EUA Reviews of
1. Quality Assurance Procedures and their
Outcomes at NUI Galway
2. Quality Assurance in Irish Universities
April – December 2004
The University’s Action Plan
Adopted by Údarás na hOllscoile, 21 October 2005
NUI Galway Action Plan: EUA Reviews of Quality Procedures – 2004
NuigActionPlanEuaRev04-12
Adopted October 2005
2
25/11/2005
NUI Galway Action Plan: EUA Reviews of Quality Procedures – 2004
3
Preliminary
The Reports
This comprehensive action plan for the University takes into account recommendations
in reports prepared as part of two parallel review processes carried out by the European
University Association in 2004. (For further information see http://www.iuqb.ie/.)
The Report: ‘Quality Review of the National University of Ireland, Galway’ and the
University’s response to that Report may be down-loaded from the University’s website
(http://www.nuigalway.ie/quality/quality_review_nuigalway.html). The EUA Sectoral
Report ‘Review of Quality Assurance in Irish Universities’ may be down-loaded from
the website of the Irish Universities Quality Board (http://www.iuqb.ie/). Via this
website also, access may be had to the individual EUA review reports on the other six
universities in the Republic of Ireland.
Development of Action Plan
On the authority of the President and the University quality committees, a widely
representative Self Evaluation Steering Committee (SEC) was established to supervise
the University’s preparations for the EUA Review. Now that the work of the SESC is
complete and it has been discontinued, the preparation of this Action Plan is the direct
responsibility of An Coiste Feabhais, the University’s Quality Committee which reports
to Údarás na hOllscoile (Governing Authority of University).
Format
To allow adequate rationales to be included for the actions proposed and to facilitate
easy scanning of what is proposed, this plan is presented as follows:
Listings of the recommendations from the review of NUI Galway and from the
review of the Irish University Sector. Each recommendation is followed (as necessary)
by a rationale and (an) action(s), with all actions being associated with officers or
bodies responsible for their implementation, and timelines for intermediate targets and
final completion.
Approval
A full first draft of this Plan was discussed in detail at a special meeting of an Coiste
Feabhais on 14 July and changes were made due to the feedback received. The
modified text was then submitted to the University management Team and, after further
modifications was adopted formally by Údarás na hOllscoile at the meeting of 21
October 2005.
Implementation of Action Plan
The NUI Galway Quality Office will monitor the implementation of this Plan and liaise
with the IUQB with respect to the larger national monitoring of follow up to the EUA
reviews.
NuigActionPlanEuaRev04-12
Adopted October 2005
25/11/2005
NUI Galway Action Plan: EUA Reviews of Quality Procedures – 2004
4
Listings of Recommendations and Associated
Actions
1. Recommendations from EUA Review of NUI Galway
The Report arising from this review included 12 specific recommendations, which are
listed below. For some of these, where an associated issue was raised in the text of the
Report but is not explicit in the wording of the recommendations, this text is also quoted
(italics).
1. “That NUI Galway develop advocacy strategies for the support of
tertiary education in Ireland as well as every possible means to assure the
implementation of the HEA’s plan, dated 8 September 2004, the Review
and Prioritisation of Capital Projects in the Higher Education Sector
[Kelly Report].”
The University has undertaken a sustained and comprehensive lobbying campaign in
support of the implementation of the Kelly Report by the Government. This campaign
continues. The separate reference in the EUA Report to the need “to act to repair its
aging campus buildings” is related directly to the need for restoration of the HEA’s
‘capital maintenance programme’. The University, individually and through CHIU, is
also lobbying the Government on the improvement of baseline support for tertiary
education.
Action:
All opportunities to highlight these issues are taken by the President and senior
University officers, and by CHIU officers and representatives.
Responsible: President and UMT
Timelines: Ongoing
2. ”The review of the internal organisational structure must continue
melding smaller units into larger ones.”
The 2004 Report of the OECD Review of Higher Education in Ireland also included a
comparable recommendation.
NUI Galway is fully committed to the review of its structures for the delivery of
academic programmes and the organization of research and this is explicit in its
Strategic Plan. Nevertheless, these changes in structure will follow and support the
University’s overall strategic objectives, and will exploit opportunities offered by upcoming physical developments to achieve full participation by staff and maximum
benefits.
NuigActionPlanEuaRev04-12
Adopted October 2005
25/11/2005
NUI Galway Action Plan: EUA Reviews of Quality Procedures – 2004
5
Actions:
1. An Academic Council working group on departmental management and academic
leadership is examining the internal administrative requirements for effective
academic activities, and it is anticipated that its recommendations (due by October
2005) will provide a cogent rationale and incentives to staff to participate in
amalgamations.
Responsible: Registrar
Timelines: As given above
2. New professorial appointments have been and are being made with the proviso that
certain amalgamations are planned.
Responsible: Registrar
Timelines: Ongoing
3. Working groups, projects and discussions are underway with respect to the
following academic units:
•
The four Modern Language departments, French, German, Italian and Spanish
(These departments are collectively participating in the on-going IUQB sectoral
project ‘Strategic Planning in Academic Department.) (Agreed new
arrangements to be in place by January 2006)
•
The biological departments, Botany and Zoology (September 2006)
•
The departments of the Faculty of Commerce (January 2006)
•
The departments of the Faculty of Engineering (January 2007)
•
Three scientific departments with major inputs to medical education, namely
Anatomy, Clinical Pharmacology and Physiology (January 2007)
Responsible: Registrar
Timelines: As given above
3. “The review of the size, role and structure of the Governing Authority as
well as the Academic Council must continue in spite of their regulation in
the Universities Act of 1997 which have to be questioned.”
The 2004 Report of the OECD Review of Higher Education in Ireland also included a
comparable recommendation.
The University is subject to legislation on this and will contribute to the debate
on any changes proposed. Internally, structures are under continuous review.
Actions:
1. The Standing and Strategic Planning Committee reported in June 2005 to Údarás on
the advantages and disadvantages of appointing an independent Chair to Údarás,
and a decision to seek to appoint an independent chair or not will be made before
January 2006.
2. Furthermore as part of the Strategic Plan (Strategic Priority 6), the University
management team (UMT) is committed to reviewing institutional organisational
structures with a view to developing clearer and more efficient alternatives and
having them in place by July 2006.
NuigActionPlanEuaRev04-12
Adopted October 2005
25/11/2005
NUI Galway Action Plan: EUA Reviews of Quality Procedures – 2004
6
3. See also Action 4 under Recommendation 4 on page 6.
Responsible: President
Timelines: As given above
4. “It is recommended that a formal Council of Deans be established, with
a clear statement of roles and authority for both the Council and the
individual deans.”
Also on page 12 of the EUA Review Report:
“The deans’ positions, roles, duties and responsibilities should be
recognized in the organisation of NUI Galway and the deans as a group
should be more systematically involved in the decision process.”
Actions:
The University notes and welcomes this recommendation and UMT will consider what
processes may be used to help best ‘define and formalize the positions, roles, duties and
responsibilities of the faculty deans within the University.
1. A council of Deans will be formalised and begin to meet regularly from October
2005.
2. Working with the Registrar and An Rúnaí (Secretary of the University), the
Council of Deans will draft and seek to have approved by Academic Council
and Údarás na hOllscoile formal definitions of the each dean’s position, roles,
duties and responsibilities, with a view to having them in place by September
2006.
3. The Academic Planning and Implementation Group, which reports to Academic
Planning and Resource Committee (APRC) and consists of the Deans and the
Directors of major academic services (Librarian, Príomhfheidhmeannach an
Acadaimh, Director of Computer Services, Director of the Centre for Excellence
in Learning and Teaching (CELT), Director of Quality, Head of Adult
Education, VP for Research etc.) has met twice yearly for the last three years.
UMT and the Údarás will be presented with a proposal that this Group be
formally constituted with defined terms of reference before the end of 2005.
4. As the above changes are formalised, the respective roles of Academic Council,
the Standing Committee of Academic Council, APRC and of the new Group
will be reviewed together, with a view to developing clarity on their respective
roles in policy formulation and decision making on academic matters, by
January 2007.
Responsible: President, An Rúnaí, Registrar
Timelines: As given above
NuigActionPlanEuaRev04-12
Adopted October 2005
25/11/2005
NUI Galway Action Plan: EUA Reviews of Quality Procedures – 2004
7
5. “In terms of the institutional resource allocation system, its rationale, its
priorities, and its criteria, there is a great need for more transparency for
faculties and departments.”
Action:
The University recognizes the need for greater transparency in its processes and will
review how this can be effected in line with existing structures and the proposed
organizational changes above. This process will be given added rationale and impetus
by the ongoing reform of the national criteria used by the Government and the HEA for
resource allocation to the universities.
Responsible: UMT
Timelines: January 2007
6. “In terms of internationalisation, it is recommended that the University
broaden its concept from just recruiting overseas students to developing
international and European understandings and opportunities.”
The International Office has been reorganised to widen the scope of the University’s
involvement internationally. The present reality is in any case much wider than
recruitment, with membership of the Coimbra Group of European universities, formal
links through memoranda of agreement and understanding with many institutions, and
many formal research agreements across the world.
Actions:
1. In March 2005, NUI Galway announced a new scholarship fund to support students
from developing countries and is actively raising money through the University
Foundation for this purpose.
2. In addition, high quality research students from non EU countries are given fee
concessions.
3. The University’s Community Knowledge Initiative to promote and support service
learning also has a growing international dimension.
4. Other actions to enhance the international experience of NUI Galway students,
international activities in general and awareness of them will continue to be
considered (for example the display in a suitable location of the elaborate
parchments etc. that are often prepared when an agreement with another institution
is formalized).
Responsible: Vice President for Strategic Initiatives and External Affairs
Timelines: Current, ongoing or planned
7. “In order to serve a growing student body, it is also recommended NUI
Galway establish an institutional research office with thorough planning
for role and function, so that the right data are collected and analyzed.”
Establishing an institutional research function is already Part of Strategic Priority 1 of
the Strategic Plan 2003–08, which reads: “Establish an internal research function to
generate and monitor performance indicators for all aspects of the University”. Also a
NuigActionPlanEuaRev04-12
Adopted October 2005
25/11/2005
NUI Galway Action Plan: EUA Reviews of Quality Procedures – 2004
8
workshop for deans and senior managers with Dr Mark Putnam, Director of
Institutional Research at North Eastern University Boston was held last year.
An executive information system that has been implemented by the University’s
Management Information Services will have a fundamental role in these developments.
Actions:
•
Director of Quality was reappointed in March 2005 with an extended job
description that includes responsibility for institutional research.
•
An ‘Information Audit of the University’ has been commissioned. Dr Mark
Putnam interviewed the President and more than 20 other relevant senior
officers and managers of the University on 28–30 May 2005. The audit will be
completed after a second visit in October 2005.
•
A proposal for the appointment a qualified information analyst to the Quality
office will be made by September 2005.
•
NUI Galway is participating actively in the IUQB sectoral project on
institutional research, to be completed by April 2006.
Responsible: Vice President for Physical Resources, Director of Quality
Timelines: As given above
8. “The Review Team strongly recommends that NUI Galway address the
contradiction between its aspiration of being a student-centred university
and the students’ complaints about large classes, too little space, too few
computers and too few student services.”
All of these issues are being addressed with urgency as part of the University’s Strategic
Plan.
Actions:
1. The University does not see the judicious use of large classes per se as an issue (the
largest classes at NUI Galway are smaller than elsewhere in Ireland and, with proper
supports and skilled lecturers, even very large classes can be effective); rather
improvements need to be made in how large classes are given, supported and
supplemented.
a. The largest theatres are being equipped progressively with all the best
modern electronic teaching supports and selected staff are being trained by
CELT and gaining experience in using these to ensure greater student
participation and active learning.
b. Courses on teaching large classes are offered regularly at CELT.
c. The Department of English will begin in September 2005 offering first year
English for BA students through a mixture of conventional lectures, self
directed learning and a redesigned tutorial system.
d. Advisory and mentoring systems for students are being expanded
progressively.
2. With respect to too little space, major new academic facilities are under
construction, (Business School, The Nursing, Therapies, Sociology and Politics
Building) and others are funded and/or are at an advanced in planning (Engineering,
NuigActionPlanEuaRev04-12
Adopted October 2005
25/11/2005
NUI Galway Action Plan: EUA Reviews of Quality Procedures – 2004
9
Human Biology, Psychology, Library extension etc.) In addition a new Sports
Centre and new Arts and Cultural Centre are at design stage and due for completion
in Spring 2007. It is recognised by the University that many of these projects have
been too long in gestation.
3. With respect to too few computers, the new buildings above will have extensive
computer suites. Wireless linkages to the campus network in certain locations have
been in operation and are being used regularly by many students; new locations are
planned.
4. With respect to too few student services, in Spring 2003 a new Vice President post
was created with overall responsibility for Student Services. Student Services were
reviewed in 2004–05, some re-structuring has already taken place, and a strategic
plan for all of these services has been finalized and is currently being implemented.
5. NUI Galway has participated actively in the IUQB sectoral project on Student
services, which to be completed shortly.
Responsible: Registrar, Vice President for Physical Resources, Registrar, Vice
President for Student Services and Human Resources
Timelines: Current, ongoing or planned
9. “[I]t is recommended that systematic evaluations of all courses be
introduced immediately. However, these evaluations must be kept
confidential and not made public. The deans and department heads should
assume the responsibility for the follow-up of course evaluations. Students
should be informed of actions taken as a result of the evaluations, e.g.
inform the new course group of comments from the former students and tell
them about department actions taken as a result of the former evaluation.”
The Criteria for Academic Departments and Programmes adopted by Academic Council
in June 2003 specify such mechanisms. (Quote: “Mechanisms are in place to facilitate
the expression of students’ views and to provide feedback.”) Also, in the Guidelines for
reviews of academic departments and programmes, the provision of the following
documents is seen an inherent part of the academic review process.
•
Minutes of meetings of staff-student committees with actions proposed and the
effects of previous improvements over the last year.
•
Summary reports of student surveys for each programme with actions proposed
and the effects of previous improvements over the last full academic year.
In addition, about 150 members of teaching staff have participated at least once in the
voluntary Grouped Student Teaching Evaluation Scheme initiated by the Quality Office
and now run by the new Centre for Excellence in Learning and Teaching (CELT). This
represent about 20% of all academic staff.
Evaluation of teaching performance is a feature of promotion to senior lecturer
and this will be made more explicit over the coming year with the professional support
of CELT.
However, clearly these measures have not been sufficient to achieve anything
like a systematic system in which all students participate regularly.
NuigActionPlanEuaRev04-12
Adopted October 2005
25/11/2005
NUI Galway Action Plan: EUA Reviews of Quality Procedures – 2004
10
Actions:
1. All teaching staff (and in particular all new appointees) are encouraged strongly to
avail of the new post graduate programme in teaching and learning organised by
CELT. This includes substantial teaching evaluation by students and peers, and is
already over-subscribed.
2. In June 2005, Academic Council adopted unanimously an explicit policy that all
faculties develop and adopt a regulation that all heads of academic departments and
coordinators of academic programmes must institute regular, balanced and
coordinated mechanisms for the collection, analysis and appropriate implementation
of feedback from all students (undrgraduate and postgraduate), starting in the
academic year 2005–06.
Responsible: Deans, Director of Centre for Excellence in Learning and Teaching,
Director of Quality
Timelines: Ongoing or as indicated
10. The Review Team strongly recommends that the Guidelines for the
Quality Assurance procedures should emphasize that recommendations
presented by the Quality Audit should be sensitive to resource constraints.
Action:
The Guidelines for the Quality Assurance will be changed to implement fully this
recommendation.
Responsible: Director of Quality
Timelines: August 31, 2005
11. “To avoid ‘review fatigue’ and reduce the review burden, it is
recommended that when possible the University combine Quality Audits
with accreditation processes.”
This a logical and reasonable recommendation and concerns a practice that has been in
place for some time. This or a similar option is open to all departments subject to
accreditation reviews and it may be adopted by the new Departments of Occupational
Therapy and Speech Therapy. However, in recent years most departments with
upcoming accreditation and quality reviews opt to undergo them separately, in spite of
the extra work involved.
Action:
Already current policy
12. “And finally, it is recommended to extend the time schedules of quality
audits to 7 years with the provision that a shorter term might be required in
some instances.”
Because a regular cycle length of seven years is too long if the review system at NUI
Galway is to contribute to the continuous and widespread reform at all levels that is
NuigActionPlanEuaRev04-12
Adopted October 2005
25/11/2005
NUI Galway Action Plan: EUA Reviews of Quality Procedures – 2004
11
urgently needed, is not proposed that NUI Galway implement this recommendation as it
stands.
Action:
The grounds upon which units may apply to have a scheduled review deferred by one
year will be widened in the 2005–06 Guidelines for all internal reviews.
Responsible: Director of Quality
Timelines: August 31, 2005
NuigActionPlanEuaRev04-12
Adopted October 2005
25/11/2005
NUI Galway Action Plan: EUA Reviews of Quality Procedures – 2004
12
2. Recommendations from EUA Review of Irish
University Sector
The Report arising from this review included 28 specific recommendations, which are
listed below. The original sub-headings indicating the relevant part or stage of the
review process are also included.
Also, where there is a close match between a recommendation here and in the
Report on NUI Galway, a reference to the appropriate recommendation and action(s)
above is given.
Organisation and planning of QA process
1. The contribution of QA to university strategy and planning should be
stressed to all involved in the process.
For each quality review at NUI Galway, a report with the review group’s
recommendations and the subsequently developed action plans is considered by the
relevant committee of Údarás na hOllscoile before being examined and accepted by the
Údarás itself. For example. the Academic Planning and Resource Committee (APRC)
examines all reports arising from reviews of academic departments, academic
programmes and faculties.
Actions:
•
Motion to be proposed by the President for adoption by Údarás na hOllscoile in
conjunction with consideration by Údarás of this Action Plan
• Guidelines for reviews to be altered by September 2005
Responsible: President, Director of Quality
Timelines: January 2006
2. It should be clear from the start of the process that the results of each
evaluation will be discussed between the senior management, including the
President, and the unit evaluated.
Note:
All reviews at NUI Galway since 1996 include a Follow Up meeting attended by
relevant members of UMT and by relevant deans and other senior management, and
all available members of the unit under review.
NuigActionPlanEuaRev04-12
Adopted October 2005
25/11/2005
NUI Galway Action Plan: EUA Reviews of Quality Procedures – 2004
13
3. The university President’s overall responsibility for the QA process and
role as one of its main beneficiaries should be underlined.
Note:
At NUI Galway the President provides overall leadership to the QA process, but
operationally, individual members of UMT act as leaders and as conduits of feedback
for the units under review that fall under (or relate to) their areas of responsibilities.
4. This overall responsibility of the President and senior management for
the process should not lessen the fundamental ownership of each
evaluation by the unit in question.
Note:
The fundamental ownership of each evaluation by the unit under review is ensured by:
•
The unambiguous designation of the ‘self assessment process’ as the most
important part of the entire review process
•
Participation by all available staff in the unit in:
o A meeting with the full review group early during their visit,
o The exit meeting when the review group present their preliminary
findings
o The Follow Up meeting, which preceeds development of the action plans
for the Unit and for University management.
Self-assessment phase
5. The self-assessment reports produced by any unit under review should
not exceed 30 pages, excluding additional annexes.
Actions:
•
Already practice, but the wording in the guidelines will be modified to make this
more clear.
Responsible: Director of Quality
Timelines: Before September 2005
6. The self assessment phase should not last longer than three months.
Actions:
• Guidelines will be modified.
Responsible: Director of Quality
Timelines: Before September 2005
NuigActionPlanEuaRev04-12
Adopted October 2005
25/11/2005
NUI Galway Action Plan: EUA Reviews of Quality Procedures – 2004
14
7. All units need to ensure that students, both undergraduate and
postgraduate, are involved systematically in the self-assessment and that
their opinions and contributions are included in the reports.
This is already the case in principle and, in most relevant units, in practice. However,
there is room for improvement.
Actions:
• Guidelines will be modified.
Responsible: Director of Quality
Timelines: Before September 2005
8. All units need to take proper account of the evolving institutional and
external environments when undertaking their self-assessment, looking at
the opportunities and threats these may present and situating themselves
within these contexts.
Note:
A SWOT analysis is already an integral part of the self assessment process and all units
must include an up-to-date operational/strategic plan when submitting their self
assessment reports.
9. Units undergoing review need systematically to consider their links to
the relevant university services and to make sure these links are covered by
the review process.
This is already the case in principle and, in most units, in practice. However, there is
room for improvement.
Actions:
• Guidelines will be modified.
Responsible: Director of Quality
Timelines: Before September 2005
10. Units undergoing review should make explicit links between the formal
quality review process and any other QA mechanisms which they may also
operate. The potential synergies between these are vital.
Notes:
All units under review give details of the other QA mechanisms that they operate as part
of their self assessment reports. They also supply reports/minutes concerning student
staff committees and feedback surveys, in so far as they are available. (See also
Recommendation 11 below as well as above under Recommendation 9 in the EUA
Review of NUI Galway.)
NuigActionPlanEuaRev04-12
Adopted October 2005
25/11/2005
NUI Galway Action Plan: EUA Reviews of Quality Procedures – 2004
15
For reviews of all academic departments and programmes, the more recent
annual reports of external examiner are made available to the quality review group.
More extensive links between the external examiner system and quality reviews are
difficult to envision, not least because external examiners are frequently over-worked
already, and notoriously under paid. Fundamental reform of the external examiner
system would be a pre-requisite to any more substantial cooperation between the two
systems.
11. The Irish universities need to ensure coherent and regular student
feedback on all courses and modules, and for this feedback to be an explicit
input to the QA process.
Actions:
See above under Recommendation 9 in the EUA Review of NUI Galway
Peer review phase
12. Universities should ensure that the guidelines and terms of reference
supplied to peer review teams encourage a broad view of quality, including
sufficient emphasis on research, interdisciplinarity and
internationalisation. These guidelines should also ensure that any ensuing
recommendations are clear, realistic, and distinguish between those
needing new investment and those where improvements can be made
without significant additional resources.
Reviews are already explicitly holistic, but there is some scope in QA reviews for
improving the emphasis on internationalisation. The classification of recommendations
as indicated above is already requested.
Actions:
•
The pro forma for self assessment reports will be modified to request
information on internationalisation.
•
The Guidelines will be modified to give greater emphasis to the importance of
recommendations being clear, realistic, and distinguish between those needing
new investment and those where improvements can be made without significant
additional resources.
Responsible: Director of Quality
Timelines: Before September 2005
13. The composition of peer review teams needs to be more flexible, in
order to respond to the need for strategic benchmarking with other
NuigActionPlanEuaRev04-12
Adopted October 2005
25/11/2005
NUI Galway Action Plan: EUA Reviews of Quality Procedures – 2004
16
universities worldwide and to respect the diversity of profiles and
structures among the Irish universities.
Note:
The compostion of review groups is already highly flexible. An extra member is added
or the composition altered to suit the circumstances in the unit under review. (For
further information on the composition of review groups see Recommendation 14
below.) The only consistently applied rules are:
o At least one specialist member is from abroad and at least one is from Ireland, to
ensure competence in the ‘making of national and international comparisons’
o A majority or an equal number of the group are external members. The chair is
always one of the external members.
14. The choice of peers should be independent of the unit under review.
At NUI Galway each review group contains one specialist from abroad, one specialist
from another Irish University, a senior member of University staff from a cognate area,
and another member of University staff who acts as coordinator in the preparation of the
review report (rapporteur). For academic reviews, a representative of employers of the
graduates of the unit is included if appropriate, which is the case for the majority of
reviews. Each external reviewers is selected ‘at random’ from a list of names supplied
by the Unit. The list includes four names in each category. The senior person from a
cognate unit is designated after consultation with the Unit. One of the external
members is elected as its Chair by the Group itself at the start of the Visit.
The underlying principle of NUI Galway’s review system is ‘trust’, and there is
increasingly justified confidence that each unit sees the review process as a support
service to facilitate their own quest for quality improvement and strategic development.
Full and strict implementation of this recommendation would be very difficult.
Discussions between all of the Irish universities may be necessary to identify practical
actions consistent with the recommendation.
Action:
o Proposal to university quality officers that this matter be discussed in an ‘away
day’ setting.
Responsible: Director of Quality
Timelines: Before September 2005
NuigActionPlanEuaRev04-12
Adopted October 2005
25/11/2005
NUI Galway Action Plan: EUA Reviews of Quality Procedures – 2004
17
Quality improvement
15. Following each review, the unit and the senior university management
should hold a short seminar to discuss the evaluation, together with
proposals for improvement and action.
Note:
At NUI Galway, for all reviews held since 1996, a follow up meeting is held within the
unit under review. The agenda for each meeting allows for brief consideration of the
self assessment report, discussion of the review group report in the light of the unit’s
response, and feedback on the review process. The attendance includes: the head of
unit, all available members of staff of the Unit including members of the Self
Assessment Group, the Registrar and/or relevant members of UMT, relevant dean(s),
relevant service managers, and, normally at least two members of the Review Group.
The Director of Quality chairs the meeting.
A formal action plan for the unit is then drafted, and finalized in consultation
with the unit and the relevant senior University officers. In addition, recognizing that
each individual review identifies issues outside the remit of the Unit under review, there
is also an action plan for University Management. These Action Plans represent a clear
and formal account of the main outcomes of the review process.
16. A maximum of six months should be set for agreeing a quality
improvement plan.
The practice at NUI Galway since 1996 has been for the Director of Quality to draft an
improvement plan (action plan) for the unit under review and a separate action plan for
University management to deal with wider issues identified. The unit’s action plan is
modified by the unit and agreed by them. Both plans in their final forms are formally
signed off by all the relevant University officers and the head of unit. Although, this
ensures timely completion of the plans in most cases, occasionally the finalisation of
plans has taken longer than six months.
Action:
• Guidelines will be modified to introduce a six month deadline.
Responsible: Director of Quality
Timelines: Before September 2005
17. These quality improvement plans should be taken into account in the
strategic management and other university-wide processes.
See also Action under Recommendation 19 below.
Action:
Important relevant items in each annual report of the Quality Office to Údarás na
hOllscoile will be discussed at the relevant University committees as soon as possible
after they have been considered by an tÚdarás.
NuigActionPlanEuaRev04-12
Adopted October 2005
25/11/2005
NUI Galway Action Plan: EUA Reviews of Quality Procedures – 2004
18
Responsible: Rúnaí na hOllscoile
Timelines: December 31, 2005
18. The university management must respond to these plans, even in cases
where resources are scarce.
Note:
The procedures for the Follow Up meetings that are integral parts of all reviews, and the
practice whereby all relevant University officers must formally agree to the consequent
actions plans, ensure that university management responds adequately, at least initially.
See also Action under Recommendation 19 below.
19. Information on the implementation of agreed quality improvement
plans should be included in the university’s annual quality assurance
reports.
On the re-appointment of the Director of Quality in March 2005, the job description of
the Director included on obligation to report annually to the Údarás n hOllscoile
(University Governing Authority) on the activities of the Quality Office.
Action:
A comprehensive annual report on the activities of the Quality Office including a
concise summary of all actions arising from reviews of University-wide relevance will
be prepared in the summer of each year.
Responsible: Director of Quality
Timelines: September 30, 2005
20. The universities should consider their entire budgets as quality
improvement funds.
Note:
Effectively, this is standard practice at NUI Galway, as the outcomes from the QA
reviews inform (via members of UMT, the main committees of an tÚdarás and relevant
officers) the normal resource allocation processes.
Strategic governance and management
21. The scheduling of evaluations should be approached in a more
strategic way.
This has already been done with respect to the three departments that have since come
together to form the Department of Earth and Ocean Sciences. Currently some pairs of
departments that have been identified appropriate to the adoption of unified
NuigActionPlanEuaRev04-12
Adopted October 2005
25/11/2005
NUI Galway Action Plan: EUA Reviews of Quality Procedures – 2004
19
administrative structures are scheduled for review in the same year. However, more
constructive scheduling of the kind recommended would be beneficial and will be
undertaken.
Action:
All opportunities for constructive scheduling of reviews to further the strategic
objectives of the University will be taken.
Responsible: Director of Quality
Timelines: Ongoing
22. Universities should explore the possibilities for linking the quality
review cycle to other strategic cycles.
Such an approach could yield significant benefits but its would also require significant
forward planning. Linkage may be most effective and feasible as the second cycle of
administrative and service reviews and the third cycle of academic reviews become
imminent towards the end of the decade; when a new strategic plan will also be
developed. In particular, the review of senior management functions due in 2007–08
will be well timed to support the strategic planning process. The end of the President’s
term of office occurs at this time also.
Action:
University management will seek to link strategic cycles where this is feasible and
promises significant benefits.
Responsible: UMT
Timelines: Ongoing
23. Universities should consider reviewing groups of cognate units
(faculties, etc) to achieve a better overview of how teaching, learning and
research can develop across these units, and to break down current
boundaries to inter-disciplinary work.
Note:
Standard practice at NUI Galway. All six of the seven faculties will have been
reviewed by the end of 2005–06.
24. Universities should also consider reviewing university-wide issues, not
linked to any one unit, but essential for the ongoing strategic development
of the institution.
This is in accord with existing University policy. Two institutional reviews of research
have already been carried out, in 1997–98 and in 2002–03. However, other institutional
issues such as the organization of post graduate research training, or mature student
education could also benefit from a broad review.
NuigActionPlanEuaRev04-12
Adopted October 2005
25/11/2005
NUI Galway Action Plan: EUA Reviews of Quality Procedures – 2004
20
Action:
Development of proposals for review of university-wide strategic issues to be
considered by an Coiste Feabhais (Quality Committee).
Responsible: Director of Quality
Timelines: December 31, 2005
25. There is a need to ensure the regular analysis and overview of the QA
process and outcomes across each university, and to link these explicitly to
strategic management processes.
Action:
See under recommendations 17 and 19 above.
26. All universities need to strengthen their capacities for institutional
analysis and monitoring, in order to provide better information for
strategic governance and management. Better management information
systems are also needed in most universities. The QA process must both
contribute to and benefit from these.
Actions:
See above under Recommendation 7 in the EUA Review of NUI Galway
27. Leadership should be aware of the real dangers of “paralysis by
analysis”. The burden of procedures must not obscure the purpose of
establishing a quality culture, and a standardized approach must not
obscure the primary focus on quality improvement. Procedures and
approaches need to be kept simple and timely.
This is accepted.
Action:
Will be taken into account as review guidelines are revised each year.
Responsible: Director of Quality
Timelines: August 31, 2005
28. There is a need to maximise collaboration in research, infrastructure,
human resources and strategic development across the Irish universities in
order to develop the critical mass necessary to be competitive in certain
areas. The Irish QA framework can contribute greatly to this collaboration.
This a task primarily for the Irish Universities Association, which will be given
maximum support by NUI Galway.
NuigActionPlanEuaRev04-12
Adopted October 2005
25/11/2005
NUI Galway Action Plan: EUA Reviews of Quality Procedures – 2004
21
Action:
• Support of all relevant initiatives by CHIU.
Responsible: President, Registrar, Vice President for Research, Director of Quality
Timelines: Ongoing
29. Given the healthy university-led approach so far, the lack of any
governmental agency and the relatively modest investments in QA, it is
suggested that the universities estimate how much time and money have
been used so far in setting up and operating the quality assurance and
quality improvement process, and clarify the benefits obtained. Such an
analysis could then help the universities, individually and collectively, to
link back to the four basic methodological questions and see to what extent
these investments have been effective and efficient in helping to clarify
what they are trying to do, how they are trying to do it, how they know it
works, and how they change in order to improve.
This is a task primarily for the Conference of Heads of Irish Universities and IUQB,
which will be given maximum support by NUI Galway.
Action:
Proposal of project to CHIU.
Responsible: Registrar
Timelines: January 2007
NuigActionPlanEuaRev04-12
Adopted October 2005
25/11/2005