Quality risk management in practice - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 19
About This Presentation
Title:

Quality risk management in practice

Description:

To assure the Institute that emerging trends in student data, at Institute and ... of School prepares summary report to note emerging issues. Review, year one ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:58
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 20
Provided by: jonre7
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Quality risk management in practice


1
Quality risk management in practice
  • Jon Renyard
  • Director of Academic Services
  • The Arts Institute at Bournemouth

2
At the end of the session, delegates should
  • have learned how the Arts Institute at
    Bournemouth has revised its annual quality
    monitoring processes to secure improved outcomes
    whilst demanding less staff time
  • have considered the advantages and pitfalls of
    adopting risk management principles in quality
    assurance processes
  • be able to think critically and constructively
    about their own institution's processes, and
    identify ways in which they might be revised to
    secure the best outcomes

3
Annual course monitoring
  • Characterised by
  • Time consuming (25 discursive questions)
  • Repetitive
  • Degree of monotony
  • Yet again, everything is OK
  • Essentially backward looking

4
Traditional system
  • a bid for resources to the executive on the
    basis of claims that the unflagging efforts of
    staff have maintained outstanding quality, though
    conditions have been unremittingly adverse and
    the next straw really will break the camels
    back.

5
Quality risk management
  • Report of the GMP project Managing Academic Risk
    led by Professor Colin Raban
  • Intention to reduce burden
  • Avoid game-playing and encourage innovation
  • Ensure systems not gold-plated

6
  • Do we as a sector, for example, want our annual
    monitoring system to be confirmatory, or do we
    want it to be predictive, integrated with
    planning, and able to trigger further activity
    where necessary?

7
Process
  • Discursive report on the GMP project to the
    Quality and Standards Committee (ISQ)
  • Agreement in principle to investigate options
  • Outline proposal presented for discussion
  • Formal proposal presented

8
Purposes
  • To assure the Institute that the quality and
    standards of each course remain secure
  • To assure the Institute that emerging trends in
    student data, at Institute and course level, are
    identified and considered in timely fashion
  • To assure the Institute that each course remains
    responsive to the external environment

9
  • The review process requires course teams
    annually to reflect on a range of evidence,
    including the views of external examiners,
    students and employers, and relevant student
    data.
  • The process is designed to be both
    backward-looking (and to provide assurance about
    quality and standards), but also predictive, to
    ensure that courses are taking appropriate and
    timely action to respond to developments in the
    discipline or the sector.

10
  • Part A quality indicators
  • Part B summary of the year (500 words!)
  • Part C thematic section
  • Part D SWOT analysis
  • Part E action plan

11
Quality indicators
  • Included all the major data indicators including
    new WP
  • Tolerance band for each indicator
  • Agreed 10 were critical

12
Thematics
  • Responding to the employability agenda (how
    student employability is developed)
  • Staff research and professional practice (how
    informed curriculum)
  • Widening participation (response to imperatives!)
  • Enhancement initiatives (how institutional
    enhancement activity has impacted on the course)

13
  • SWOT analysis
  • Encouragement to think widely and to reflect
    honestly on the course
  • Action plan
  • Based on SWOT, including critical indicators
    sometimes no action required

14
Approval process
  • Prepared by Course Leader and considered by
    Course Board
  • Formal cross-reading by reviewer from another
    School
  • Approval by School Board
  • Director of School prepares summary report to
    note emerging issues

15
Review, year one
  • Process met stated aims
  • Much better use of time
  • Some respondents wanted to write more in the
    discursive section, or to have space to consider
    certain evidence in more detail

16
Review, year two
  • Process stated aims
  • Good use of time
  • Timing of process as a whole under review
  • (no comment about word count)
  • (no comment about specific evidence)

17
Overall
  • Much more time-effective
  • Encourages a more strategic review
  • Stops focus on atypical results
  • Overall, produces much stronger outputs
  • No regrets!

18
BUT
  • We have no differential practice
  • Relies upon engagement of cross-reader
  • Relies on trust, and a no blame culture
  • Big culture change!
  • Couldnt do it for everything?
  • What slips under the radar?

19
Thank you
  • Jon Renyard
  • jrenyard_at_aib.ac.uk
  • 01202 363328
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com