1. finance
2. accounting and auditing

Inkeri Papp • Eric Lindesjöö
Riikka Töytäri • Hannele Seppälä
Reaudit of the Quality Assurance System
of the Seinäjoki University
of Applied Sciences
PUBLICATIONS
OF THE FINNISH
HIGHER EDUCATION
EVALUATION COUNCIL
:
ISBN 978-952-206-113-3 (paperbound)
ISBN 978-952-206-114-0 (pdf)
ISSN 1457-3121
Publisher:The Finnish Higher Education Evaluation Council
Cover: Juha Ilonen
Layout: Pikseri Julkaisupalvelut
Esa Print Oy
Tampere 2009
Preface
The Finnish Higher Education Evaluation Council (FINHEEC) will have
audited the quality assurance systems of all Finnish higher education institutions by 2011. The main aim of the audits is to support the higher education
institutions in the development of their quality assurance systems to correspond to the principles of European quality assurance1 and to demonstrate
that a competent and consistent national higher education level quality assurance is in place in Finland. Consequently, one of the aims of the audits is
also to positively affect the competitiveness of Finnish higher education institutions in global education markets. The national aim is to collect and disseminate good practices in quality assurance, promote their spread within
higher education and thus to develop higher education as a whole.
The point of departure of quality assurance audits is enhancement-led
evaluation, which has strong traditions in the Finnish evaluation practice and
which the higher education institutions have found to be supportive of their
own activities and autonomy. The method is based on trust in the higher education institution’s own responsibility for the quality of its activities. The
higher education institution decides on the form its quality assurance system
takes, while the audit evaluates its appropriateness, comprehensiveness, functionality and impact.
The development phase of the audit model took place in 2005–2007. In
November 2007, FINHEEC published the new edition of the audit manual2,
which defines the aims, objects, methods, criteria and sanctions of the audits.
The manual follows the general principles and methods of the previous manual, but certain focusing and specifying changes were made to it on the basis
of feedback from the higher education institutions and auditors as well as the
experiences of the Evaluation Council. Feedback will be collected also in the
future from all audit participants and, in 2009, a first follow-up and development seminar for higher education institutions audited approximately three
years earlier will be organised. During 2009, the development of the secondround evaluation methodology will also commence.
1
Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area.
European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education. Helsinki: Multiprint. (http:/
/www.enqa.eu/pubs_esg.lasso)
2
Audits of Quality Assurance Systems of Finnish Higher Education Institutions. Audit Manual
for 2008–2011. Finnish Higher Education Evaluation Council publications 10:2007.
According to the feedback received from the higher education institutions, the audits have clearly expedited the systematic development of quality
assurance systems and methods. It appears that quality assurance has both provided tools for the internal administration of the higher education institutions and steered the institutions to develop their activities as a whole. It may
well be said that the audit processes and public reporting on the higher education institutions’ systems have increased and expanded the discussion on
quality and interaction between higher education institutions and their stakeholders.
Experiences of the significance of re-audits have also been gained. They
provide a directed development impulse and a timetable, and promote the
development of the quality assurance system. It is also worthwhile viewing
the re-audit as an opportunity to achieve a particularly good level of quality
assurance instead of a mediocre one. The method is similar to the actual audits. The difference between the first round and re-audit reporting is that no
new development recommendations will be given.
The responsibility for utilising and applying the audit information rests
with the higher education institution and audits already performed demonstrate that the method promotes the fulfilment of this responsibility. On behalf of the Finnish Higher Education Evaluation Council, I wish to thank
the Seinäjoki University of Applied Sciences for participating in the re-audit.
I also wish to thank the re-audit group for its expert work and commitment.
Riitta Pyykkö, Professor
Chair of the Finnish Higher Education Evaluation Council, FINHEEC
Contents
Reaudit group __________________________________________________________ Reaudit objectives and criteria _______________________________________ Reaudit process ___________________________________________________ Negotiation between the higher education institution and FINHEEC _____ Reaudit agreement ________________________________________________ Reaudit material __________________________________________________ Reaudit visit _______________________________________________________ Structure and compilation of the reaudit report ________________________ SeAMK and its Quality Assurance System ______________________________ Organisation structure and administration _____________________________ Vision mission and strategy _________________________________________ SeAMK’s Quality Assurance System ___________________________________ Results ___________________________________________________________ Objectives overall structure and internal coherence of the quality
assurance system __________________________________________________ Documentation including the formulation of a quality policy
and the definition of procedures actors and responsibilities _____________ Final conclusions ___________________________________________________
Audit group’s overall assessment of the quality assurance system
of SEAMK _________________________________________________________
FINHEEC’s decision ________________________________________________
Appendices
: Table of audit criteria used in the SeAMK reaudit _______________________ : Programme of the reaudit visit ______________________________________ Reaudit group
Chair
Inkeri Papp, Finland
Inkeri Papp, Counsellor of Education, was formerly Head of the School of
Health and Social Care at Jyväskylä University of Applied Sciences. In this
position she also acted as a vice-rector of the Jyväskylä University of Applied
Sciences. Mrs. Papp participated in FINHEEC’s international evaluation of
the postgraduate polytechnic experiment in Finland as a member of the evaluation team in 2004. She also participated in the evaluation of the quality
work of the South Karelia Polytechnic3 in 2000, as well in the evaluations of
the professional courses accredited by FINHEEC. Inkeri Papp acted as the
chairperson of the audit group of SeAMK’s quality assurance system in 2006.
Members
Dr. Eric Lindesjöö, Sweden
Dr. Eric Lindesjöö is a Project Manager at the Swedish National Agency for
Higher Education (Högskoleverket) and from the beginning of 2001 has primarily been responsible for the evaluation of subjects and programmes within the natural sciences and technology, such as the evaluation of engineering
education in Sweden. Since 2008, he has been the coordinator of the third
round of quality audits of Swedish universities and university colleges. He recently took part in an international study that compared the systematic quality work at four Nordic higher education institutions. The study was conducted by the Nordic Quality Assurance Network in Higher Education
(NOQA). Eric Lindesjöö participated in the audit of the SeAMK quality assurance system in 2006.
Riikka Töytäri, Finland
Riikka Töytäri, Bachelor of Environmental Management, graduated from
Tampere University of Applied Sciences (TAMK) in 2006. She was a member of the auditing group of Lahti University of Applied Science’s quality assurance system audit in 2006 and was also a member of the Board of
3
From the beginning of 2009 Saimaa University of Applied Sciences.
SAMOK in 2004, her expertise being in the field of careers and recruitment.
She was an active member of TAMK’s student union while at university. She
has been also the TAMK representative in FINHEEC’s project entitled Student in evaluation of education.
Project Manager
Hannele Seppälä
Hannele Seppälä is a Project Manager in the FINHEEC secretariat.
Reaudit objectives and criteria
The Audit Manual for 2005–20074 states that, based on the audit group’s proposal, the Finnish Higher Education Evaluation Council (FINHEEC) will
decide whether the higher education institution’s (HEI) quality assurance system (QAS) passes the audit or whether a re-audit is needed. FINHEEC will
decide if further measures should be taken by the HEI and will impose a reaudit if the HEI’s QAS or the quality assurance of the basic mission has major shortcomings in relation to the audit criteria. The re-audit will be conducted two years after the audit proper.
If FINHEEC decides that a re-audit is needed, the relevant decision will
include the essential development needs of the HEI’s QAS. These needs will
constitute the targets of the re-audit.
During the re-audit, the HEI is required to provide clear evidence of
progress in the development of its QAS in the areas defined as essential development needs. Furthermore, the stage of development in the target areas
of the re-audit must meet the criteria of “Developing”.
Based on the proposal of the audit group and the audit report5, FINHEEC decided in its meeting of 24 October 2006 that the QAS of Seinäjoki University of Applied Sciences (SeAMK) had some major shortcomings
and did not meet the audit criteria, hence the development of the QAS calls
for action from the HEI, as well as for a re-audit. The decision included the
definition of the targets of the re-audit, which were the structure, coherence
and documentation of the QAS as a whole.
The re-audit of SeAMK is conducted according to the guidelines given
in the re-audit manual for the years 2007–20096.
The criteria that are applied in the evaluation of the SeAMK’s QAS are
given in Appendix 1.
4
Audits of Quality Assurance Systems of Finnish Higher education Institutions, Audit Manual
for 2005–2007, Publications of the Finnish Higher Education Evaluation Council 4:2006
(http://www.kka.fi/pdf/julkaisut/KKA_406.pdf)
5
Papp, I., Carolan, D., Handal, G., Lidesjöö, E., Marttinen, R., Mustonen,V. & Isoaho, A. Audit
of the Quality Assurance System of Seinäjoki Polytechnic. Publications of the Finnish Higher
Education Evaluation Council 15:2006.
6
Audits of the Quality Assurance Systems of Higher Education Institutions. Manual for Reaudits 2007-2009. Publications of the Finnish Higher Education Evaluation Council 6:2007.
(http://www.kka.fi/pdf/julkaisut/KKA_607.pdf)
Reaudit process
Negotiation between the higher education
institution and FINHEEC
According to the re-audit manual, following FINHEEC’s decision on the audit result, the HEI will have an opportunity to discuss with FINHEEC the
development plan for its QAS. The audit group can also be heard during these
discussions.
The negotiation between SeAMK, the audit group and FINHEEC was
held on 7 December 2006. SeAMK presented at that negotiation a plan that
included the development measures required in response to the essential development needs included in the FINHEEC decision and the audit report.
Reaudit agreement
According to the re-audit procedure, the agreement signed between the HEI
and FINHEEC covers the re-audit targets and schedule, the language used in
the re-audit, the duration of the re-audit and the consequences, should the
HEI not pass the re-audit.
The agreement between SeAMK and FINHEEC was signed on 9 June
2008. The following re-audit targets were defined in the agreement:
1. Objectives, overall structure and internal coherence of the QAS.
2. Documentation, including the formulation of a quality policy and the
definition of procedures, actors and responsibilities.
Reaudit material
According to the re-audit manual, the HEI should issue a written report (10–
20 pages) on the progress made in the development of its QAS. The HEI’s
report should also provide written evidence or Internet links to material indicating progress of development of the quality assurance (QA) in essential
target areas. Crucial web-based materials must be printed out and integrated
into the written material.
The SeAMK report was 14 pages in total and presented the key development measures linked to the two auditing targets that had been taken in
developing the QAS, as well as ongoing development measures and those
planned. The development measures were as follows:
1. Specification of the SeAMK strategy and sub-strategies
2. Development of an internal structure in 2003 and 2008
3. Development of the SeAMK Quality Policy and the responsibility
matrix and process descriptions
4. Drafting and revision of the SeAMK Quality Manual
5. Development of a goal realisation evaluation, e.g. management review
6. Systematisation of internal peer reviews
7. Development of quality documentation.
The re-audit material also involved 15 different items of proof/evidence concerning the development of the QAS. This proof/evidence included, e.g., the
following:
■
The goals of SeAMK’s main strategy and sub-strategies and an example
of their follow-up
■
Monitoring of SeAMK’s quality objectives
■
Student participation in SeAMK’s QA
■
Descriptions of the development targets, measures, responsibilities of internal audits
■
Drafting and deploying of rules for different procedures.
In addition to the report, SeAMK also provided other materials, by means of
which it presented the measures it had taken toward development of the
QAS.
SeAMK submitted its report and evidence material to FINHEEC 6
weeks before the re-audit visit.
In addition to the report and evidence material, the audit group sought
the following additional material from SeAMK:
1. A short presentation (table) that stated the:
– Objectives of the QA
– QA procedures/evaluation activities
– Persons in charge
– Timetable for the procedures
2. A list of SeAMK’s working groups.
The audit group had also access to SeAMK’s QA documentation on
SeAMK’s intranet (SharePoint workspace).
The rector, President Tapio Varmola and quality manager Aira Bragge
from SeAMK attended the audit group meeting on 1 December 2008, where
they presented the QAS and the audit material of SeAMK.
Reaudit visit
The re-audit visit took place in Seinäjoki on 20 January 2009. The aim of
the visit was to verify the stage of development of the QAS, based on the
material obtained.
The visit included interviews with the management, teaching and R&D
staff members, support service representatives, faculty deans, as well as students. Also, one thematic discussion was conducted on the topic “Development, management and use of the quality data”.
The audit group interviewed 48 persons in total. The programme of the
audit visit is given in Appendix 2.
Structure and compilation
of the reaudit report
The audit group prepared for the audit visit by formulating audit visit questions and by writing up its preliminary findings based on the audit material
provided by SeAMK. The audit group had two meetings before the audit visit. After the audit visit, the group continued the reporting process by writing
analytical and evaluative texts according to the different areas of responsibility assigned to its members. The project manager was responsible for the first
parts of the report, covering the description of SeAMK and its QAS in general.
SeAMK was allowed to check the facts in the report before it was published. To guarantee the correctness of the language used, the report was
checked by a native English-speaking language expert.
SeAMK and its Quality
Assurance System
Organisation structure and administration
SeAMK is a comprehensive regional institution of higher education that is
maintained by the Seinäjoki Joint Municipal Authority for Education. It began its operations on a temporary basis as a polytechnic in 1992, and its functions were established permanently in 1995. Currently, there are about 4700
full-time degree students at SeAMK. Approximately 750 students graduate
yearly. There is a staff of 403, of which 205 are full-time teachers. In addition,
there are 66 employees working in joint services.
SeAMK offers instruction in seven areas of education in six localities.
Research, development and service activities linked to education are carried
out in the faculties concerned. The purpose of the operations performed by
SeAMK is to support South Ostrobothnian entrepreneurship-based corporate and service activities requiring a high level of expertise.
Integral SeAMK products include:
■
university of applied sciences based degree education: a total of 24 ratified degree programmes (for the year 2009) leading to an applied sciences (UAS) degree, offering starts in 20 programmes in 2009.
■
higher UAS degrees: seven degree programmes for 2009 have been ratified for higher UAS degrees, with starts for two programmes in 2009.
■
specialised studies in all fields of study
■
teaching in open university applied sciences in all fields of study
■
R&D operations connected with teaching activities in all fields of study
■
services against payment, such as laboratory services, translation, market
research services; externally financed education given in all fields of study
■
international on-the-job training
■
international projects
■
foreign-language instruction and internationalisation training
■
international seminars and conferences.
7
This chapter describes the organisation structure, administration and quality assurance system
of the SeAMK on the basis of the terminology used in the re-audit material delivered to
FINHEEC by SeAMK.
The internal administration of the university is coordinated by its Board
and President. The university President functions at the same time as the Director of the Seinäjoki Joint Municipal Authority for Education.
At the beginning of 2007 the Council of the Joint Board of Directors
approved the University of Applied Sciences Development Programme for
2008–2010. As a result of the development programme, the organisational
structure and the teaching and R&D-related operations are being reduced as
of 2008 from nine to five performance units:
– School of Technology
– Business School
– School of Health Care and Social Work
– School of Agriculture and Forestry
– School of Culture and Design.
Boardofthe
JointMunicipal
Authorityfor
Education
SeAMKAdministration
CounciloftheJoint
MunicipalAuthority
InspectionBoard
BoardoftheJoint
MunicipalAuthority
BoardoftheUniversityof
AppliedSciences
President/ChairoftheJoint
MunicipalAuthority
SeAMKoffice
VicePresident
SeAMK
Education
R&DDirector
SeAMK
Researchand
Development
Services
School
of
TechnoͲ
logy
School
of
Health
Care
and
Social
Work
Figure Organisation of SeAMK
School
ofAgriͲ
culture
and
Forestry
School
of
Culture
and
Design
Business
School
Library
and
InformͲ
ation
Services
Adminis
trative
Director
Joint
Services
In addition, the Library functions as an independent performance unit.
R&D activities embrace both the research and development operations and
the service provisions at SeAMK. The internal services are those performed
by the university Office as well as the Joint Services (YPA).
The organisational structure and administrative system of SeAMK, which
came into force on 1 January 2008, are described in the university’s organisation chart (Fig. 1).
The reporting relationships between the Board, higher management and
elected bodies are specified in the Basic Contract, the Joint Municipal Authority Bylaws (perussopimuksessa, kuntayhtymän hallintosäännössä) and the
Regulations of the University of Applied Sciences (AMK johtosäännössä).
Processes in SeAMK’s organisation
SeAMK has revised its processes in 2007 (see Fig. 2, p. 16). SeAMK’s core
processes are instruction/learning and R&D. The instruction/learning process is divided into degree instruction and other extracurricular instruction
(non-degree instruction), as well as the internationalisation of instruction in
processes. The R&D process is divided into sub-processes: R&D Projects,
R&D Services and international R&D cooperation.
In addition to instruction/learning and R&D processes, (internal) the
process of strategic management and leadership and support service processes
are also implemented at SeAMK. SeAMK support processes are: Student affairs administration, Financial administration, Human resources administration,
Information administration, Technical services administration and Library and
Information services. Process descriptions have been drafted and linked to the
Quality Manual.
SeAMK’s core processes and their sub-processes as well as their support
processes have descriptions. A process stakeholder has been assigned to each
process. Some processes are also assigned SeAMK process coordination and a
process supervisor within each performance unit as well as process documents. SeAMK process descriptions can be found in the SharePoint workspace.
Figure SeAMK process chart
Vision mission and strategy
SeAMK states its mission in the audit material to be8:
“Seinäjoki University of Applied Sciences shall arrange instruction aiming at a
high standard of professional expertise in the following fields: cultural and natural
sciences, natural resources and the environment, tourist, catering and home
economics, social, health and physical education, technology, communications,
social sciences, business economics and administration.The University of Applied
Sciences shall implement the research and development activities connected with
its educational mandate, the goal of which is the advancement of well-being in
South Ostrobothnia.”
SeAMK states its vision for 20159:
“Seinäjoki University of Applied Sciences shall be a successful, international
institution of higher education with an entrepreneurial spirit.”
8
Ratified by the Council of the Joint Municipal Authority, June 2003.
SeAMK’s values are10:
■
Professional know-how
■
International networking
■
Active partnership
■
Entrepreneurial spirit.
The strategic aims11 of SeAMK have been divided into four perspectives in
accordance with the Balanced Scorecard frame of reference (Fig. 3).
STRATEGY MAP Strategic Targets
(development plan for 2010 and SWOT):
Staff
HR1. Improve staff’s entrepreneurial way of
working.
HR2. Develop staff competence in diverse
ways.
Resources
R1. Double volume of R&D and service
operations.
R2. Continue centralising functions to
improve profitability.
Processes
P1. Increase internationality in core processes
and select a limited number of partners for
extensive cooperation.
P2. Fulfil national and international quality
control criteria.
Students, customers and partners
S1. Modernise course offerings and teaching
methods to correspond to future
workplace needs.
S2. Work in national and international
partnership networks.
Figure SeAMK’s Strategy Chart
9
Ratified by the Council of the Joint Municipal Authority, May 2007.
10
Ratified by the Council of the Joint Municipal Authority, May 2007.
SeAMK’s Quality Assurance System
SeAMK’s Quality Policy is defined as follows:
“Good quality respective to Seinäjoki UAS is found in its high standard
of instruction and R&D activities. We produce highly employable professional
experts for the work world. Our staff are skilful and vital. Our external and
internal clients as well as our interest groups are satisfied with our operations.
Our working methods are specified in the quality manual, which contains
the instructions.
In our quality assurance, we appreciate the versatile cooperation with our
interest groups. We determine the direction of activities by forecasting the
future together with our clients. We develop quality in cooperation networks.
The starting point is that everyone knows the principles of quality work.
We commit ourselves to the continuous improvement of quality by giving
emphasis to expertise, monitoring learning results and client satisfaction, and
by forecasting future expertise-related needs. High-quality operations make
everyday work smooth and flexible.
The work life representatives and interest groups participate in quality
assurance in the planning of activity and as evaluators. We assure quality via
systematic assessment. At Seinäjoki UAS, seamless integration exists between
teaching and R&D activities.
The implementation of the quality policy is followed up with the faculties’ steering groups in internal performance negotiations as well as in the
annual internal auditings and management reviews performed for the UAS
Board. Quality issues are dealt with regularly in the steering groups for the
performance areas and in the steering groups respective to the performance
units. We follow the implementation of the quality policy by means of student feedback, barometers, EFQM indicators and formal complaints. We systematically document quality policy follow-up.”
The QAS used at SeAMK comprises the following components:
– A Quality Manual
– A strategy and operations guidance system
– Assessments and audits
– A quality assessment of the main processes
– Documentation, information distribution and storage of documents.
11
Ratified by the Board of the Joint Municipal Authority and the Council of the Joint Municipal Authority, May 2007.
The SeAMK QAS is described in the university’s Quality Manual. The
Quality Manual is entirely in electronic format and is located in the SharePoint workspace. Thus, it is available to all SeAMK staff and students. Relevant sections of the Quality Manual are also available to those outside the
organisation via the Internet (http://www.seamk.fi/). SeAMK’s operations in
observing the criteria of the EFQM Excellence Award are described in the
Quality Manual. Deployment of the EFQM model occurred during the years
2005–2006.
The set of indicators applicable to the performance area of the
SeAMK QAS is composed of the performance indicators of the Ministry of
Education and the university’s own indicators, which describe, for the most
part, clients’ perspectives as well as the viewpoints of those acting within the
organisation on the quality of operations. The indicators are set into focus for
the main processes of instruction/learning and R&D activities. The six instruction process indicators are as follows: attractiveness, dropout rate, degree
completion rate, foreign language instruction, education operating margin,
study point and degree productivity. The five R&D process indicators are:
scope of service functions, scope of R&D functions, third-party funding of
R&D, international funding of R&D, and the R&D operating margin.
Operations guidance at SeAMK represents an essential part of the
QAS, since through it strategic targets are set and their realisation is monitored. The implementation of strategic goals is monitored through annual
strategy indicators in, for instance, management reviews and internal performance negotiations. Quantitative goals oriented towards strategic targets are
also implemented therein in addition to action-related quality objectives. In
the management review, the real-time aspect of goals, as well as the suitability of the indicators, is also examined. Preparation of the budgets is also connected with operations guidance. In the strategic work performed by
SeAMK, the Balanced Scorecard model is applied, which was introduced at
SeAMK in 2003.
The responsibilities of the Seinäjoki QAS have been defined as follows: the Board of the Joint Municipal Authority has responsibility for resourcing and the Board of Seinäjoki University of Applied Sciences decides
on the quality system. The university President is responsible for the quality
of operations and their development as a whole. The managers, university Vice
President (instruction), R&D Director (R&D activities) and Administrative
Director (Joint Services, YPA) are responsible for operational quality and related development in their performance areas. In addition, the dean of the
school has responsibility for quality in the performance units, but the heads
of the degree programmes as well as those persons in charge of R&D and
EVALUATION AND
DEVELOPMENT
- Quality and strategic
indicators
- Evaluations and audits
- Processing of feedback
- Other indicators
- Influence and results
(students, clients, partners,
region, society)
- Conclusions and
development measures
GOALS AND
LEADERSHIP
- Values, mission, vision
- Quality policy
- Strategic goals
- National management
- Regional management
- European higher education
and research policy
Documentation
and information
Staff and students
IMPLEMENTATION
- Responsibilities per
process
- Operating in accordance
with joint process
descriptions
- Systematic and
appropriate application
throughout the
organisation
OPERATING METHODS
AND PROCESSES
- Joint operating
methods and processes
specified in the Quality
Manual
- Responsibilities defined
- Operating guidelines
and rules
- Good practices
Figure SeAMK’s Quality Assurance System
quality have their own roles. The quality steering group leads the quality work
and functions at the operational level.
The SeAMK quality steering group was established in 2007. Its members
are as follows: the university President (chairperson),Vice President, R&D Director, Administrative Director, Development Manager, SAMO Student
Union representative and quality manager (secretary). The quality steering
group has appointed a three-member external specialist group, whose composition is as follows: the Quality Manager of the South Ostrobothnia Health
Care District, the Development Manager of the Mikkeli University of Applied Sciences and the Managing Director of Mäkelä-Alu Oy. The external
specialists are invited to participate in the quality steering group meetings as
required.
The quality work group of SeAMK was established in 1996 as part of the
quality project launched at the time. The work group has a member (responsible for quality) from each performance unit and managers from the university Office. The university’s Vice President acts as chairperson.
SeAMK hired an acting quality manager in January 2007. The main task
of the quality manager is to plan the university’s quality system and prepare
the international auditing to be implemented in the spring of 2009.
A part-time person in charge of quality functions is a member of the quality
work group at the performance unit. The dean of the faculty defines the job
description of the person in charge of quality.
Increased participation by students in the quality work has been agreed
with the steering groups of the performance units at SeAMK as well as increased participation in the functions of the faculty steering groups. The
SAMO student union nominates the student representatives for the university’s various work groups. Matters intended for decision making are formulated and operational methods are developed in the work groups. Students
therefore also have an important role in taking part in planning and preparation prior to the actual implementation stage. In the QAS, students also have
an essential role as providers of feedback in the application stage as well as
during studies, the period of graduation and the subsequent years.
Results
Objectives overall structure and internal
coherence of the quality assurance system
The quality assurance (QA) covers many of SeAMK’s activities and the QA procedures form a fairly efficient system. Concerning this auditing target, SeAMK’s QA
system fulfils very well the requirements of the “developing” stage and it seems that
the system is moving toward the “advanced” development stage.
The Quality Policy and the objectives of the QAS
The audit conducted in 2006 revealed that SeAMK lacked a clear quality policy. In the audit report the audit group stated that SeAMK needs to develop
a clear policy and strategy for its QAS. A quality policy should set out the
scope of the QAS, responsibilities for its implementation and review, and a
clear indication of the processes that support the system. Since then a quality
policy has been defined and is stated in the Quality Manual. In the policy,
SeAMK emphasises future orientation and cooperation between interest
groups, students, staff and board members. Quality is seen as everybody’s responsibility, demanding systematic assessment and continuous development of
operations in order to achieve its goals: better education and improved R&D.
SeAMK’s QAS has been revised since 2006. It consists of four interlinking parts: 1. Goals and leadership, 2. Operating methods and Processes, 3. Implementation, and 4. Evaluation and Development. Documentation and information as well as staff and students are related to all areas. The goal of the
QAS comprises the vision, values and strategies of SeAMK and the goals of
the Quality Policy.
The responsibilities within the QAS are defined at six organisational levels: the Board, the President and Vice Presidents and Administrative Director,
the quality steering and working groups, the schools, staff members and students. In 2007, SeAMK appointed a three-member external advisory panel
as a support body. Each SeAMK unit has a Unit Manager and a part-time
Quality Supervisor. In addition, there is a Quality Manager whose responsibilities cover all of SeAMK. The division of responsibilities has been clarified
due to the development of the QAS, a simplified electronic follow-up sys-
tem and also due to the strategic organisational changes carried out within
the last two years. Fewer units help in decision making and enhance quality,
thus eliminating delays. In SeAMK there are a lot of combinations of teams
for different tasks, each team comprising many people. For instance there are
19 members in the international working group. Participating in meetings
may enhance commitment but it would be worthwhile considering the effectiveness (time and money consumed/results) of meetings attended by a
great number of people.
Processes have developed greatly in the two years. In order to further
develop them, SeAMK is now planning to initiate the procedure for auditing
the processes. The first process to be audited will focus on international affairs later this year. The audit team considers this to be worthwhile. The audit
team also suggests that a point of interest to develop the QAS could focus on
the integration of processes.
The audit group agrees that the development process of the QAS has
been systematic and has been executed according to the recommendations
set by the audit group in 2006. The involvement and participation of staff,
students and representatives from work life and other interest groups have
guaranteed the commitment to this developmental process. The attitude
among staff, students and external stakeholders seems to be positive towards
QA. The high value given to the QA work is also seen in the division of
human resources: for instance the unit Quality Supervisors dedicate 80–200
hours annually to QA work.
Overall structure and internal coherence of the QAS
In 2006, the audit group suggested that with regard to the activities, actors
and responsibilities, SeAMK should examine its QA structure, the various actors and the related activities and processes.
Since January 2008, SeAMK has introduced a new and a more transparent organisational structure comprising an Inspection Board, an administration including the Board and the President of SeAMK, and a division into
five schools. Each school now has responsibility for its own research and development compared with the previous set-up in which R&D had its own
organisation separate from the respective schools. With this new organisation,
the conditions for linking R&D to education are better. Furthermore, the
implementation and the following up of systematic quality work will now be
smoother. SeAMK’s main processes and the links to its vision and mission as
well as to its quality work are described in the process chart (see Chapter 3.1,
Figure 2).
Compared with the previous structure in which each school had its own
system, the new QAS is common to all schools, and includes guidelines for
the different processes. The follow-up system has been strengthened. Internal
audits have been implemented since 2007. A strengthened system for internal
and external audits and evaluations is in place. The number of quality indicators has been reduced, which indicates that an analysis has been made of those
indicators that are effective measurements of quality. Finally, the central components for a continuous enhancement of quality are the strengthened annual cycle and the evaluation of the QAS itself every third year.
In 2006, SeAMK had many strategies, including the main strategy and
separate strategies for various areas. Also the schools and other units had their
own strategies. Clarification and renewal of the vision and main strategy for
the 2007–2009 agreement period has taken place. Now there is only one
main strategy and three sub-strategies: Pedagogic strategy, R&D Strategy, and
International operations strategy. Balanced Scorecards are considered to be
sub-strategies. Separate performance unit strategies have been eliminated altogether. Considerable simplification has taken place and, during the interviews, the staff members and persons in leadership and managerial positions
stated that the changes have made strategic development work more manageable than heretofore. The focus of QA had previously been on current
operations because the system did not allow integration with strategically important future objectives. Now the focus is more on the future as future orientation is also mentioned as a principle in the Quality Policy.
When there are fewer strategies and they are set for three-year periods
the staff members are able to focus their work according to these strategies.
Also, R&D projects can be signed for three-year periods. The internal audits,
the market surveys and internal performance negotiations are tools that can
be and are used for strategic purposes.
The strategically important conclusions are extracted from the gathered
information mainly by the education and R&D steering groups. Strategically
minor important information is analysed by the directors of schools and other
units and in respective cases the heads of the degree programmes and the
managers of the administration office. They are also responsible for using the
information. Some information is discussed with the board of the municipality.
In the 2006 audit report, the audit group recommended that the interfaces between the QAS, the management and the steering groups should be
clarified. After two years of development work, the re-audit group is presented with a functioning system that provides the necessary information and
shows the division of responsibilities. As in all evaluations, the indicators play
a very important role in analysing the gathered data. During the visit it was
suggested that some of the indicators should be reconsidered. This is a sign of
the awareness among people in SeAMK that continuous evaluation of the
system and its processes, tools, indicators, responsibilities, timetables, etc., is
worthwhile. It is a sign of a good quality culture.
In 2006, SeAMK’s QAS was based on the EFQM model. An important
reason for adopting this model was to provide the possibility to make comparisons both nationally and internationally with other institutions. However,
a system for following up, such as RADAR Logic, was not used. In the first
audit report, the audit group recommended that the individual QA procedures should be organised into a systematic QAS that includes routines for
follow-up, such as RADAR Logic.
The QAS is still built within the EFQM framework. Based on the reaudit visit interviews, it seems, however, that the role of the EFQM is not
very central to SeAMK’s QAS. Furthermore, the audit group did not find
any evidence that SeAMK was planning national/international comparisons
with other institutions using the EFQM model. It found that SeAMK had
developed its own system with its own quality components. It seems that the
EFQM model is not necessarily needed as an umbrella for SeAMK’s QAS.
The re-audit group suggests that SeAMK continues building and further developing its own system around the present chosen components of quality
variables, for instance quality indicators, barometers and evaluations.
Internal audits as a tool to develop the units
In the 2006 audit report, the audit group recommended that an internal peer
review should be performed regularly for all the schools and other units at
SeAMK. In 2008, as part of the QAS development, SeAMK switched the assessment/evaluation method from peer reviews to internal audits of the performance units. An external expert was used in the planning of the internal
audit process, which is described in the Quality Manual. The internal audits
have been conducted twice in the performance units and the process appears
to work. The internal auditors are trained by external experts. The EFQM
criteria based information is carried out in the performance units prior to
the audits. The students are well represented in the process. The internal audit outcomes are presented in open sessions, where the results from different
performance units are presented in a similar way. This makes it easier to compare units and share good practices.
The development of QA and evaluation competencies of staff
One of the recommendations in the 2006 audit was that the QA and evaluation competences of SeAMK staff should be continuously developed. According to the audit group this should aim particularly at developing competence
for information analysis and identifying the results of the findings.
Based on the re-audit material and the re-audit visit, it can be said that
the strategy for developing staff QA competence is through their involvement in planning the system and in its implementation. This type of work
enhances commitment to and understanding of the meaning of QA work.
Owner, stakeholder and partner knowledge is maintained and developed
through seminars. External experts are involved in the QA development work
and disseminate the know-how to the faculty. The annual personal development discussions between the leaders and managers and the staff are the main
tools for detecting the requirements for further improvement of know-how
among the staff. In the SeAMK’s QAS one of the four Quartals is Evaluation
and Development (Figure 3, page 18). In the Quality Manual one cannot,
however, find a path or process description concerning the specific issue of
continuous development concerning QA and evaluation competences particularly focusing on information analysis and identification of the results
gained through the findings. It would be worthwhile determining and developing the desired expertise in this field in the context of the entire institution.
Summary
There is plenty of evidence of the development concerning the overall structure and internal coherence of SeAMK’s QAS, including the creation and formulation of the common Quality Policy and Quality Manual. In addition,
common guidelines, reorganisation and unification of processes, internal audits and management reviews make it possible to detect the requirements for
the different developmental tasks of the institution. The system also makes it
possible to compare the activities between the units.
The internal coherence between processes (“Strategic management and
leadership, Instruction/learning R&D, Support services”) and units could be
developed further. Currently the interlinkage between processes and units remains unclear. In order to detect the reason for inadequate quality in one
area or process (such as R&D), it would be worthwhile to develop a loop
from one process to another and from one unit to another.
The use of external advisors has helped SeAMK in developing the QAS
to its present level. The audit group feels that this is a good practice and also
recommends its use elsewhere. External, additional analysis/auditing of the
manual and documentation and reporting system has given new insight and
direction for the internal work done in SeAMK.
Documentation including the formulation
of a quality policy and the definition of
procedures actors and responsibilities
The definitions of the procedures, actors and responsibilities are clear, comprehensive
and concrete compared to the situation in the previous QA organisation. The documentation is easily available to all. The QA organisation is well designed. The development stage of this auditing target is “developing”.
Definition and documentation of the QA policy activities
processes and actors
In the first audit report, the audit group stressed the need for a systematic
institutional quality manual or a comparable document. The new QAS is now
described in one manual common to the whole institution. The Quality Policy of SeAMK is also found in the Quality Manual.
The manual and all documents of the QAS are published on SeAMK’s
intranet. Information about the QAS is given to newly employed staff every
autumn. The interviews at the site visit clearly confirmed that knowledge
about different processes of the quality system was strong among students and
staff at SeAMK. It is obvious that the quality culture is strong at SeAMK.
The staff and students also appreciated the creation of one common system
for the whole organisation of SeAMK. The persons responsible for quality
activities send e-mails to staff members and students to ensure that they respond to the required tasks. In this respect, the Quality Manual does not play
a strong enough role as a handbook. It does not give precise instructions: when
the different activities will take place, who is the person responsible for each
activity, how and by whom will the results be analysed, and how and when
will the activities be followed up. Presenting the manual in a more transparent and appealing way would be especially useful for an external visitor or
new students who does not have access to personal information from the persons responsible for the different activities. Also, the Quality Policy needs to
be better highlighted in the manual.
The management of followup data and QA information
The audit group recommended in 2006 that the management of follow-up
data and QA information should be further developed through systemising
the reporting more uniformly (data and information processing system).
In the two years since 2006 SeAMK has created a coherent Internetbased document store called SharePoint. The SharePoint station contains all
of the quality data and there are also separate locations for working groups
and for performance units. SharePoint is well known across the administration, the performance units and students.
The other document locations in SeAMK are its Intranet and Internet
pages. They are being continually developed and students have been granted
increased access to the intranet. Both system transparency and documentation systems have evolved.
Finding information in the documentation is made easier through the
use of hyperlinks. However, many students and staff members still expect important information to arrive via e-mail.
The role of students in the QAS
In the 2006 audit report the group recommended also that the students’ role
as partners in the QA of SeAMK needs development. Instead of merely informing, they should also participate more actively in setting the targets of
education and its QA, as well as of the support and other services important
to them. Students should also be integrated into the analyses of the information produced by the QAS. SeAMK and the student union, SAMO, should
set about developing mechanisms to ensure that the students’ role and feedback are extended and integrated into the QAS more effectively.
In the process of development of the QAS, the students have gained a
permanent position in the groups throughout the organisation and their role
is genuinely effective. Students are being heard and they have the opportunity to present their opinion. In the working groups, students are influencing
the actions taken as a result of the quality measures. The student union and
SeAMK educate the student representatives to act in the working groups and
in the development of the quality system.
It is stated in the Quality Policy, that the starting point is that everyone knows
the principles of quality work. However, the Quality Manual does not point out
clearly the extent of the responsibility of each student’s involvement in the
actual quality work.
The student union, SAMO, has a recognised and permanent role. It has
its own working groups, such as Tuntosarvi and Kopo. SAMO conducts a
yearly Skopo-survey on students and the results are delivered to all staff and
students. The study results have promoted changes.
An electronic student feedback form is in use in most of the study programmes. The opjapa electronic course feedback system is described in the
Quality Manual. The level of feedback gathered has increased as the implementation of opjapa has expanded.
The opjapa results are gathered into a database where they are clearly
presented. Results are only available to each teacher’s superior. The final responsibility to respond to the opjapa results lies with the head of each degree
programme. Hence, the opjapa results process is not clear enough nor is it
transparent. The rapid response of teaching staff – the feedback to feedback is
lacking. The long-term results from opjapa inquiries could be presented more
openly.
Although quality documentation exists, it is not easily accessible to the
students and given its broad extent neither is it read voluntarily. Clear presentation and student-focused outputs would make it easier for students to
understand the extent of SeAMK’s quality work.
Summary
One of the core documents for the quality work at SeAMK, the Quality
Manual, has now been created and is used across the whole institution. The
Quality Policy, which previously was not clearly defined, is now defined in
the manual. Furthermore, the involvement of students was marginal and they
were not seen as partners in the QAS. Their involvement has now, however,
been significantly strengthened. The reporting from the QAS is now organised through a data and information processing system, SharePoint, that all
staff and students have access to.
Quality work is an ongoing process of improvement; this is also true for
the presentation of steering documents such as the Quality Manual. The reaudit group sees that the next important step for SeAMK would be to improve the manual and to convert it into a tool in which the different parts of
the quality work and their interlinks are clearly presented. This would further
facilitate the involvement of new students in quality work as well as give better information about the system for people outside SeAMK who are not
familiar with the system.
Final conclusions
Audit group’s overall assessment
of the quality assurance system of SeAMK
Based on this report the audit group states that the SeAMK fulfils the criteria set for quality assurance systems and the quality assurance of its basic missions. Based on this evaluation the audit group proposes to the Finnish Higher
Education Evaluation Council that the SeAMK passes the audit.
FINHEEC’s decision
Based on the proposal of the audit group and the audit report, the Finnish
Higher Education Evaluation Council decided in its meeting of 26 March
2009 that the quality assurance system of the SeAMK fulfils the criteria set
for the quality assurance system as a whole and for quality assurance in its
basic missions. The audit is valid for six years.
The HEI has no QA procedures in
place relating to its activities.
Quality policy, procedures,
actors and responsibilities
have not been defined or
documented.
2. Documentation, including the
formulation of quality policy
and the definition of procedures,
actors and responsibilities
ABSENT
1. Objectives, overall structure
and internal coherence o fthe
quality assurance system
AUDITING TARGETS
CRITERIA
The procedures and division of
labour manifestly comply with the
documented processes. The QA
organisation is extremely welldesigned and reinforces QA.
documentation is easily available
to all. The QA organisation
is well-designed.
system are inadequate, and
the QA procedures are
inadequately organised.
QA covers all or nearly all
activities, and QA procedures
processes form a dynamic whole.
ADVANCED
Procedures, actors and responsibilities are clearly, comprehensibly
and concretely defined, and the
QA covers many of the HEI's
activities and the QA procedures
form a fairly efficient system.
DEVELOPING
The definition and documentation of responsibilities and
procedures included in the QA
in structure nor interlinked.
There are QA procedures relating
to some HEI activities, but
they are neither systematic
EMERGING
APPENDIX :
Table of audit criteria used in the SeAMK reaudit
APPENDIX :
Programme of the reaudit visit
Place: Seinäjoki Keskuskatu / Kampustalo
Audit visit programme 9.00–9.45
10.00–10.45
11.00–11.45
11.45–12.45
12.45–13.30
13.45–14.30
14.45–15.30
15.45–16.30
16.45–17.30
17.30–18.00
Management and Quality Steering Group
Students
Teaching
Lunch
R&D
Support services
Thematic discussion: Development, management and use of the quality data
Deans/Directors of the faculties
Audit group meeting
Management
ABSTRACT
Published by
The Finnish Higher Education Evaluation Council FINHEEC
Name of publication
Re-audit of the Quality Assurance System of the Seinäjoki University of Applied Sciences
Authors
Inkeri Papp, Eric Lindesjöö, Riikka Töytäri & Hannele Seppälä
Abstract
FINHEEC decided on the basis of the audit report on the Seinäjoki University of Applied Sciences
(SeAMK) quality assurance system (FINHEEC publications 15:2006) on 24 October 2006 that there are
substantial shortcomings in the SeAMK’s quality assurance system with regard to audit criteria, due to which
the development of the quality assurance system requires measures by the SeAMK and a re-audit.
The re-audit focused on:
1. Objectives, overall structure and internal coherence of the QAS
2. Documentation, including the formulation of a quality policy and the definition of procedures, actors
and responsibilities.
The purpose of the re-audit is to assess how the institution has progressed in the development of its QA
system in the areas defined as essential development needs. In accordance with the FINHEEC Audit Manual, in the areas focused on in the re-audit, the QA system must meet the criteria of a “developing”system to
meet the requirements for passing the audit.
The re-audit was based on the material prepared and delivered in advance by the SeAMK, as well as on
the re-audit visit that took place on 20 January 2009. The re-audit was carried out by a three-member
audit group with members who represented the 2006 SeAMK audit group and the audit group of another
HEI.
According to the re-audit group:
1. QA covers many of SeAMK’s activities and the QA procedures form a fairly efficient system. There are
many reasons for the development of the overall structure and internal coherence of SeAMK’s QAS,
including the improvement of the common Quality Policy and Quality Manual. In addition, common
guidelines, reorganisation and unification of processes, internal audits and management reviews make it
possible to detect the requirements for the different developmental tasks of the institution. The system
also makes it possible to compare the activities between the units. Concerning this auditing target,
SeAMK’s QA system fulfils very well the requirements of the “developing” stage and it seems that the
system is moving toward the “advanced” development stage.
2. Procedures, actors and responsibilities are clearly, comprehensibly and concretely defined, and the documentation is easily available to all. The Quality Manual is used across the whole institution. The reporting from the QAS is organised through a data and information processing system, SharePoint, that all
staff and students have access to. The QA organisation is well designed. The development stage of this
auditing target is “developing”.
At its meeting on 26 March 2009 FINHEEC decided that the Seinäjoki University of Applied Sciences
fulfils the criteria set for the quality assurance system as a whole and for quality assurance in its primary
missions. The audit is valid for six years.
Keywords
Evaluation, auditing, quality assurance, quality, higher education institutions
TIIVISTELMÄ
Julkaisija
Korkeakoulujen arviointineuvosto
Julkaisun nimi
Re-audit of the Quality Assurance System of the Seinäjoki University of Applied Sciences (Seinäjoen ammattikorkeakoulun laadunvarmistusjärjestelmän uusinta-auditointi)
Tekijät
Inkeri Papp, Eric Lindesjöö, Riikka Töytäri & Hannele Seppälä
Tiivistelmä
Korkeakoulujen arviointineuvosto päätti 24.10.2006 Seinäjoen ammattikorkeakoulun laadunvarmistusjärjestelmän auditointiraportin (KKA:n julkaisuja 15:2006) perusteella, että ammattikorkeakoulun laadunvarmistusjärjestelmässä on oleellisia puutteita suhteessa auditointikriteereihin, minkä johdosta laadunvarmistusjärjestelmän kehittäminen edellyttää korkeakoulun toimenpiteitä ja uusinta-auditointia.
Uusinta-auditoinnin kohteena olivat
1. Laadunvarmistusjärjestelmän tavoitteet, kokonaisrakenne ja osa-alueiden väliset yhteydet.
2. Laadunvarmistusjärjestelmään liittyvä dokumentaatio, johon sisältyy laatupolitiikan, toimintojen, toimijoiden ja vastuiden määrittely.
Uusinta-auditoinnin tavoitteena on arvioida, miten ammattikorkeakoulu on edennyt laadunvarmistusjärjestelmänsä kehittämisessä välttämättömien kehittämistarpeiden osalta. Korkeakoulujen arviointineuvoston auditointikäsikirjan mukaan laadunvarmistusjärjestelmän on uusinta-auditoinnissa tarkasteltavilta osa-alueiltaan
oltava kriteeristön perusteella vähintään vaiheessa ”kehittyvä”, jotta edellytykset hyväksytylle auditoinnille
täyttyvät.
Uusinta-auditointi perustui ammattikorkeakoulun ennalta toimittamaan auditointiaineistoon ja vierailuun,
joka tehtiin Seinäjoen ammattikorkeakouluun 20.1.2009. Uusinta-auditoinnin toteutuksesta vastasi kolmehenkinen asiantuntijaryhmä, jossa oli edustettuna sekä vuoden 2006 Seinäjoen ammattikorkeakoulun auditointiryhmän jäseniä että edustusta toisen korkeakoulun auditointiryhmästä.
Uusinta-auditointiryhmän mukaan
1. Laadunvarmistus kattaa suuren osan korkeakoulun toiminnoista ja laadunvarmistuksen menettelytavat
muodostavat melko hyvin toimivan järjestelmärakenteen. Laatupolitiikan ja laatukäsikirjan kehittäminen
ovat vahvistaneet laadunvarmistusjärjestelmän kokonaisrakenteen kehittymistä. Lisäksi SeAMKin laadunvarmistusjärjestelmään sisältyvät yhteiset ohjeet, prosessien yhdenmukaistaminen, sisäiset auditoinnit ja
johdon katselmukset tukevat toiminnan kehittämistä. Laadunvarmistusjärjestelmä mahdollistaa myös
toiminnan vertaamisen eri yksikköjen välillä. SeAMKin laadunvarmistusjärjestelmä täyttää hyvin kehittyvälle järjestelmälle asetetut kriteerit. Järjestelmä on kehittymässä kohti edistynyttä kehitysvaihetta.
2. Toiminnot, toimijat ja vastuut ovat selkeästi, ymmärrettävästi ja konkreettisesti määriteltyjä ja dokumentoituja. Dokumentit ovat helposti kaikkien saatavilla. Laatukäsikirja on käytössä koko korkeakoulussa.
Laadunvarmistusjärjestelmää koskeva raportointi on organisoitu SharePoint tietojärjestelmän kautta,
johon koko henkilökunnalla ja opiskelijoilla on pääsy. Laadunvarmistuksen organisointi on toimivaa.
Laadunvarmistusjärjestelmän on tämän auditointikohteen osalta vaiheessa ”kehittyvä”.
Korkeakoulujen arviointineuvosto on uusinta-auditointiryhmän esityksestä päättänyt kokouksessaan 26.3.2009,
että Seinäjoen ammattikorkeakoulu täyttää laadunvarmistusjärjestelmän kokonaisuudelle ja perustehtävien
laadunvarmistukselle asetetut kriteerit. Auditointi on voimassa kuusi vuotta.
Avainsanat
Arviointi, auditointi, laadunvarmistus, laatu, korkeakoulut
SAMMANDRAG
Utgivare
Rådet för utvärdering av högskolorna
Publikation
Re-audit of the Quality Assurance System of the Seinäjoki University of Applied Sciences (Förnyad auditering av
kvalitetssäkringssystemet vid Seinäjoki yrkeshögskola)
Författare
Inkeri Papp, Eric Lindesjöö, Riikka Töytäri & Hannele Seppälä
Abstrakt
Rådet för utvärdering av högskolorna beslutade den 24 oktober 2006 utgående från rapporten om auditeringen av kvalitetssäkringssystemet vid Seinäjoki yrkeshögskola (RUH:s publikationer 15:2006) att yrkeshögskolans kvalitetssäkringssystem innehåller väsentliga brister i förhållande till auditeringskriterierna. RUH
ålade följaktligen yrkeshögskolan att utveckla systemet och genomgå en ny auditering.
Förnyad uditeringen fokuserade på
1. Kvalitetssäkringssystemets målsättning, helhetsstruktur och delområdenas inbördes samband.
2. Till kvalitetssäkringssystemet anknuten dokumentation, i vilken ingår fastställandet av kvalitetspolicy,
funktioner, aktörer och ansvar.
Syftet med förnyad auditeringen är att bedöma hur yrkeshögskolan har förbättrat sitt kvalitetssäkringssystem med avseende på de nödvändiga utvecklingsbehoven. Enligt RUH:s auditeringshandbok ska de delområden av kvalitetssäkringssystemet som är föremål för förnyad auditeringen motsvara minst nivån ”under
utveckling” för att kriterierna för godkänd auditering ska uppfyllas.
Förnyad auditeringen grundade sig på det auditeringsmaterial som Seinäjoki YH lämnat in på förhand
och på ett auditeringsbesök vid yrkeshögskolan 20.1.2009. Förnyad auditeringen utfördes av en tre personer stark expertgrupp med företrädare för den grupp som utförde auditeringen av Seinäjoki YH år 2006
och för auditeringsgruppen av en annan högskola.
Auditeringsgruppen fastställde följande:
1. Kvalitetssäkringen omfattar en stor del av högskolans funktioner och kvalitetssäkringsförfarandena bildar
en rätt välfungerande systematisk struktur. Utvecklingen av kvalitetspolicyn och kvalitetshandboken har
bidragit till utvecklingen av kvalitetssäkringssystemet överlag. De gemensamma instruktionerna som
ingår i kvalitetssäkringssystemet, samordningen av processerna, de interna auditeringarna och ledningens
översikter stödjer också utvecklingen av verksamheten vid Seinäjoki YH. Kvalitetssäkringssystemet gör
det även möjligt att jämföra verksamheten mellan olika enheter. Kvalitetssäkringssystemet vid Seinäjoki
YH uppfyller klart de kriterier som ställts för ett system ”under utveckling” och är på väg mot utvecklingsfasen ”inarbetade”.
2. Funktioner, aktörer och ansvar är redigt, förståeligt och konkret fastställda och dokumenterade. Dokumenten är lättillgängliga för alla. Kvalitetshandboken har införts vid hela högskolan. Rapporteringen om
kvalitetssäkringssystemet har organiserats genom datasystemet SharePoint som både personalen och de
studerande har tillgång till. Organiseringen av kvalitetssäkringen är fungerande. Detta auditeringsobjekt
befinner sig i utvecklingsfasen ”under utveckling”.
Rådet för utvärdering av högskolorna fastslog på auditeringsgruppens förslag vid sitt sammanträde 26.3.2009
att Seinäjoki yrkeshögskola uppfyller de kriterier som ställts för kvalitetssäkringssystemet som helhet och
för kvalitetssäkringen av de grundläggande åliggandena. Auditeringen gäller i sex år.
Nyckelord
Auditering, högskolor, kvalitet, kvalitetssäkring, utvärdering
PUBLICATIONS OF THE FINNISH HIGHER EDUCATION EVALUATION COUNCIL
P. B. 133, 00171 HELSINKI, Finland • Tel. +358-9-1607 6913 • Fax +358-9-1607 6911 • www.finheec.fi
1:2000
2:2000
3:2000
4:2000
5:2000
6:2000
7:2000
8:2000
9:2000
10:2000
11:2000
12:2000
13:2000
14:2000
15:2000
16:2000
17:2000
18:2000
19:2000
20:2000
21:2000
1:2001
2:2001
3:2001
4:2001
5:2001
6:2001
7:2001
8:2001
9:2001
10:2001
11:2001
12:2001
13:2001
14:2001
15:2001
1:2002
2:2002
Lehtinen, E., Kess, P., Ståhle, P. & Urponen, K.:Tampereen yliopiston opetuksen arviointi
Cohen, B., Jung, K. & Valjakka,T.: From Academy of Fine Arts to University. Same name, wider ambitions
Goddard, J., Moses, I.,Teichler, U.,Virtanen, I. & West, P.: External Engagement and Institutional Adjustment: An
Evaluation of the University of Turku
Almefelt, P., Kekäle,T., Malm, K., Miikkulainen, L. & Pehu-Voima, S.: Audit of Quality Work. Swedish Polytechnic,
Finland
Harlio, R., Harvey, L., Mansikkamäki. J., Miikkulainen, L. & Pehu-Voima, S.: Audit of Quality Work. Central
Ostrobothnia Polytechnic
Moitus, S. (toim.):Yliopistokoulutuksen laatuyksiköt 2001–2003
Liuhanen, A.-M. (toim.): Neljä aikuiskoulutuksen laatuyliopistoa 2001–2003
Hara,V. , Hyvönen, R. , Myers, D. & Kangasniemi, J. (Eds.): Evaluation of Education for the Information Industry
Jussila, J. & Saari, S. (Eds.):Teacher Education as a Future-moulding Factor. International Evaluation of Teacher
Education in Finnish Universities
Lämsä, A. & Saari, S. (toim.): Portfoliosta koulutuksen kehittämiseen. Ammatillisen opettajankoulutuksen arviointi
Korkeakoulujen arviointineuvoston toimintasuunnitelma 2000–2003
Finnish Higher Education Evaluation Council Action Plan for 2000–2003
Huttula,T. (toim.): Ammattikorkeakoulujen koulutuksen laatuyksiköt 2000
Gordon, C., Knodt, G., Lundin, R., Oger, O. & Shenton, G.: Hanken in European Comparison. EQUIS Evaluation
Report
Almefelt, P., Kekäle,T., Malm, K., Miikkulainen, L. & Kangasniemi, J.: Audit of Quality Work. Satakunta Polytechnic
Kells, H.R., Lindqvist, O.V. & Premfors, R.: Follow-up Evaluation of the University of Vaasa. Challenges of a small
regional university
Mansikkamäki, J., Kekäle,T., Miikkulainen, L. , Stone, J.,Tolppi,V.-M. & Kangasniemi, J.: Audit of Quality Work.
Tampere Polytechnic
Baran, H., Gladrow,W. , Klaudy, K. , Locher, J. P. , Toivakka, P. & Moitus, S.: Evaluation of Education and Research in
Slavonic and Baltic Studies
Harlio, R. , Kekäle,T. , Miikkulainen, L. & Kangasniemi, J.: Laatutyön auditointi. Kymenlaakson ammattikorkeakoulu
Mansikkamäki, J., Kekäle,T., Kähkönen, J., Miikkulainen, L., Mäki, M. & Kangasniemi, J.: Laatutyön auditointi.
Pohjois-Savon ammattikorkeakoulu
Almefelt, P., Kantola, J., Kekäle, T., Papp, I., Manninen, J. & Karppanen,T.: Audit of Quality Work. South Carelia
Polytechnic
Valtonen, H.: Oppimisen arviointi Sibelius-Akatemiassa
Laine, 1., Kilpinen, A., Lajunen, L., Pennanen, J., Stenius, M., Uronen, P. & Kekäle, T.: Maanpuolustuskorkeakoulun
arviointi
Vähäpassi, A. (toim.): Erikoistumisopintojen akkreditointi
Baran, H., Gladrow,W. , Klaudy, K. , Locher, J. P. , Toivakka, P. & Moitus, S.: |kspertiza obrazowaniq i nau^noissledowatelxskoj raboty w oblasti slawistiki i baltistiki (Ekspertiza obrazovanija i nauc’´noissledovatelskoj raboty v oblasti slavistiki i baltistiki)
Kinnunen, J.: Korkeakoulujen alueellisen vaikuttavuuden arviointi. Kriteerejä vuorovaikutteisuuden arvottamiselle
Löfström, E.: Benchmarking korkeakoulujen kieltenopetuksen kehittämisessä
Kaartinen-Koutaniemi, M.: Korkeakouluopiskelijoiden harjoittelun kehittäminen. Helsingin yliopiston, Diakoniaammattikorkeakoulun ja Lahden ammattikorkeakoulun benchmarking-projekti
Huttula,T. (toim.): Ammattikorkeakoulujen aluekehitysvaikutuksen huippuyksiköt 2001
Welander, C. (red.): Den synliga yrkeshögskolan. Ålands yrkeshögskola.
Valtonen, H.: Learning Assessment at the Sibelius Academy
Ponkala, O. (toim.): Terveysalan korkeakoulutuksen arvioinnin seuranta
Miettinen, A. & Pajarre, E.:Tuotantotalouden koulutuksen arvioinnin seuranta
Moitus, S., Huttu, K., Isohanni, I., Lerkkanen, J., Mielityinen, I.,Talvi, U., Uusi-Rauva, E. & Vuorinen, R.: Opintojen
ohjauksen arviointi korkeakouluissa
Fonselius, J., Hakala, M.K. & Holm, K. : Evaluation of Mechanical Engineering Education at Universities and
Polytechnics
Kekäle,T. (ed.): A Human Vision with Higher Education Perspective.Institutional Evaluation of the Humanistic
Polytechnic
Kantola, I. (toim.): Ammattikorkeakoulun jatkotutkinnon kokeilulupahakemusten arviointi
Kallio, E.:Yksilöllisiä heijastuksia.Toimiiko yliopisto-opetuksen paikallinen itsearviointi?
3:2002
4:2002
5:2002
6:2002
7:2002
8:2002
9:2002
10:2002
11:2002
12:2002
13:2002
14:2002
15:2002
16:2002
17:2002
18:2002
1:2003
2:2003
3:2003
4:2003
5:2003
6:2003
7:2003
8:2003
9:2003
10:2003
11:2003
12:2003
13:2003
14:2003
15:2003
16:2003
17:2003
1:2004
2:2004
3:2004
Raivola, R., Himberg,T., Lappalainen, A., Mustonen, K. & Varmola,T.: Monta tietä maisteriksi.Yliopistojen
maisteriohjelmien arviointi
Nurmela-Antikainen, M., Ropo, E., Sava, I. & Skinnari, S.: Kokonaisvaltainen opettajuus. Steinerpedagogisen
opettajankoulutuksen arviointi
Toikka, M. & Hakkarainen, S.: Opintojen ohjauksen benchmarking tekniikan alan koulutusohjelmissa. Kymenlaakson, Mikkelin ja Pohjois-Savon ammattikorkeakoulut
Kess, P., Hulkko, K., Jussila, M., Kallio, U., Larsen, S. , Pohjolainen,T. & Seppälä, K.: Suomen avoin yliopisto.
Avoimen yliopisto-opetuksen arviointiraportti
Rantanen,T., Ellä, H., Engblom, L.-Å., Heinonen, J., Laaksovirta,T., Pohjanpalo, L., Rajamäki,T.& Woodman, J.:
Evaluation of Media and Communication Studies in Higher Education in Finland
Katajamäki, H., Artima, E., Hannelin, M., Kinnunen, J., Lyytinen, H. K., Oikari, A. & Tenhunen, M.-L.: Mahdollinen
korkeakouluyhteisö. Lahden korkeakouluyksiköiden alueellisen vaikuttavuuden arviointi
Kekäle,T. & Scheele, J.P:With care. Institutional Evaluation of the Diaconia Polytechnic
Härkönen, A., Juntunen, K. & Pyykkönen, E.-L. : Kajaanin ammattikorkeakoulun yrityspalveluiden benchmarking
Katajamäki, H. (toim.): Ammattikorkeakoulut alueidensa kehittäjinä.Näkökulmia ammattikorkeakoulujen
aluekehitystehtävän toteutukseen
Huttula,T. (toim.): Ammattikorkeakoulujen koulutuksen laatuyksiköt 2002–2003
Hämäläinen, K. & Kaartinen-Koutaniemi, M. (toim.): Benchmarking korkeakoulujen kehittämisvälineenä
Ylipulli-Kairala, K. & Lohiniva,V. (eds.): Development of Supervised Practice in Nurse Education. Oulu and
Rovaniemi Polytechnics
Löfström, E., Kantelinen, R., Johnson, E., Huhta, M., Luoma, M., Nikko,T., Korhonen, A., Penttilä, J., Jakobsson, M.
& Miikkulainen, L.: Ammattikorkeakoulun kieltenopetus tienhaarassa. Kieltenopetuksen arviointi Helsingin ja
Keski-Pohjanmaan ammattikorkeakouluissa
Davies, L., Hietala, H., Kolehmainen, S., Parjanen, M. & Welander, C.: Audit of Quality Work.Vaasa Polytechnic
Sajavaara, K., Hakkarainen, K. , Henttonen, A., Niinistö, K., Pakkanen,T. , Piilonen, A.-R. & Moitus, S.:Yliopistojen
opiskelijavalintojen arviointi
Tuomi, O. & Pakkanen, P.:Towards Excellence in Teaching. Evaluation of the Quality of Education and the
Degree Programmes in the University of Helsinki
Sarja, A., Atkin, B. & Holm, K.: Evaluation of Civil Engineering Education at Universities and Polytechnics
Ursin, J. (toim.):Viisi aikuiskoulutuksen laatuyliopistoa 2004–2006
Hietala, H., Hintsanen,V., Kekäle,T., Lehto, E., Manninen, H. & Meklin, P.: Arktiset haasteet ja mahdollisuudet.
Rovaniemen ammattikorkeakoulun kokonaisarviointi
Varis,T. & Saari, S. (Eds.): Knowledge Society in Progress – Evaluation of the Finnish Electronic Library – FinELib
Parpala, A. & Seppälä, H. (toim.):Yliopistokoulutuksen laatuyksiköt 2004–2006
Kettunen, P., Carlsson, C., Hukka, M., Hyppänen,T., Lyytinen, K., Mehtälä, M., Rissanen, R., Suviranta, L. &
Mustonen, K.: Suomalaista kilpailukykyä liiketoimintaosaamisella. Kauppatieteiden ja liiketalouden korkeakoulutuksen arviointi
Kauppi, A. & Huttula,T. (toim.): Laatua ammattikorkeakouluihin
Parjanen, M. : Amerikkalaisen opiskelija-arvioinnin soveltaminen suomalaiseen yliopistoon
Sarala, U. & Seppälä, H.: (toim.): Hämeen ammattikorkeakoulun kokonaisarviointi
Kelly‚ J., Bazsa, G. & Kladis, D.: Follow-up review of the Helsinki University of Technology
Goddard, J., Asheim, B., Cronberg,T. & Virtanen, I.: Learning Regional Engagement. A Re-evaluation of the Third
Role of Eastern Finland universities
Impiö, 1., Laiho, U.-M., Mäki, M., Salminen, H., Ruoho, K.,Toikka, M. & Vartiainen, P.: Ammattikorkeakoulut
aluekehittäjinä. Ammattikorkeakoulujen aluekehitysvaikutuksen huippuyksiköt 2003–2004
Cavallé, C., de Leersnyder, J.-M.,Verhaegen, P. & Nataf, J.-G. : Follow-up review of the Helsinki School of
Economics. An EQUIS re-accreditation
Kantola, I. (toim.): Harjoittelun ja työelämäprojektien benchmarking
Ala-Vähälä,T.: Hollannin peili. Ammattikorkeakoulujen master-tutkinnot ja laadunvarmistus
Goddard, J.,Teichler, U.,Virtanen, I.,West, P. & Puukka, J.: Progressing external engagement. A re-evaluation of
the third role of the University of Turku
Baran, H.,Toivakka, P. & Järvinen, J.: Slavistiikan ja baltologian koulutuksen ja tutkimuksen arvioinnin seuranta
Kekäle,T., Heikkilä, J., Jaatinen, P., Myllys, H., Piilonen, A.-R., Savola, J.,Tynjälä, P. & Holm, K.: Ammattikorkeakoulujen jatkotutkintokokeilu. Käynnistysvaiheen arviointi
Ekholm, L., Stenius, M., Huldin, H., Julkunen, I., Parkkonen, J., Löfström, E., Metsä, K.: NOVA ARCADA –
Sammanhållning, decentralisering, gränsöverskridande. Helhetsutvärdering av Arcada – Nylands svenska
yrkeshögskola 2003
Hautala, J.: Tietoteollisuusalan koulutuksen arvioinnin seuranta
4:2004
5:2004
6:2004
7:2004
8:2004
9:2004
10:2004
11:2004
1:2005
2:2005
3:2005
4:2005
5:2005
1:2006
2:2006
3:2006
4:2006
5:2006
6:2006
7:2006
8:2006
9:2006
10:2006
11:2006
12:2006
13:2006
14:2006
15:2006
16:2006
17:2006
1:2007
2:2007
3:2007
4:2007
5:2007
Rauhala, P., Karjalainen, A., Lämsä, A.-M., Valkonen, A., Vänskä, A. & Seppälä, H.: Strategiasta koulutuksen
laatuun.Turun ammattikorkeakoulun kokonaisarviointi
Murto, L., Rautniemi, L., Fredriksson, K., Ikonen, S., Mäntysaari, M., Niemi, L., Paldanius, K., Parkkinen,T., Tulva,
T., Ylönen, F. & Saari, S.: Eettisyyttä, elastisuutta ja elämää. Yliopistojen sosiaalityön ja ammattikorkeakoulujen
sosiaalialan arviointi yhteistyössä työelämän kanssa
Ståhle, P., Hämäläinen, K., Laiho, K., Lietoila, A., Roiha, J., Weijo, U. & Seppälä, H.:Tehokas järjestelmä – elävä
dialogi. Helian laatutyön auditointi
Korkeakoulujen arviointineuvoston toimintakertomus 2000–2003
Luopajärvi, T., Hauta-aho, H., Karttunen, P., Markkula, M., Mutka, U. & Seppälä, H.: Perämerenkaaren ammattikorkeakoulu? Kemi-Tornion ammattikorkeakoulun kokonaisarviointi
Moitus, S. & Seppälä, H.: Mitä hyötyä arvioinneista? Selvitys Korkeakoulujen arviointineuvoston 1997–2003
toteuttamien koulutusala-arviointien käytöstä
Moitus, S. & Saari, S.: Menetelmistä kehittämiseen. Korkeakoulujen arviointineuvoston arviointimenetelmät
vuosina 1996–2003
Pratt, J., Kekäle, T., Maassen, P., Papp, I., Perellon, J. & Uitti, M.: Equal, but Different – An Evaluation of the
Postgraduate Studies and Degrees in Polytechnics – Final Report
Niinikoski, S. (toim.): Benchmarking tutkintorakennetyön työkaluna
Ala-Vähälä,T.: Korkeakoulutuksen ulkoisen laadunvarmistuksen järjestelmät Ranskassa
Salminen, H. & Kajaste, M. (toim.): Laatua, innovatiivisuutta ja proaktiivisuutta. Ammattikorkeakoulujen
koulutuksen laatuyksiköt 2005–2006
Korkeakoulujen laadunvarmistusjärjestelmien auditointi. Auditointikäsikirja vuosille 2005–2007
Auditering av högskolornas kvalitetssäkringssystem. Auditeringshandbok för åren 2005–2007
Dill, D.D., Mitra, S. K., Siggaard Jensen, H., Lehtinen, E., Mäkelä,T., Parpala, A., Pohjola, H., Ritter, M. A. & Saari, S.:
PhD Training and the Knowledge-Based Society. An Evaluation of Doctoral Education in Finland
Antikainen, E.-L., Honkonen, R., Matikka, O., Nieminen, P.,Yanar, A. & Moitus, S.: Mikkelin ammattikorkeakoulun
laadunvarmistusjärjestelmän auditointi
Kekäle,T., Ilolakso, A., Katajavuori, N.,Toikka, M. & Isoaho, K.: Kuopion yliopiston laadunvarmistusjärjestelmän
auditointi
Audits of Quality Assurance Systems of Finnish Higher Education Institutions. Audit Manual for 2005–2007
Rauhala, P., Kotila, H., Linko, L., Mulari, O., Rautonen, M. & Moitus, S.; Keski-Pohjanmaan ammattikorkeakoulun
laadunvarmistusjärjestelmän auditointi
Hämäläinen, K., Kantola, I., Marttinen, R., Meriläinen, M., Mäki, M. & Isoaho, K.: Jyväskylän ammattikorkeakoulun laadunvarmistusjärjestelmän auditointi
Kekäläinen, H.: (toim.)Neljä aikuiskoulutuksen laatuyliopistoa 2007–2009
Yliopistokoulutuksen laatuyksiköt 2007–2009
Ojala, I. & Vartiainen, P.: Kolmen yliopiston opetuksen kehittämistoiminnan vaikuttavuus. Lapin yliopiston,
Lappeen-rannan teknillisen yliopiston ja Vaasan yliopiston opetuksen kehittämistoiminnan vaikuttavuuden
benchmarking-arviointi
Lappalainen, M. & Luoto, L.: Opetussuunnitelmaprosessit yliopistoissa
Levänen, K.,Tervonen, S., Suhonen, M. & Stigell, L.:Verkko-opintojen mitoituksen arviointi
Vuorela, P., Kallio, U., Pohjolainen,T., Sylvander,T. & Kajaste, M.; Avoimen yliopiston arvioinnin seurantaraportti
Käyhkö, R., Hakamäki, S., Kananen, M., Kavonius,V., Pirhonen, J., Puusaari, P., Kajaste, M. & Holm, K.: Uudenlaista sankaruutta. Ammattikorkeakoulujen aluekehitysvaikutuksen huippuyksiköt 2006–2007
Malm, K., Lavonius, H., Nystén, P., Santavirta, N. & Cornér, S.: Auditering av Svenska yrkeshögskolans
kvalitetssäkringssystem
Papp, I., Carolan, D., Handal, G., Lindesjöö, E., Marttinen, R., Mustonen,V. & Isoaho, K.: Audit of the quality
assurance system of Seinäjoki Polytechnic
Alaniska, H. (toim.): Opiskelija opetuksen laadunarvioinnissa.
Pyykkö, R., Keränen, P., Lahti, M., Mikkola, A., Paasonen, S. & Holm, K.: Media- ja viestintäalan seuranta
Karppanen, E.,Tornikoski, E., Töytäri, R., Urponen, H., Uusitalo,T., Holm, K.: Lahden ammattikorkeakoulun
laadunvarmistusjärjestelmän auditointi
Liljander, J.-P., Heikkilä, J., Lappalainen, M., Nystén, P., Sulameri,T. & Kajaste, M.: Savonia-ammattikorkeakoulun
laadunvarmistusjärjestelmän auditointi
Wahlbin, C., Heikkilä, J., Hellberg, M., Lindroos, P., Nybom, J. & Cornér, S.: Auditering av Svenska
handelshögskolans kvalitetssäkringssystem
Jokinen,T., Malinen, H., Mäki, M., Nokela, J., Pakkanen, P. & Kekäläinen, H.:Tampereen teknillisen yliopiston
laadunvarmistusjärjestelmän auditointi
Saari, S. (toim.): Korkeakouluopiskelija yhteiskunnallisena toimijana. Kansallinen benchmarking-arviointi
6:2007
7:2007
8:2007
9:2007
10:2007
11:2007
1:2008
2:2008
3:2008
4:2008
5:2008
6:2008
7:2008
8:2008
9:2008
10:2008
11:2008
1:2009
2:2009
3:2009
4:2009
5:2009
6:2009
7:2009
8:2009
Korkeakoulujen laadunvarmistusjärjestelmien auditointi. Uusinta-auditoinnin käsikirja 2007–2009 –
Auditering av högskolornas kvalitetssäkringssystem. Handbok för förnyad auditering 2007–2009 –
Audits of the quality assurance systems of higher education institutions. Manual for Re-Audits 2007–
2009
Korkeakoulujen laadunvarmistusjärjestelmien auditointi. Auditointikäsikirja vuosille 2008–2011
Seppälä, K., Rinne, R. & Trapp, H. (eds.): Connecting Research and Client. Finnish Experience of Quality
Enhancement in University Lifelong Learning
Auditering av högskolornas kvalitetssäkringssystem. Auditeringshandbok för åren 2008–2011
Audits of Quality Assurance Systems of Finnish Higher Education Institutions. Audit Manual for 2008–
2011
Toikka, M., Aarrevaara,T., Isotalo, J., Peltokangas, N., Raij, K., Hiltunen, K. & Holm, K.: Kajaanin ammattikorkeakoulun laadunvarmistusjärjestelmän auditointi
Ståhle, P., Karppanen, E., Kiiskinen, N., Okkonen,T., Saxén, H., Uusi-Rauva, E., Holm, K.& Seppälä, H.:
Teknillisen korkeakoulun laadunvarmistusjärjestelmän auditointi
Vuorio, E., Huttula,T., Kukkonen, J., Kurtakko, K., Malm, K., Mikkola, A., Mäki, M., Rekilä, E.,Yanar, A.,
Kekäläinen, H., Moitus, S. & Mustonen, K.: Helsingin yliopiston laadunvarmistusjärjestelmän auditointi
Aaltonen, E., Anoschkin, E., Jäppinen, M., Kotiranta,T., Wrede, G. H. & Hiltunen, K.: Sosiaalityön ja sosiaalialan koulutuksen nykytila ja kehittämishaasteet – Yliopistojen sosiaalityön ja ammattikorkeakoulujen
sosiaalialan koulutuksen seuranta-arviointi
Leppisaari, I., Ihanainen, P., Nevgi, A.,Taskila, V.-M., Tuominen,T. & Saari, S.: Hyvässä kasvussa – Yhdessä
kehittäen kohti ammattikorkeakoulujen laadukasta verkko-opetusta
Hiltunen, K. & Kekäläinen, H.: Benchmarking korkeakoulujen laadunvarmistusjärjestelmien kehittämisessä
– Laadunvarmistusjärjestelmien benchmarking-hankkeen loppuraportti
Rauhala, P., Liljander, J.-P., Mulari, O. & Moitus, S.: Keski-Pohjanmaan ammattikorkeakoulun laadunvarmistusjärjestelmän uusinta-auditointi
Korkeakoulujen arviointineuvoston toimintasuunnitelma 2008–2009
Hintsanen,V., Höynälänmaa, M., Järvinen, M.-R., Karjalainen, A., Peltokangas, N. & Hiltunen, K.: Vaasan
ammattikorkeakoulun laadunvarmistusjärjestelmän auditointi
Rekilä, E., Heikkilä, J., Kääpä, P., Seppälä, M.,Virtanen,T., Öberg, J., Moitus, S. & Mustonen, K.:Tampereen
yliopiston laadunvarmistusjärjestelmän auditointi
Luoma, M., Daniel, H.D., Kristensen, B., Pirttilä, A.,Vaisto, L.,Wahlén, S., Mustonen, K. & Seppälä, H.: Audit
of the quality assurance system of Helsinki School of Economics
Stenius, M. Ansala, L., Heino, J., Käyhkö, R., Lempa, H., Niemelä, J., Holm, K. & Seppälä, H.:Turun yliopiston
laadunvarmistusjärjestelmän auditointi
Helander, E., Ahola, J., Huttunen, J., Lahtinen, M., Okko, P., Suomalainen, H.,Virtanen, I., Holm, K. &
Mustonen, K.: Lisää yhteistyötä alueiden parhaaksi.Yliopistokeskusten arviointi
Saarela, M., Jaatinen, P., Juntunen, K., Kauppi, A., Otala, L., Taskila, V.-M., Holm, K. & Kajaste, M.:
Ammattikorkeakoulujen koulutuksen laatuyksiköt 2008–2009
Hiltunen, K. (ed.): Centres of Excellence in Finnish University Education 2010–2012
Harmaakorpi,V., Furu, P., Takala, M.,Tenhunen, M.-L.,Westersund, C. & Holm, K.:Turun kauppakorkeakoulun laadunvarmistusjärjestelmän auditointi
Pirttilä, A., Keränen, P., Pirnes, H.,Tiilikka, A.-M.,Virtanen, A. & Seppälä, H.:Tampereen ammattikorkeakoulun laadunvarmistusjärjestelmän auditointi
Malinen, H., Hallikainen, J., Karttunen, P., Majander, M., Pudas, M. & Mustonen, K.: Satakunnan ammattikorkeakoulun laadunvarmistusjärjestelmän auditointi
Suntioinen, S., Myller, E., Nieminen, P., Pohjolainen, S., Wahlgrén, A., Kajaste, M. & Moitus, S.: Lappeenrannan teknillisen yliopiston laadunvarmistusjärjestelmän auditointi
Urponen, H., Kinnunen, J., Levä, K., Nieminen, R., Raij, K., Seppälä, M. & Hiltunen, K.: Jyväskylän yliopiston
laadunvarmistusjärjestelmän auditointi