Quality Management Plan
Quality Management Plan
for Leonardo da Vinci Innovation Transfer Project
called Trainer’s English (PRECISE)
Project number: LLP-LdV-TOI-2007-HU-013
Purpose of the Quality Management Plan
The Purpose of the Quality Management Plan (QMP) is to
 define the project’s quality-related procedures, the areas of application, implementation processes and the roles and responsibilities of the partners
 document how the project will plan, implement, and assess the effectiveness of its
quality assurance (QA) and quality control (QC) operations.
The operational partners participating in this project and receiving funding from the
European Commission must contribute to and benefit from this Quality System.
All co-workers have a responsibility for understanding and implementing the Quality
System.
What is the Quality System?




A framework of management and technical activities, which evolves around a cycle of planning, implementing, and assessing.
It describes the policies, objectives, principles, organizational lines of authority,
responsibilities, accountability, and implementation plan of the project.
It ensures the quality of the project’s work processes and products.
It ensures that the project’s outcomes are of adequate quality and usability for
their intended purpose.
Your contact person for questions
concerning the Quality Management Plan:
Dr. Sediviné Balassa Ildikó (Balassa@szamalk.hu )
Fazekas Katalin (Fazekas@szamalk.hu )
Tools of the Quality System





Planning: Quality Management Plan (QMP)
Implementation: Quality Assurance Activities (in connection with the interim and
final report)
Assessment: Management Assessments (self and independent),
Project Activity Assessments (evaluation questionnaires),
Validation and Verification through Pilot Tests
1
Quality Management Plan
Elements of the Quality Management Plan
For each work package, the QMP will monitor the following areas:
Work Package 1 – Project Management
Start and Finish, Duration: October 2007 – September 2009, 24 months
Roles and tasks of each partner:
Lead partner: Számalk Post-Secondary Vocational School
All other partners will contribute to this work-package according to their activities in
the other work-packages and the formal requirements of the project.
Communication flow among the co-coordinators
 Regular Project Management Team Meetings
 Communication Flow within the Consortium
 In addition to normal electronic or voice communication, partners will be encouraged to establish videoconferencing facilities.
Meeting structure (contact meetings)
 Initial project Kick-off Meeting (plenary meeting), shortly after the start of the project
in November 2007 held in Budapest. Final meeting in September, 2009
Budapest.
 Plenary meetings: in April 2008 in Bulgaria, in May 2009 in Portugal
 Developers’ meeting in July-August 2008 in UK.
 Project management issues will also be treated, to an extent that is regarded as
necessary, at the other meetings of the partnership (among others between the
two Hungarian partners)
Outcomes:
 Minutes of meetings
 Quarterly monitoring cost statements (for internal on-line monitoring purposes only)
 Interim Report
 Final Report
Quality Assurance Activities:
 Regular contact with other project partners
 Explanation of the organizational and financial process requirements to all partners
 Planning of sufficient buffer periods that allow for delay of project activities without
impeding the work in subsequent work-packages
Quality Assurance tools:
 Yahoo group emailing
 Project website – internal pages
 Evaluators’ reports
 Questionnaires and other forms of feedback from potential future users
 Quality Assurance Plan for project product evaluation – see Needs Analysis!
2
Quality Management Plan
Quality Control Parameters:
 Financial transactions according to schedules
 Budget control through regularly updated financial tables
 Feedback from the evaluator
 Monitoring visit/s from national Leonardo Agency
Quality control to be performed by internal and external evaluators at each
stage of project progress!
Work Package 2 – Needs Analysis and Study
Start and Finish, Duration: from Oct. 2007 to March 2008, 6 months
Roles and tasks of each partner
Lead partner: Számalk who drafts criteria for Kick off to be finalized by partners + UK
in charge of processing questionnaire output + HU partner in charge of the compilation of 50 page-long Product 2
Sample Unit created and developed by Coordinator + Hu partner
Participating: All partners
In this work-package, we will analyze the needs, define the pedagogical aims, create
the curriculum, study the role of portfolio and self-assessment, survey the potential
multimedia elements, define the input and output requirements, research on topics
and resource materials, explore lexis-related issues etc.
Outcomes:
 Criteria for partner cooperation
 Questionnaires for research
 Input and Output requirements’ definitions
 Study/Handbook of 50 pages containing all the necessary information for collective and shared work in WP 3. (e.g. technical requirements, lexis, contextual elements, difficulty level etc.)
 Materials for further integration into the products to be developed in the
subsequent work package (see E-Tutor course and Toolbox)
 Sample Unit for further distribution of tasks
 WP2 Report
Quality Assurance Activities:
 Preparation of Criteria to be discussed and finalized at Kick off
 Uploading – accessibility of finalized criteria on project web site
 Finalized Questionnaires to be accessible from project web site
 Cooperation among researchers involved in this activity
 Deadline to be set for part-time activities and submitting of results
 Hu partner’s task and responsibility in compiling, editing and finalizing results
 Coordinator’s task in compiling and editing Product
 External evaluator’s role
 Elaboration of Product Quality Management Plan
3
Quality Management Plan
Quality Control Parameters:
 Has each partner provided the analysis for his country?
 Has the final product been monitored by the internal and external evaluators?
 Is the compilation of the different needs and the description of the project potentials of substantial help for the developers to produce high-quality course
material?
Work Package 3 – Technical and Contextual development of Online
Course and Shortened Trainer’s Route
Start and Finish, Duration: from April 2008 to November 2009, 8 months
Roles and tasks of each partner
Lead partners: Szamalk + Hu partner
Multimedia materials development, Contextual development, Technical development,
proofreading, creation of MM elements – to be decided at second Plenary Meeting –
see Minutes with detailed decisions and tasks definitions
Outcomes:
1. Draft version of Online Course
10 major Units which consist of 2 sub-units. Each sub-unit is divided into the following units: introductory reading material, related tasks (max 4), video material,
related tasks (max 4), vocabulary block, related tasks, portfolio task definition, related sample portfolio, games (max. 4) The related tasks include audio, pictures
and animations. Quantity of the multimedia elements: max. 60 minutes of video,
max. 60 minutes of audio, 50-60 animations + pictures.
Length of course: 60 hours of online training + 40 hours of self-evaluation + 40
hours of portfolio tasks + 10 hours of online/traditional consultation (150 hours)
2. Draft version of Online Tutor’s Course (shortened version)
4 sub-units selected at random – to get insight into material + to get training for etutoring + to get acquainted with Moodle services. To get theoretical foundation
for e-portfolio evaluation method
20 hours of online course + online consultation
Quality Assurance Activities:
 Detailed information defined in WP 2 product.
 Two international meetings for the developing teams
 Online cooperation and coordination (FTP server, Moodle server + internal pages
of project web site)
 Testing individual Units by one of the partners before piloting stage
 Regular meetings between Coordinator and Hungarian technical developing team
 External evaluator’s regular feedback on part-products
4
Quality Management Plan
Quality Control Parameters:
 Do the developers follow the criteria defined in the Product of WP2?
 Do the products produced by the partners reflect the unified criteria?
 Does the course material serve the overall aims of the online course as defined in
the proposal?
 Does the shortened course serve the purpose to train online tutors?
 Does the course material contain all the multimedia and pedagogical elements
that have been defined and accepted by the partnership?
 Is the course material reliable, user-friendly, useful etc.?
 Does it enhance LLL and individual learning?
Work Package 4 – E-Exam content development
Start and Finish, Duration: from Aug 2008 to Nov. 2008, 4 months
Roles and tasks of each partner
 Lead partner: Coordinator + Bg
 Participating: Coordinator + Bg
Outcomes:
About 400 tasks to be used as Output points and Final Output Assessment Tool separate from the course material.
Quality Assurance Activities:
 Definition of Output points and requirements
 Definition of Final Output Requirements
 Definition of Competences to be assessed
 Division of tasks between Partners (according to own material development and
choice based on competence)
Quality Control Parameters:
 Feedback from expert partners and expert opinion from the external evaluators
 Do the tasks reflect and evaluate the course material?
 Do the tasks assess the related language competences?
 Is the system reliable and user-friendly?
 Are the tests suitable for assessing output competences?
Work Package 5 – Testing and Piloting the Online course
Start and Finish, Duration:
1. Tutor’s Course Piloting: September 2008–January 2009 – 4 months
2. IT Trainer’s Course Piloting: November 2008–June 2009 – 7 months – 1 month
for organization + 6 months piloting
5
Quality Management Plan
Roles and tasks of each partner
 Lead partner: Hu for 1., Coordinator for 2.
 Processing data for recommendations for course improvement: Portugal
 Participating: All partners (by delegating online users for both courses)
Outcomes:
 Report on Pilot Tests in the countries of the developer partners (produced by the
lead partner)
 List of recommendations for the production of the final versions
Quality Assurance Activities:
 Circulation of information among the pilot partners
 Distribution of pilot test reports of similar projects to the partners
 Implementation of recommentations in the course
 Application of Evaluation Questionnaires and Interviews for user feedback
 Feedback from online tutors according to pre-set criteria – see Product Management in Needs Analysis
Quality Control Parameters:
 Feedback from expert partners and expert opinion from the external evaluator on
sufficient relevant feedback to the draft version of the product
 Is the final product of satisfactory quality and quantity standard?
 Is it relatively free of technical problems, misprints, mistakes etc?
 Does it correspond to the original objectives and aims?
 Does it correspond to the requirements of online learning standards?
Work Package 6 – Guide and Toolbox for Online Course Users
Start and Finish, Duration: July 2009 – August 2009, 2 months
Roles and tasks of each partner
 Lead partner: Romania
 Participating: Ro, Bg, Pt and Hu will supply the versions in their national language
Outcomes:
Online Guide of 10 pages for Online Tutors and Guide of 10 pages for Online Course
Users in English, Hungarian, Portuguese, Romanian and Bulgarian
Quality Assurance Activities:
 Circulation of draft versions among the partners
 External evaluation
Quality Control Parameters:
 Do the Guides give satisfactory information on the course material?
 Does it cover all the important issues (pedagogical, technical, administrative etc)?
 Is it accessible online in all the languages?
6
Quality Management Plan
Work Package 7 – Dissemination and Valorization
Start and Finish, Duration: October 2007–September 2009, 24 months + 2 more
years
Valorization Plan: Procedure regulations – each partner + marketing strategy – those
partners who have prior experience
Quality Control Parameters:
 Does the Plan enhance the accreditation procedure?
 Does it regulate copyright issues among partners?
 Does it enhance further marketing of Final Product?
 Does it reflect the Partnership intention and interest in further utilization of project
outcomes?
Dissemination
Roles and tasks of each partner
 Lead partner: Coordinator
 Participating: All partners
Outcomes:
 Informative materials
 Publications in traditional and electronic forms (minimum 1/project year/partner)
 Project web site – maintained for two more years (draft to be finalized at Kick-off,
updated continuously), internal pages for communication, national versions for
further marketing
 Links to partner websites + short info on each partner’s site
 Presentations at professional conferences and venues (minimum 1/project
year/partner)
 Multiplier seminars in all partner countries (minimum 20-50 participants)
Quality Assurance Activities:
 Identification and involvement of target groups
 Production of sample materials in English accessible from project website for the
use of all partners (logo, Power Point Presentations, brochures, articles etc.)
Quality Control Parameters:
 Have we reached a broad enough public?
 Have we involved both the professionals and the potential users?
 Are all partners equally committed and successful in disseminating the project
aims and outputs?
7
Quality Management Plan
Valorization Plan
Start and Finish, Duration
Draft version March 2008 (Plenary meeting), Continuous updating and finalization.
Final version: September, 2009 (Final meeting).
Lead partner: Coordinator for Draft, Pt partner for finalized form
Outcomes:
Valorization Plan indicating sustainable structures which may continue after September 2009 – 10 pages. (English)
Covering issues like
 Further potentials of the final product.
 Accreditation procedures.
 Financial potentials.
 Copyright issues
 Agreement samples for regulating copyrights among partners
Quality Assurance Activities:
Draft version to be discussed and finalized at plenary meetings. (first discussion at
second plenary, final discussion at third plenary in Portugal)
Quality Control Parameters:
Feedback from external experts and strategic partners
Work Package 8 – Evaluation and Quality Management Plan
Start and Finish, Duration: October 2007–September 2009 (24 months)
Roles and tasks of each partner
 Lead partner: Coordinator
 All partners involved.
 Internal evaluation and quality management plan: Coordinator. All other partners
will be contacted during the evaluation process and supply the relevant information.
 External evaluation: A subcontract will be made with external evaluators (in the
fields of methodology, IT content and language). Internal evaluation is continuous.
Outcomes:
1. Mid-term evaluation report (September 2008) and Final evaluation report (Autumn
2009) containing the following elements:
 Listing of operational project objectives and qualitative and quantitative control
 Top-down objectives: consistency of the project objectives, relation to the objectives of the Leonardo program and to national and European related objectives
 Bottom-up analysis: target group related project objectives, integration of
experiences of the partners
 Performance measures: Catalogue of controllable detailed parameters for the
success or failure: response, acceptance, integration
8
Quality Management Plan

Implementation strategies: Installation of organizational and institutional resources, implementation of a sound co-operation, attainment of comprehensive
action capacity of the network, dissemination strategies and volumes and
effectiveness of other outcomes.
2. Quality Management Plan
The plan will be developed at the beginning of the project and be presented to the
partnership at the kick-off meetings (November 2007 and March/April 2008) for
further discussion and amendments. It will contain
 Vision of the project
 Listing of operational quality plan objectives
 Identification of quality assurance activities and quality control parameters
 Description of activities to be undertaken within and outside the partnership
 Partner contracts covering this issue
9
Appendix 1
List of external and internal evaluators participating in the
project work
Dr. Hunya Márta - e-tananyagfejlesztő, távoktatási szakértő
Bátri Blanka - Informatikai angol tanár, Lexinfo vizsgaközpont referens
Olajos Zsolt - Informatika tanár, Számalk Szakközépiskola ig.h., képesített
CISCO oktató
Dr. Komáromi László – Számalk Minőségbiztosítási Osztály vezetője
Németh Nóra - az e-tutorálás szakértője,
Paulin Bailey - Rochester Independent College igazgatója, projektvezető,
nyelvi lektor
Maeva Elliot - Rochester Independent College gazdasági igazgatója, nyelvi
lektor
10
Appendix 2
Questionnaire applied for user feedback
Quality Management of the training course
(To trainees)
Programme Development
1
The action fulfils the trainees
expectations
2
3
4
5
No
Yes
Unclear
Very Clear
Inadequate
Adequate
Unclear
Clear
Difficult to apply
Easy to apply
Inadequate
Adequate
Low
High
Inadequate
Adequate
Negative
Positive
Documentation (quality)
Inadequate
Adequate
Documentation (quantity)
Inadequate
Adequate
Coordinator Support
Weak
Strong
Technical and Administrative
Support
Weak
Strong
Action Goals
Action Contents
Programme Structure
Contents utility
Action adjustment to the trainees professional needs
Motivation and Participation
(auto-evaluation)
Participation in the training
action activities.
Relation between the participants
Trainer Evaluation
Evaluation
Parameters
Scale (A)
Subject
Understanding
Training
methods
used to
achieve goals
Language
used in the
training
action
Commitment
Relationship
with trainees
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
(A) Evaluation Scale: 1 – Entirely Inadequate; 2 – Inadequate; 3 – Adequate; 4 – Very Good;
5 – Excellent
Comments:
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
11
Appendix 2
Questionnaire to evaluate trainer satisfaction
Evaluation by the Trainer
(To trainers)
Trainer: ____________________________
Preparation and Development
1
Goals
2
3
4
5
Unclear
Clear
Poor
Excellent
Unclear
Clear
Difficult to apply
Easy to apply
Motivation and Participation
Poor
Excellent
Participation in the Activities
Poor
Excellent
Attendance
Poor
Excellent
Negative
Positive
Relation between the participants
Poor
Excellent
Documentation and materials
Poor
Excellent
Technical and administrative
support
Weak
Strong
Work with the pedagogical team
Weak
Strong
Results
Poor
Strong
Contents
Program Structure
Contents utility
Relation with participants
Comments:
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
12
Appendix 2
Sample questionnaire to evaluate deliverables
Quality Management of the Deliverables
Questionnaire
Project Name: _______________________________________________________
Deliverable Name: ___________________________________________________
After the deliverables presentation / demonstration / manipulation, check the level of
quality according to the criteria listed; note in the scale of 1 to 4 (1 corresponds to a
low or inadequate level and 4 corresponds to a very high or very good level).
Criteria for quality analyze
1
2
3
4
Evidence / justification
Identify the evidence
that justify the presence of each criteria
Innovation (intensity of the presence of new
and distinctive features in deliverables, in
fact, what distinguishes these deliverables
from other with similar characteristics and
purposes; added value to conventional responses)
Empowerment (the beneficiaries (trainers
and trainees) were involved in its design and
to what extent their use contributes to a
greater integration and participation of target
groups in their professional life.)
Adjustment (respect the culture, social and
professional experience of beneficiaries and
answers its needs for learning)
CRITERIA
Utility (profit and value perceived by the
beneficiaries, demonstrable in terms of skills
recognition, social value and/or personal autonomy)
Accessibility ( familiarity of the target beneficiaries with elearning and multimedia materials used in the training course)
Autonomy (ease and degree of independence of the user over the exploration and use
of content and materials that integrate the
training course)
Transnationality (added value of the partners participation for the deliverables development )
Strong Points
Weak Points
13
Appendix 2
Suggestions for Improvement and Recommendations (quality of content, this degree
of innovation, pedagogical value and usefulness evidence in the professional
context)
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
Conclusions related to validation and incorporation of deliverables
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
Who answered this questionnaire?
 Partner
 Users
 External Experts
Place, date and signature:
14