convened by the Independent Non-Executive Director, as necessary; membership based on the nature of the alleged disciplinary offence. Minimum 3 persons including Director of Quality and Academic Affairs and / or Managing Director.
Ad-hoc as required
Appendix 2: Boards and Committees