Quality Promotion Committee Meeting
Minutes QPC11-1 (Draft)
02-03-2011, Room DG12
In attendance:
Sarah Ingle (Chair), Ellen Breen, Stephen Blott, Claire Bohan, John Carroll, Francesco
Cavatorta, Margaret Farren, Siobhan Fitzgerald, Billy Kelly, Martin Leavy, Anne
Morrissey, Pauline Mooney, Aisling McKenna, Caroline McMullan, Phylomena
McMorrow, Eugene Curran (AHC).
Apologies:
Richard O’Kennedy, Conor Brennan, Davide Susta, Colin Oliver, Daire Keogh (SPD),
Michael Hinds (MDI)
Recording secretary: Fiona Dwyer
1.
SI welcomed Eugene Curran from All Hallows College who has taken over
from Ronan Tobin. Apologies were noted.
2.
The agenda was adopted
3.
Minutes of QPC meeting 12th January were adopted, however QPC agreed
that item No.12 needs to be revised. It was felt that it had been agreed in the
January meeting that Quality Reviews of Schools would continue. PM stated
that the 2009/2010 subgroup from this area had already endorsed the
continuation of School reviews. PM agreed to email to SI confirming the
proposal from the working group in this area, and SI agreed to circulate the
revised minute.
Actions:
- PM to email SI confirming the proposal from the working group in this
area.
- SI to circulate QPC electronically with proposed revision to minute.
4.
Action items and matters arising
Some action items are still in process.
5.
Report on QPU Activities (subsequently uploaded to QPC Intranet).
SI read through the QPC Activities from January to February 2011. She
advised the committee that there are three Quality Promotion budget
accounts as follows;
 Annual Quality Office Expenses budget
 Annual Quality Reviews budget
 Annual Improvement Fund budget for Quality Improvement Plan
initiatives
In addition, there is an on-going HEA Funded Account that can be used for
once-off projects or campus wide quality initiatives.
SI suggested that the Quality Office should request permission this year to roll
forward any balance remaining in the Improvement Fund budget, as in
2010/2011 a smaller than usual number of reviews has been undertaken for
various reasons. This was agreed.
Action: SI to request balance in Quality Improvement Fund budget to be
rolled forward to 2011/2012.
6.
Annual Institutional Review (AIR) Report to IUQB
The final report was sent to the IUQB on 4 February 2011 and also to
Executive for noting. The IUQB Annual Dialogue Meeting with DCU will be
held on 12th May.
7.
DCU Follow-up report to IRIU 2010
SI is completing the DCU IRIU Follow-Up report on behalf of the University. A
number of DCU’s Senior Management and others have been assigned overall
responsibility for each of the ten main recommendations. Their responses
including action plans and timelines will be incorporated into the document.
Some of the main recommendations were discussed, in particular MR4:
Analyse and co-ordinate the many internal quality review procedures to:
(1)
Achieve a better linkage with externally-driven reviews,
(2)
Reduce the burden of internal and external reviews on staff,
(3)
Maximise their benefits to the University.
SI stated that ROK had been involved in 17 separate review procedures last
year, and all agreed that the architecture/mapping of the quality review
process needs to be examined, and a plan proposed. It was also agreed to
incorporate if possible external reviews or accreditations into the cycle, and to
get input from all the Faculties on this.
A discussion also took place on the School Review schedule decision
process, and how this decision should be made.
Action: SI to send QPC the next draft of the IRIU follow-up report for
comments.
8.
Quality Review Process
-
SI confirmed that all invoices and receipts for expenses incurred by a
School/Faculty/Office/Centre should be provided to the Quality Office
before funding was transferred. This was agreed by QPC.
Action: SI to advise Executive on this decision.
-
There was some discussion on the importance of an agreed Follow-Up
process to all Quality Improvement Plans. It was felt that guidelines
should be put in place to ensure that this takes place. A couple of
alternative processes were suggested, and it was felt to be important that
the University were also involved in this process.
Action: SI to draft guidelines for consultation with QPC.
-
There has recently been a change in the membership of the Senior
Management Group, the group now includes the four executive deans. It
was discussed how this could affect Quality Review Process in terms of
the distribution of the Self Assessment Report, and the composition of the
group who meets with the Peer Review panel. The point was made that
some of the SMG members are head of Support/Service Office such as
Finance, HR etc. How is it any different if the Deans, as Heads of
Faculties are involved?
Action: SI to request clarification from Executive.
9.
Titles for the Quality Promotion Unit.
It was agreed by the committee that the following name changes be proposed
to Executive:
 Office Name: Quality Promotion Office
 Director’’s Title: Director of Quality Promotion
 Committee Name: Quality Promotion Committee
Action: SI to advise Executive
10.
FHSS Quality Review Update
The Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences (FHSS) draft Quality
Improvement Plan (QuIP) will be completed by the end of March. ROK will
then co-ordinate the Senior Management Group responses to the
recommendations on behalf of the University. SI will co-ordinate a Follow-on
meeting in May to finalise the QuIP. SI received very good feedback from the
PRG Members in relation to the whole review process and logistics.
11.
FSH Quality Review
SI updated QPC on progress with the Faculty of Science & Health proposed
Quality Review in 2012. She plans to meet with all of the Executive Deans to
obtain feedback from previous Faculty Quality Reviews.
The QPC suggest that applying themes to each Faculty review might be
appropriate, and also that all Schools and Research Centres in each Faculty
should involved. QPC agreed it was important to complete the cycle of
Faculty Quality Reviews.
12.
Proposed future Quality Review Schedule
A substantive discussion took place on this item relating back to the
discussion on the School Review process during item 7. A number of points
were made including: Should topic reviews be included?; How would the
Programme Review Process be included?; What extra resources would be
needed to undertake a 2nd quality review for all schools. It was also
mentioned that having reviews for Awards (resulting from different
programmes) could take a lot of work away from School reviews. The
question was asked: What set of awards constitutes a programme review?
It was decided to set-up a working group to look at the Mapping/Architecture
of the Quality Review process and associated future schedule, taking into
account external reviews and accreditations and the relevant IRIU
recommendation.
Action: SI to set up and Chair a QPC working group on the
Mapping/Architecture of the Quality Review process
13.
Topic Quality Review - Teaching Facilities proposal
In terms of Topic Reviews, it was suggested that SI consult SMG, to see what
are the strategic priorities over the next few years and whether a topic review
would help with one or more of these priorities. Some suggestions for Topic
reviews included: External Examiner Process, E-Learning, Strategic
Processes, Community Engagement, Teaching Facilities. QPC was asked to
contact SI with further suggestions, and SI will also consult with Executive.
Action:
- QPC to provide suggestions regarding topic reviews
- SI to consult with Executive
14.
Student Feedback on Quality Issues
SI reported that the Office of Student Life is undertaking a quality review
process this year and student feedback could be incorporated into this. SI is
also to consult with Colin Oliver on this.
Action: SI to consult with Colin Oliver.
15.
Proposal for Quality Improvement Funding Competition in DCU
Some discussion took place on this but no decisions made. SI advised the
QPC that All Hallows College (AHC) had little funding for a Quality Award and
asked whether the DCU Quality Promotion budget could help with this. After
some discussion it was decided that it would not be appropriate to assist AHC
with this.
Action: SI to report this decision back to QPC in AHC.
16.
Training for quality review rapporteurs/champions
The QPC all agreed that this would be very helpful for the quality review
process.
Action: SI and ML to discuss and report progress to next meeting.
Actions above not completed by 4 May 2011:
1. SI to request balance in Quality Improvement Fund budget to be rolled
forward to 2011/2012. This will be done around June/July 2011 at or before
the last meeting of budget committee.
2. SI to draft guidelines for follow on progress to quality reviews for consultation
with QPC. To be completed during May 2011.
The next QPC meeting will be held on 4th May 2011 at 11.00 in Room DG12