Building a Common Quality System in the Federation of Three Universities of Applied Sciences

Author(s):

Mervi Friman(submitting)Jaana Ignatius(presenting)Marjo-Riitta Järvinen(presenting)

Conference:

ECER 2012

Network:

11. Educational Effectiveness and Quality Assurance

Format:

Paper

Session Information

11 SES 07 B, Models and Strategies to Assess Quality of Education

Parallel Paper Session

Time:

2012-09-19

17:15-18:45

Room:

FCT - Aula Magna

Chair:

Samuel Gento

Contribution

The Finnish universities of applied sciences (UAS) are under pressure to merge their units and create larger entities. Therefore, three UASs situated in southern Finland have chosen to build a federation, which means close practical cooperation both in strategic and daily work but at the same time they are able to remain as individual units. Beside the common strategy and enterprise resource planning, the shared quality system will be a key element of the federation administration. It has been under construction since 2008 and it is partly in action already.

Mergers are an organisational change the institutions do not undertake voluntary. Mergers are associated with some degree of loss of autonomy, which explains the institutions´ unwillingness to merge. The so-called resource dependence theory is based on the assumption that all organisational action is aimed primarily at securing survival. Securing the continuation of resources is the simple force that drives organisations to closer cooperation and to merge, even at the risk of losing their autonomy. Mergers and federations are the ways in which the institutions aim at answering the challenges of the environment.

There are lighter alternatives to merge as a federation and carry out cooperation which does not lead to one organisational entity. Three universities of applied sciences (FUAS) are currently trying to convince the Ministry of Education and Culture of the effectiveness of the federation model. The construction of a common quality system is one way to legitimise the FUAS´s right to exist.

A good and functional quality system creates affinity and gives freedom to concentrate on the innovative work as the daily practices are clear. Transparency supports international partnerships. But of course there are challenges of merging three different units into one large entity. The size of the federation is about 2,000 staff members and 20,000 students.

Our research questions are: How to create a quality system which is simple, realistic and functional in everyday life? What are the challenges of this creation process? What is the added value of the common quality system for the three UAS units? What kinds of critical resources can be attained with common quality system?

The research is connected to the theme of the conference (“The Need for Educational Research to Champion Freedom, Education and Development for All”) as we want that the system has added value for everyone involved in FUAS, also the students. This will happen as the personnel and students have the freedom to fully concentrate on their actual tasks.

Method

The research will be carried out by meta-analysing data that has been collected during the three years of FUAS cooperation. The data has been collected with the methods of internet-based brainstorming (Fountain Park), cross-evaluations, surveys, and interviews. Concepts of the common strategy have been explored by brainstorming and the actions and targets of the working groups, the shared operating culture and the role of quality system in a daily work has been studied via surveys and interviews. Three cross-evaluations have been made and the topics have varied from the connection of management and participation of students, staff and stakeholders in quality assurance to assessing the international activities of FUAS institutions.

Expected Outcomes

The work of over 20 different FUAS groups and teams and the continuous benchmarking process have been the most significant ways to build the new quality system and the basis of federation steering model. Common goals, mutual trust, sharing the expertise and willingness to develop together have promoted the work of different groups. The obstacles that prevented the cooperation of groups were e.g. lack of resources, long distances between the universities, different demands of the leaders and unawareness of the actions of other groups. As a result of the research a clear image of the present procedures will be achieved. The changes in the operation from 2009 – 2012 create a base for the future development cycle and new signposts can be set. Critical resources that can be gained with a common quality system will be analysed during spring 2012.

References

FINHEEC 2007. Audits of quality assurance systems of Finnish higher education institutions. Audit manual for 2008–2011. Finnish Higher Education Council 10:2007 FINHEEC 2011. Audit manual for the quality systems of higher education institutions 2011-2017. Finnish Higher Education Council 3:2011. Friman, M. & Ignatius J. 2008. HAMK-Laurea –ristiinarviointi 1. Loppuraportti. (HAMK-Laurea –crossevaluation, final report 1.) http://portal.hamk.fi/portal/page/portal/HAMK/Organisaatiojatoimipaikat/laadunvarmistus/laatujohtaminen Friman, M. & Ignatius J. 2009. HAMK-Laurea –ristiinarviointi 2. Loppuraportti. (HAMK-Laurea –crossevaluation, final report 2.) http://portal.hamk.fi/portal/page/portal/HAMK/Organisaatiojatoimipaikat/laadunvarmistus/laatujohtaminen Goedegebuure, L.C.J. 1992. Mergers in higher education. A comparative perspective. Management and Policy in Higher Education. Cenre for Higher Education Policy Studies. University of Twente. Netherlands. Hiltunen, K. & Kekäläinen H. (ed.) 2008. Benchmarking korkeakoulujen laadunvarmistusjärjestelmien kehittämisessä. (Benchmarking in the developing process of the quality assurance systems in higher education institutions.) Korkeakoulujen arviointineuvoston julkaisuja 5:2008. Järvinen, M-R. 1997. The mergers of vocational institutions in finnish higher education policy. University of Turku. Finland. Pfeffer, J. & Salancik, G.R. 1978. The External Control of Organizations. A Resource Dependence Perspective. New York: Harper & Row Publisher.

Author Information

Mervi Friman (submitting)

HAMK University of Applied Sciences, Finland

Jaana Ignatius (presenting)

Laurea University of Applied scinces

Helsinki

Marjo-Riitta Järvinen (presenting)

Lahti University of Applied Sciences

Administration

Lahti

Search the ECER Programme

Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
Search for authors and in the respective field.
For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.