audit manual for the quality systems of higher education ... · of quality management in higher...
TRANSCRIPT
Audit manual for the quality systemsof higher education institutions��–���
PUBLICATIONSOF THE FINNISHHIGHER EDUCATIONEVALUATION COUNCIL
�:��
ISBN 978-952-206-183-6 (print edition)ISBN 978-952-206-184-3 (pdf)ISSN 1457-3121
Publisher: Finnish Higher Education Evaluation Council
Cover: Juha IlonenLayout: Pikseri Julkaisupalvelut
Tammerprint OyTampere 2011
Foreword
The Finnish Higher Education Evaluation Council (FINHEEC) hasconducted audits of the quality systems of higher education institutions(HEIs) since 2005. The goal of the audits is to support Finnish HEIs indeveloping their quality systems to correspond to the European qualityassurance principles1 and to demonstrate that Finland has competent andsystematic national quality assurance in place for higher education.
Under the Finnish Universities Act and Polytechnics Act, HEIs areresponsible for the quality and continuous development of their educationand other operations. Legislation also requires them to regularly performexternal evaluations of their operations and quality systems and to publishthe results of such evaluations. FINHEEC is an independent expert body thatorganises evaluations of the operations and quality systems of HEIs. It mayalso take assignments from international parties.
Finnish HEIs decide on their own quality systems, and thecomprehensiveness, functioning and effectiveness of the systems are evaluatedin the audits. Thus, the audit approach corresponds to the principle ofenhancement-led evaluation, which has become a strong tradition in theFinnish evaluation practice. According to the audit reports and feedbackreceived from HEIs, the audits have enhanced the systematic development ofquality systems and operating methods. The audits have also led to thecreation of exceptionally comprehensive evaluation material on the Finnishhigher education system, which also enables comparisons in the field.
All Finnish HEIs will be audited, or at least their audits will begin, bythe end of 2011. Since the audits are valid for six years, a second round ofaudits needs to be launched alongside the first round. Though audits havebeen felt to be useful, the model needs to be further developed based on thefeedback from HEIs and other stakeholders, as well as analyses undertaken byFINHEEC.
The second-round audits will also consist of four stages, with the HEIfirst carrying out a self-evaluation and preparing the audit material, a team ofexperts then visiting the institution and the audit results finally beingpublished in a report. Self-evaluation will be given more emphasis in thesecond round, and clearer guidelines will be available for the compilation of
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)
the material. This is expected to help both HEIs and audit teams and increasethe reliability of evaluations. The audit criteria still consist of fourdevelopment stages, and special attention has been paid to the transparencyand intelligibility of the criteria. Audits include an element of pass/fail andthus a possible decision on the need for a re-audit.
In their feedback, HEIs have expressed the wish that second-round auditswould go deeper into the operations of HEIs than the first audits and thataudits be more closely linked to the strategic goals of individual institutions.Compared to the European quality assurance principles, the Finnish auditmodel has encompassed nearly all higher education activities. HEIs have alsoexpressed their wish to have a quality label that they could use ininternational cooperation.
Based on all this, the second-round audit procedure will focus moreclosely on the quality management of degree education. Samples of degreeeducation will consist of degree programmes, some of which are selected bythe institutions themselves, while one is selected by the audit team.Institutions that pass their audit will receive a quality label that is valid for sixyears. We hope this new method will be a step forward in the developmentof quality management in higher education and HEIs.
This audit manual will be valid until the end of 2017, unless otherwisedecided by FINHEEC.
Professor Riitta PyykköChair of the Finnish Higher Education Evaluation Council, FINHEEC
Rector Pentti RauhalaVice-Chair of the Finnish Higher Education Evaluation Council, FINHEECChair of the planning group for the second-round audits
Contents
����� Background and objectives of auditBackground and objectives of auditBackground and objectives of auditBackground and objectives of auditBackground and objectives of audit __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ �����
����� Focus and consequences of auditFocus and consequences of auditFocus and consequences of auditFocus and consequences of auditFocus and consequences of audit _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ �����
��� Audit targets and criteria____________________________________________ �
����� Targets ______________________________________________________ �
����� Criteria ______________________________________________________ ��
��� Results and consequences of audit ___________________________________ ��
����� Threshold for passing __________________________________________ ��
����� Decision�making ______________________________________________ ��
���� Quality label _________________________________________________ ��
Audit stagesAudit stagesAudit stagesAudit stagesAudit stages ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ �����
�� Agreement negotiation _____________________________________________ �
�� Audit team ________________________________________________________ �
���� Team composition and selection criteria _________________________ �
���� Tasks of the team _____________________________________________ ��
��� Auditor training ______________________________________________ ��
��� Auditors’ operating principles and ethical guidelines _______________ ��
���� Remuneration ________________________________________________ ��
� Audit material _____________________________________________________ ��
��� Basic material ________________________________________________ ��
��� Self�evaluation report _________________________________________ ��
�� Submission of material ________________________________________ �
� Briefing and discussion event ________________________________________ �
�� Audit visit _________________________________________________________ �
�� Report and notification of results ____________________________________ ��
�� Concluding seminar ________________________________________________ ��
� Feedback to FINHEEC ______________________________________________ ��
�� Follow�up _________________________________________________________ ��
Re�auditRe�auditRe�auditRe�auditRe�audit __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ����������
�� Focus and criteria of re�audit ________________________________________ ��
�� Re�audit stages ____________________________________________________ ��
���� Negotiation __________________________________________________ ��
���� Audit agreement ______________________________________________ ��
��� Audit material ________________________________________________ ��
��� Audit team ___________________________________________________ �
���� Auditor training ______________________________________________ �
���� Audit visit ____________________________________________________ �
���� Report and notification of results _______________________________ �
� Consequences of re�audit ___________________________________________ �
AppendicesAppendicesAppendicesAppendicesAppendices
�: Audit criteria ______________________________________________________ ��
�: Audit stages and time frame _________________________________________ �
: Guidelines for the self�evaluation report ______________________________
: Audit concepts _____________________________________________________ �
�
� Background and objectives
of audit
As set out in the relevant Decree, the mission of the Finnish HigherEducation Evaluation Council (FINHEEC) is to assist Finnish universitiesand universities of applied sciences as well as the Ministry of Education andCulture in matters relating to the evaluation of higher education institutions(HEIs). FINHEEC supports HEIs and their international competitivenessthrough evaluations, and by supporting quality work and disseminating goodpractice. The Evaluation Council consists of twelve members representinguniversities, universities of applied sciences, students and working life.Decisions made by the Evaluation Council are prepared and implementedby Secretariat, led by Secretary General.
The new Universities Act (558/2009) and Polytechnics Act (564/2009)contain similar binding obligations concerning the participation of HEIs inexternal evaluations of their operations and quality systems, as well as in thepublication of evaluation results. HEIs also have other means of fulfilling theirstatutory obligation than by participating in audits conducted by FINHEEC.Legislation concerning FINHEEC also enables it to operate outside nationalborders. Audits are carried out in Finnish, Swedish and English.
The quality of education continues to be a core question in the creationof a competitive, common European Higher Education Area. Educationthat crosses national borders, mobility, competition as well as thecommercialisation and internationalisation of education are reasons why acountry’s trust in the level and quality of its own national higher education isno longer sufficient in itself. The challenge is to demonstrate quality in anunderstandable and reliable way, to the outside world as well.
On 13 November 2010, FINHEEC was accepted as a member of theEuropean Quality Assurance Register for Higher Education (EQAR). TheRegister’s main task is to increase mutual trust between European evaluationorganisations and HEIs. The Register provides information about evaluationorganisations that fulfil European quality requirements for external evaluationsof HEIs. The principles of the evaluation of HEIs are described in thepublication entitled Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the
European Higher Education Area1 (also known as ESG), which formed thebasis for the evaluation of FINHEEC in 2010. Based on the evaluation,FINHEEC renewed its full membership in the European Association forQuality Assurance in Higher Education (ENQA).
FINHEEC’s audit model, which fulfils European quality requirements, isbased on an institutional review. One of the model’s basic principles is theautonomy of HEIs, according to which each institution develops its qualitysystem based on its own needs and goals. The audit focuses on the proceduresthat the institution uses to maintain and develop the quality of its operations.
Audits are based on the principle of enhancement-led evaluation,which has become a powerful tradition within FINHEEC. The goal ofenhancement-led evaluation is to help HEIs identify the strengths, goodpractices and areas in need of development in their own operations.The purpose is, thus, to help HEIs achieve their strategic objectives andsteer future development activities in order to create a framework forthe institutions’ continuous development. The autonomy and strategicdevelopment of HEIs are also supported by the institutions’ possibility toselect some of the targets of the evaluation in the new audit model.
As concerns the general evaluation of the quality system, audit focuseson quality management procedures and their effectiveness. Part 1 of the ESGis used to review also the impact that quality management procedures haveon the results of the operations in connection with the degree programmes,which have been chosen as samples of degree education. However, the resultsare compared to the targets set by the HEI itself in order to pay moreattention to the effectiveness of quality management.
1 Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area isavailable at http://www.enqa.eu/pubs_esg.lasso.
�
� Focus and consequences
of audit
��� Audit targets and criteria
����� Targets
Audits focus on the quality system that HEIs develop for themselves basedon their own needs and goals. Audits evaluate whether the system meets thenational criteria defined in Appendix 1 and whether it corresponds to theEuropean quality assurance principles and recommendations for HEIs. Toevaluate the quality system, the audit focuses on:
1. The quality policy of the higher education institution2. Strategic and operations management3. Development of the quality system4. Quality management of the higher education institution’s basic duties:
a) Degree education (including first-, second- and third-cycleeducation)1
b) Research, development and innovation activities, as well as artisticactivities
c) The societal impact and regional development work (incl. socialresponsibility, continuing education, open university and openuniversity of applied sciences education, as well as paid-serviceseducation)
d) Optional audit target5. Samples of degree education: degree programmes6. The quality system as a whole.
The audit evaluates how well the quality system meets strategic andoperations management needs, as well as the quality management of the HEI’sbasic duties and the extent to which it is comprehensive and effective. Inaddition, the audit focuses on the institution’s quality policy and thedevelopment of the quality system, as well as on how effective and dynamican entity the system forms.
1 First-cycle degrees include bachelor’s degrees and university of applied sciences degrees, whilesecond-cycle degrees include master’s degrees and university of applied sciences master’sdegrees. Third-cycle degrees include postgraduate licentiate and doctoral degrees.
��
Optional audit target
As an optional audit target 4 d, an HEI chooses a function that is central toits strategy or profile and which the institution wants to develop in terms ofits quality management. The function may also be an overarching feature ofthe institution’s basic duties (such as internationalisation, sustainabledevelopment, the status and well-being of the staff and students, lifelonglearning). The choice must be justified in connection with the auditagreement. The optional audit target is not taken into account whenevaluating whether the audit will pass, but it is mentioned in the auditcertificate related to the quality label.
Samples of degree education
Audit target 4 a reviews the quality management of degree education at ageneral level. In turn, audit target 5 takes a more detailed look at primarilythree degree programmes chosen as samples of degree education. HEIschoose two of these themselves. Universities of applied sciences choose oneprogramme leading to a bachelor’s degree and one programme leading to auniversity of applied sciences master’s degree. Universities choose one moduleleading to a degree that includes both bachelor’s and master’s education, aswell as one programme leading to a doctoral degree. The HEI must explainthe reasons for its selections and evaluate how representative the qualitymanagement of the selected programmes is in relation to other degreeeducation.
Based on the basic audit material supplied by the HEI, the audit teamchooses a third degree programme for evaluation at the latest four weeksprior to the audit visit. Programmes used as samples are evaluated asindependent audit targets, but they also complement the evaluation of thequality management of education by providing detailed information at thelevel of degree programmes.
����� Criteria
Audits employ a set of criteria that is based on a scale of four developmentstages of quality management (see Appendix 1): absent, emerging, developingand advanced, which are specified for each audit target. The developmentphase of each audit target is determined individually, including sub-targets4 a–d. Likewise, the development stage of the quality management of eachsample of degree education is also determined individually.
��
��� Results and consequences of audit
����� Threshold for passing
The audit team presents FINHEEC with its appraisal of whether the HEIshould pass the audit or whether a re-audit needs to be conducted. The reportcontains the team’s evaluation of the development stage of each audit target.The audit team can propose that the institution passes the audit if none ofthe targets is ‘absent’ and if the quality system as a whole (audit target 6) is atleast ‘developing’.
The evaluation of the quality system as a whole focuses on whetherquality management procedures form a comprehensive and functioningsystem and whether the quality culture supports the development of theoperations. The features of ‘developing’ and ‘advanced’ systems arecharacterised below.
The quality system of an HEI is at a developing stage if it displays thefollowing features:■ The quality management procedures constitute a functioning system.■ The system covers the essential parts of the basic duties of the HEI and
provides meaningful support for developing the operations.■ There is evidence that the system has an impact on the development of
the operations.■ The development of the operations is based on an existing quality
culture.
The quality system of an HEI is at an advanced stage if it displays thefollowing features:■ The quality management procedures form a dynamic and
comprehensive system.■ The quality system covers all of the basic duties of the HEI and provides
excellent support for the institution’s overall strategy and thedevelopment of the entire institution’s operations.
■ There is clear and continuous evidence that the system has an impact onthe development of the operations.
■ The well-established quality culture provides excellent support fordeveloping the operations.
��
����� Decision�making
The Evaluation Council decides on the audit results on the basis of a proposalby the Secretary General. The Council and the Secretary General areresponsible for ensuring that audit decisions are impartial and of equal quality.The Council has access to the audit team’s report when making the decision.In addition, the chair or vice-chair of the audit team gives an oralpresentation of the audit’s key results at the decision-making meeting andanswers the Council’s questions on the issues presented in the report. Basedon the audit report, the Council may also make a different decision from theone proposed by the audit team or the Secretary General.
When preparing and making decisions, FINHEEC complies with theprovisions of the Administrative Procedure Act concerning thedisqualification of Council members and the Secretary General, which, inturn, supports the credibility and objectivity of the decisions.
���� Quality label
HEIs that pass the audit receive a quality label and are added to the registerof audited institutions maintained on FINHEEC’s website. The quality labelis valid for six years from the Evaluation Council’s meeting at which the auditdecision was made. The audit certificate related to the quality label explainswhether the audit was carried out by a Finnish or an international audit team,provides a summary of the key findings and describes the optional audittarget.
If the HEI is required to undergo a re-audit, the targets that are inessential need of development and which will be subject to the re-audit arerecorded in the Evaluation Council’s decision. The re-audit is conducted twoto three years after the decision on the initial audit. The re-audit proceduresare described in Chapter 4 of this manual.
�
Audit stages
The audit process consists of the following stages:1. The HEI’s registration for an audit2. Agreement negotiation3. Appointment of the audit team4. Compilation of audit material by the HEI5. Auditor training6. Briefing and discussion event7. Audit team’s visit to the HEI8. Audit team’s recommendation regarding the audit result9. The Evaluation Council’s decision on the result10. Publication of the report11. Concluding seminar12. Feedback to FINHEEC13. Follow-up seminar.
The stages and time frame of the audits are described in a diagram inAppendix 2.
�� Agreement negotiation
FINHEEC signs an agreement on the audit with the HEI. The followingissues are recorded in the agreement:■ Audit targets (incl. the optional target)■ Audit procedure and time frame■ The national or international composition of the audit team and the
language to be used to carry out the audit (Finnish, Swedish or English)■ Duration of the audit visit (3–5 days)■ Price of the audit■ Commitment to a potential re-audit.
�
�� Audit team
���� Team composition and selection criteria
HEIs may choose either a Finnish or an international team to carry out theaudit. An international audit team always includes Finnish members, who arewell acquainted with the domestic higher education system. The role andnumber of international auditors can be agreed upon on a case-by-case basis.
FINHEEC appoints the audit team and its chair. An audit team usuallyconsists of five to seven members, selected so that they represent the twohigher education sectors, students, as well as working life outside the highereducation sector. The team members must also have experience in theactivities of different personnel groups, as well as in the basic duties andmanagement of HEIs. The goal is to include a few individuals with priorexperience as auditors in the team. An individual with special experience inthe optional audit target is also appointed to the team, if required.
The members of the audit team are on an equal footing as evaluators.The audit team selects a vice-chair among its members. The team membersare expected to participate in the training arranged by FINHEEC. A projectmanager from the FINHEEC Secretariat in charge of the audit takes part inthe team’s discussions and works as the team’s secretary.
The criteria used in the selection of auditors include:■ Good knowledge of the higher education system■ Experience in evaluation or audits■ Knowledge of quality systems.
Moreover, the chair of the audit team is expected to have:■ Prior experience in the evaluation of HEIs and their operations■ A comprehensive and deep understanding of the higher education
system■ Knowledge or experience of higher education management.
A person is disqualified from acting as a member of the audit team if he orshe is an interested party or if confidence in his or her impartiality in relationto the HEI subject to the audit comes under question. Disqualification isdetermined in compliance with the provisions of the AdministrativeProcedure Act (434/2003, Chapter 5, sections 27–29). According to goodadministrative procedure, a disqualified person may not in any way participatein the processing or evaluation of a matter. Such situations may arise, forexample, if the person is employed by the HEI subject to the audit or hasacted in a position of trust in the institution’s decision-making body. Auditors
��
must also take it upon themselves to inform FINHEEC about any aspectsthat may have a bearing on their disqualification.
Prior to the appointment of the audit team, the HEI is given theopportunity to comment on the team’s composition, especially from theperspective of disqualification.
FINHEEC and the auditors sign an agreement that specifies the audit-related tasks, fees and any other conditions related to the assignment.
���� Tasks of the team
Members of the audit team:■ examine the HEI’s audit material■ decide on how to carry out the audit visit and which groups/individuals
to interview■ determine any additional material that may need to be requested from
the institution■ draw up interview questions for the audit visit■ conduct the audit visit as planned■ draw up the audit report■ present FINHEEC with its appraisal of whether the HEI should pass
the audit or whether a re-audit needs to be conducted.
In addition to these tasks, the chair of the audit team has a special role, whichinvolves:■ chairing the audit team’s meetings and audit visits, unless otherwise
agreed■ participating with the project manager in the briefing and discussion
event arranged at the HEI prior to the audit visit■ taking responsibility for the audit task as a whole and editing the audit
report jointly with the project manager■ presenting the audit results at FINHEEC’s meeting and at the
concluding seminar at the HEI■ participating in the communication of the results.
The project manager’s tasks include:■ organising the training event for auditors and acting as an instructor■ supporting the audit team’s activities by taking part in the team’s
discussions as an expert in audits, and instructing the team as concernsthe audit criteria and FINHEEC’s uniform decision policy
■ preparing the audit team’s meetings and acting as secretary at themeetings
��
■ being the point of contact between the HEI and the audit team■ organising the audit visit in cooperation with the institution■ editing the audit report■ taking charge of printing the report and communication.
��� Auditor training
Auditors are required to participate in the training arranged by FINHEEC.Among other things, auditors learn about the operations of FINHEEC, theobjectives and procedure of the audit, as well as the tasks and operatingprinciples of the audit team. In addition to this, international auditors arefamiliarised with the Finnish higher education system. The training lasts forone working day. If required, the project manager arranges personal trainingfor the audit team’s chair focusing on his or her special tasks.
��� Auditors’ operating principles and ethical guidelines
The audit team must comply with the following operating principles andethical guidelines in its work:■ Impartiality and objectivity: Auditors must take an impartial and
objective approach towards the HEI subject to the audit, as well asrecognise their position of power and the responsibility relating to it.
■ Transparent and evidence-based evaluation: The audit must be based ontransparent and systematically applied criteria, as well as on materialcollected in connection with the audit.
■ Confidentiality: All of the information acquired during the process,except for that published in the final report, is confidential.
■ Interaction: The audit is carried out through good cooperation andinteraction with the HEI.
���� Remuneration
The auditors’ fees are determined in accordance with the principles adoptedby FINHEEC.
��
� Audit material
The HEI compiles material for the audit, the goal being to provide the auditteam with a sufficient knowledge base and evidence for the evaluation of thequality system. The material consists of basic material and a self-evaluationreport drawn up by the institution. The material is prepared in the languageof the audit, as agreed in the audit agreement.
��� Basic material
■ An organisation chart and a concise description of the HEI’sorganisation, as well as the number of students and staff (max. threepages)
■ Overall strategy of the HEI and a description of the strategy process, aswell as a summary of the key strategic choices in terms of theinstitution’s future
■ A diagram and concise description of the quality system (max. twopages)
■ The HEI’s institution-level quality manual or other correspondingdocument describing the development of the operations
■ For the chosen degree programmes, the total student intake, number ofdegrees completed, average time of degree completion, statistics oninternational degree students and exchange students (exchange periodsof more than three months) to the degree of accuracy as agreed in theaudit agreement; for programmes chosen as samples, the curriculum aswell (incl. intended learning outcomes).
��� Self�evaluation report
The HEI draws up a self-evaluation report on the functioning of its qualitysystem in line with the guidelines provided in Appendix 3. The institutionchooses how to carry out its self-evaluation and write the report.
In its report, the institution is expected to carry out as reflective a self-evaluation as possible, identify areas in need of development and provide aconcrete description of its practical measures related to the quality work. Thereport must focus on evaluation rather than description. Identifying theinstitution’s own strengths, and especially the ability to determine areas inneed of development, are proof of a functioning quality system and anestablished quality culture. The HEI should be prepared to present evidenceof the issues brought up in the self-evaluation report during the audit visit.
�
�� Submission of material
The HEI must supply the basic material and self-evaluation report toFINHEEC in paper format (ten copies) and as electronic documents at thelatest twelve weeks prior to the audit visit. The self-evaluation report drawnup on the third sample of degree education, which is selected by the auditteam, must be submitted to FINHEEC at the latest one week prior to theaudit visit.
In addition to the materials mentioned above, the audit team is allowedto request the HEI to provide other materials deemed necessary prior to orduring the audit visit.
The institution is also requested to give members of the audit team theopportunity to access electronic materials that are key to quality managementand which may provide additional information to the team.
� Briefing and discussion event
Around four weeks prior to the audit visit, the chair of the audit team andFINHEEC’s project manager visit the HEI to be audited. The purpose of thevisit is to arrange an open event for the institution’s staff and students atwhich the objectives and implementation of the audit can be discussed.
�� Audit visit
The purpose of the audit visit is to verify and supplement the observationsmade of the HEI’s quality system based on the audit material. The goal is tomake the visit an interactive event that supports the development of theinstitution’s operations. In addition to conducting interviews during the visit,the audit team examines any other material it may have requested from theinstitution.
The visit lasts from three to five days. During the first day, the teaminterviews representatives of the institution’s management, teaching and otherstaff groups, students and external stakeholders. At this stage, the focus is onthe quality system as a whole. During the other days, the evaluation focusesin particular on the quality management of degree programmes and theoptional audit target in the institution’s various units. The audit team mayalso conduct evaluation visits to individual faculties, departments or units toverify the practical functioning of quality management.
The audit team selects the targets for visits mainly on the basis of theaudit material. The selection of one of the targets may be postponed until
��
the actual visit. The selection must be announced at the latest on the daypreceding the interview. The audit team may also arrange joint discussionsfor various actors within the institution concerning key topics in termsof quality management. The visit concludes with a meeting with themanagement, where the audit team has the opportunity to ask more specificquestions about the institution’s quality system. At the end of the meeting,the audit team gives the institution preliminary feedback on the functioningof its quality system based on the observations made during the visit.
�� Report and notification of results
The audit team draws up a report based on the material accumulated duringthe evaluation and on the analysis of that material. In accordance with theprinciple of continuous enhancement, the report points out the strengths andgood practices of the HEI’s quality system, in addition to giving theinstitution recommendations for further development. The reports follow astandardised structure:■ Description of the audit process■ Concise description of the HEI subject to the audit and its quality
system■ Results by audit target■ Strengths, good practices and recommendations for further development■ The audit team’s appraisal of whether the institution should pass the
audit or whether a re-audit is needed; in the latter case, the team lists inits report what it considers to be the essential shortcomings of thequality system.The Evaluation Council’s decision on whether the institution passes the
audit or must be subject to a re-audit is recorded at the end of the report. Ifthe HEI is required to undergo a re-audit, the targets that are in essentialneed of development and will be subject to the re-audit are recorded in thereport.
The report is published in FINHEEC’s publication series in both paperand electronic format in the language specified in the audit agreement. Thelength of the report is approximately 50 pages.
The audit result is communicated to the HEI immediately afterthe Evaluation Council’s decision-making meeting. The report and aninformation bulletin are published on FINHEEC’s website within threeworking days of the decision.
��
�� Concluding seminar
FINHEEC and the HEI that was subject to the audit arrange a joint seminar,usually within one month of the audit decision. The seminar gives theinstitution’s staff and students the opportunity to openly discuss the auditresults and conclusions with representatives of FINHEEC and the audit team.
� Feedback to FINHEEC
FINHEEC collects feedback from all of the audited HEIs and the auditors inorder to develop its activities.
�� Follow�up
FINHEEC organises national follow-up seminars to support the developmentof quality systems in HEIs. One of the key goals of the seminars is to givefeedback on post-audit development work to HEIs whose audits have beenperformed around three years earlier. Another goal is to offer institutions theopportunity to discuss the development of quality systems and exchangeexperiences and good practices related to quality work. HEIs prepare a shortreport on their post-audit development work for the seminar.
��
Re�audit
�� Focus and criteria of re�audit
If the Evaluation Council requires an HEI to undergo a re-audit of its qualitysystem, the targets that are in essential need of development and will besubject to the re-audit are recorded in the Council’s decision. In the re-audit,the institution is expected to present evidence showing that it has improvedits quality system so that the audit targets evaluated in the re-audit as a wholehave progressed to at least the level of ‘developing’.
Re-audits use the same criteria as the actual audits (see Appendix 1). Re-audits apply the same principles and ethical guidelines in the appointment ofthe audit team, as well as in its operations and decision-making as in theactual audits.
�� Re�audit stages
The re-audit process consists of the following stages:1. Negotiation between the HEI and FINHEEC2. Drawing up of the audit agreement3. Appointment of the audit team4. Compilation of audit material by the HEI5. Auditor training6. Audit team’s visit to the HEI7. Audit team’s recommendation regarding the re-audit result8. The Evaluation Council’s decision on the result9. Publication of the report10. Concluding seminar11. Feedback to FINHEEC.
��
���� Negotiation
The HEI draws up a plan for developing its quality system, the aim being tosatisfy the development needs listed in the Evaluation Council’s decision. Theplan serves as background material for the re-audit negotiation that theinstitution and FINHEEC conduct usually within six months of theconclusion of the initial audit. Participants at the negotiations includerepresentatives selected by the HEI, representatives of the original audit team,as well as representatives of FINHEEC.
The negotiation result in an agreement on the overall time frame andmaterials for the re-audit.
���� Audit agreement
A re-audit agreement containing the following issues is concluded:■ Re-audit targets in compliance with the Evaluation Council’s decision■ Re-audit time frame■ The national or international composition of the audit team and the
language to be used to carry out the audit (Finnish, Swedish or English)■ Duration of the audit visit (usually two days)■ Price of the re-audit■ Consequences if the HEI does not pass the re-audit.
��� Audit material
The HEI draws up a written report, which starts with a short summary ofthe general improvements to the quality system carried out after the initialaudit. This is followed by a description and evaluation of the developmentwork and its results of the agreed re-audit targets. The HEI must present asrobust evidence as possible of the improvement in the quality system and ofcurrent quality procedures. The quality system development plan presentedto FINHEEC is also appended to the report. HEIs should be prepared topresent evidence of the issues brought up in the report during the visit.
The HEI must supply the material to FINHEEC in paper format (sixcopies) and as electronic documents at the latest eight weeks prior to theaudit visit.
In addition to the materials mentioned above, the audit team is allowedto request that the HEI provide other materials deemed necessary prior to orduring the audit visit. The institution is also requested to give members ofthe audit team the opportunity to access electronic materials that are key toquality management and which may provide additional information to theteam.
�
��� Audit team
FINHEEC appoints an audit team with three to four members for the re-audit. The national or international composition of the audit team and thelanguage of the re-audit is specified in compliance with the procedure usedfor the institution’s initial audit. One of the members of the initial audit teamis appointed as the chair of the re-audit team. The team’s compositiondepends on the areas of the quality system that received special attention inthe re-audit decision.
The audit team may not merely comprise auditors from the initial audit,but should mainly comprise people who have participated as auditors inFINHEEC’s previous audits. A project manager from the FINHEECSecretariat in charge of the re-audit takes part in the team’s discussions as anexpert and works as the team’s secretary.
Prior to the appointment of the team, the HEI is given the opportunityto comment on the team’s composition, especially from the perspective ofdisqualification.
FINHEEC and the auditors sign an agreement that specifies the tasks,remuneration and any other conditions related to the audit assignment.
���� Auditor training
FINHEEC organises a training event for auditors to review the tasks andoperating principles of auditors, as well as to focus on the HEI subject to there-audit, the report drawn up by the HEI and the practical implementationof the re-audit.
���� Audit visit
The purpose of the re-audit visit is to verify and supplement the observationsmade of the development of the quality system based on the re-audit material.The visit normally lasts for two days, but may take longer depending on thesize of the institution and on the targets of the re-audit. The visit includesinterviews with people from different organisational levels, students andexternal stakeholders. Decisions on the practical implementation of the visitare made jointly with the institution.
���� Report and notification of results
The audit team draws up a report based on the material accumulated duringthe evaluation and on the analysis of that material. The report presents theresults of the re-audit by audit target. To conclude its report, the audit team
�
presents an overall evaluation and an appraisal of whether the HEI shouldpass the re-audit. The Evaluation Council’s decision on the re-audit result isrecorded at the end of the report.
The audit report is published online in FINHEEC’s publication series inthe language specified in the re-audit agreement. It can also be published as aprint version, if the HEI pays for the printing expenses.
The audit result is communicated to the HEI immediately after theEvaluation Council’s decision-making meeting. The report and aninformation bulletin are published on FINHEEC’s website within threeworking days of the decision.
A concluding seminar may be jointly arranged by FINHEEC and theinstitution, if the institution wishes.
� Consequences of re�audit
HEIs that pass the re-audit receive a quality label and are added to the registerof audited institutions maintained on FINHEEC’s website. The quality labelis valid for six years from the Evaluation Council’s meeting at which the re-audit decision was made. The audit certificate related to the quality labelexplains whether the audit was carried out by a Finnish or international auditteam and provides a summary of the key findings of the re-audit.
Should the Evaluation Council decide that the HEI has failed the re-audit, decisions about the following audit will be made together with the HEIon a case-by-case basis.
��
Appendices
�: Audit criteria
�: Audit stages and time frame
: Guidelines for the self�evaluation report
: Audit concepts
��A
PP
EN
DIX
�:
Au
dit
cri
teri
a
TA
RG
ET
ST
AR
GE
TS
TA
RG
ET
ST
AR
GE
TS
TA
RG
ET
SC
RIT
ER
IAC
RIT
ER
IAC
RIT
ER
IAC
RIT
ER
IAC
RIT
ER
IA
AB
SEN
TA
BSE
NT
AB
SEN
TA
BSE
NT
AB
SEN
TE
ME
RG
ING
EM
ER
GIN
GE
ME
RG
ING
EM
ER
GIN
GE
ME
RG
ING
DE
VE
LO
PIN
GD
EV
EL
OP
ING
DE
VE
LO
PIN
GD
EV
EL
OP
ING
DE
VE
LO
PIN
GA
DV
AN
CE
DA
DV
AN
CE
DA
DV
AN
CE
DA
DV
AN
CE
DA
DV
AN
CE
D
The
qual
ity s
yste
m s
how
s a
com
plet
eab
senc
e of
or m
ajor
sho
rtcom
ings
in th
e:■
defin
ition
of t
he s
yste
m’s
obje
ctive
s an
d re
spon
sibilit
ies
■kn
owle
dge
and
com
mitm
ent o
fth
ose
resp
onsib
le■
docu
men
tatio
n of
the
syst
em a
ndth
e in
form
atio
n it
prod
uces
or
■su
itabl
e co
mm
unica
tion.
The
qual
ity s
yste
m s
how
s a
com
plet
eab
senc
e of
or m
ajor
sho
rtcom
ings
in th
e:■
links
to s
trate
gic
plan
ning
,m
anag
emen
t and
ope
ratio
nsm
anag
emen
t■
abilit
y to
mee
t the
nee
ds o
f stra
tegi
can
d op
erat
ions
man
agem
ent o
r■
com
mitm
ent t
o qu
ality
wor
k of
man
ager
s in
volve
d in
ope
ratio
nsm
anag
emen
t.
The
qual
ity s
yste
m’s
obje
ctive
s an
dre
spon
sibilit
ies
have
not
bee
n cle
arly
defin
ed. T
he d
ivisio
n of
resp
onsib
ility
wor
ks o
nly
parti
ally,
and
thos
ere
spon
sible
for t
he o
pera
tions
exh
ibit
wid
ely
diffe
ring
skill
leve
ls an
dco
mm
itmen
t to
thei
r dut
ies.
The
qual
ity s
yste
m a
nd th
e in
form
atio
nit
prod
uces
are
inad
equa
tely
docu
men
ted.
The
info
rmat
ion
need
s of
the
HEI’s
per
sonn
el g
roup
s, st
uden
tsor
ext
erna
l sta
keho
lder
s ar
e no
tad
equa
tely
addr
esse
d in
the
docu
men
tatio
n. In
form
atio
n pr
oduc
edby
the
syst
em is
not
sys
tem
atica
llyco
mm
unica
ted
with
in th
e in
stitu
tion
orto
ext
erna
l sta
keho
lder
s.
The
qual
ity s
yste
m is
not
suf
ficie
ntly
wel
l lin
ked
to th
e HE
I’s s
trate
gic
plan
ning
, man
agem
ent a
nd o
pera
tions
man
agem
ent.
The
syst
em a
nd th
ein
form
atio
n it
prod
uces
do
not s
erve
the
need
s of
stra
tegi
c an
d op
erat
ions
man
agem
ent i
n an
app
ropr
iate
man
ner.
The
syst
em d
oes
not s
erve
as
am
eani
ngfu
l man
agem
ent t
ool a
t all
orga
nisa
tiona
l lev
els,
and
man
ager
sin
volve
d in
ope
ratio
ns m
anag
emen
tsh
ow a
lack
of c
omm
itmen
t to
join
tqu
ality
wor
k.
The
qual
ity s
yste
m’s
obje
ctive
s an
dre
spon
sibilit
ies
are
clear
ly de
fined
. The
goal
-set
ting
proc
ess
is an
inclu
sive
one.
The
divis
ion
of re
spon
sibilit
y fu
nctio
nsw
ell. T
he k
ey p
eopl
e re
spon
sible
for
the
oper
atio
ns a
re c
omm
itted
to th
eir
dutie
s an
d ha
ve s
uffic
ient
ski
lls to
unde
rtake
them
.
The
qual
ity s
yste
m a
nd th
e in
form
atio
nit
prod
uces
is d
ocum
ente
d in
a c
lear
and
appr
opria
te m
anne
r. Fo
r the
mos
tpa
rt, th
e in
form
atio
n ne
eds
of th
e HE
I’spe
rson
nel g
roup
s, s
tude
nts
and
exte
rnal
stak
ehol
ders
are
take
n in
to a
ccou
ntin
the
docu
men
tatio
n. T
he in
form
atio
npr
oduc
ed b
y th
e sy
stem
is d
ocum
ente
din
a s
yste
mat
ic an
d ta
rget
ed m
anne
rw
ithin
the
inst
itutio
n an
d to
ext
erna
lst
akeh
olde
rs.
The
qual
ity s
yste
m is
qui
te w
ell l
inke
dto
the
HEI’s
stra
tegi
c pl
anni
ng,
man
agem
ent a
nd o
pera
tions
man
agem
ent.
The
syst
em a
nd th
ein
form
atio
n it
prod
uces
ser
ve s
trate
gic
and
oper
atio
ns m
anag
emen
t, an
d th
ere
is ev
iden
ce th
at th
e in
form
atio
n is
put
to u
se.
In te
rms
of m
anag
emen
t, th
e sy
stem
wor
ks a
t diff
eren
t org
anisa
tiona
l lev
els,
and
the
man
ager
s in
volve
d in
oper
atio
ns m
anag
emen
t are
com
mitt
edto
join
t qua
lity
wor
k.
The
obje
ctive
s of
the
qual
ity s
yste
m a
rede
fined
in a
ver
y cle
ar a
nd in
clusiv
em
anne
r. The
obj
ectiv
es a
nd d
ivisio
nof
resp
onsib
ility
prov
ide
exce
llent
supp
ort f
or th
e de
velo
pmen
t of t
hein
stitu
tion’
s op
erat
ions
. The
re is
cle
aran
d co
ntin
uous
evid
ence
of t
he s
kill
leve
l and
com
mitm
ent o
f tho
sere
spon
sible
for t
he o
pera
tions
.
The
HEI h
as s
yste
mat
ic an
d w
ell-
esta
blish
ed p
roce
dure
s fo
r doc
umen
ting
the
qual
ity s
yste
m a
nd th
e in
form
atio
nit
prod
uces
so
that
the
docu
men
tatio
nsa
tisfie
s th
e in
form
atio
n ne
eds
ofva
rious
par
ties.
The
inst
itutio
n ha
sex
celle
nt a
nd w
ell-e
stab
lishe
dpr
oced
ures
for c
omm
unica
ting
info
rmat
ion
to d
iffer
ent p
erso
nnel
grou
ps, s
tude
nts
and
exte
rnal
stak
ehol
ders
. Com
mun
icatio
n is
activ
ean
d up
-to-d
ate.
Qual
ity m
anag
emen
t is
a na
tura
lpa
rt of
the
HEI’s
stra
tegi
c pl
anni
ng,
man
agem
ent a
nd o
pera
tions
man
agem
ent.
The
inst
itutio
n ha
ssy
stem
atic,
wel
l-est
ablis
hed
and
exce
llent
pro
cedu
res
that
pro
duce
info
rmat
ion
for s
trate
gic
and
oper
atio
nsm
anag
emen
t nee
ds, a
nd th
ere
iscle
ar a
nd c
ontin
uous
evid
ence
that
info
rmat
ion
is pu
t to
syst
emat
ic an
dw
ide
use.
1. T
he q
ualit
y po
licy
of th
ehi
gher
edu
catio
n in
stitu
tion
2. S
trat
egic
and
ope
ratio
nsm
anag
emen
t
��
The
HEI s
how
s a
com
plet
e ab
senc
e of
or m
ajor
sho
rtcom
ings
in th
e:■
proc
edur
es fo
r eva
luat
ing
orde
velo
ping
the
qual
ity s
yste
m o
r■
over
all v
iew
of t
he fu
nctio
ning
of
the
qual
ity s
yste
m.
The
HEI s
how
s a
com
plet
e ab
senc
e of
or m
ajor
sho
rtcom
ings
in:
■th
e de
velo
pmen
t wor
k fo
llow
ing
the
first
aud
it.
The
HEI h
as in
adeq
uate
pro
cedu
res
for
eval
uatin
g an
d de
velo
ping
the
qual
itysy
stem
. It h
as a
wea
k ov
eral
l vie
w o
fth
e fu
nctio
ning
of t
he q
ualit
y sy
stem
.Sy
stem
dev
elop
men
t is
not s
yste
mat
ic.
The
deve
lopm
ent o
f the
qua
lity
syst
emaf
ter t
he fi
rst a
udit
has
not b
een
syst
emat
ic or
effe
ctive
.
The
HEI h
as w
ell f
unct
ioni
ng p
roce
dure
sfo
r eva
luat
ing
and
deve
lopi
ng th
equ
ality
sys
tem
. It i
s ab
le to
iden
tify
the
syst
em’s
stre
ngth
s an
d ar
eas
inne
ed o
f dev
elop
men
t, an
d sy
stem
deve
lopm
ent i
s sy
stem
atic.
The
deve
lopm
ent o
f the
qua
lity
syst
emaf
ter t
he fi
rst a
udit
has
been
sys
tem
atic.
The
syst
em w
orks
bet
ter t
han
befo
re.
In te
rms
of m
anag
emen
t, th
e qu
ality
syst
em w
orks
in a
n ex
celle
nt m
anne
rat
all
orga
nisa
tiona
l lev
els,
and
ther
eis
clear
and
con
tinuo
us e
viden
ce th
atm
anag
ers
invo
lved
in o
pera
tions
man
agem
ent a
re c
omm
itted
to jo
int
qual
ity w
ork.
The
HEI h
as w
ell-e
stab
lishe
d an
dsy
stem
atic
proc
edur
es fo
r eva
luat
ing
and
deve
lopi
ng th
e sy
stem
. It i
s ab
leto
effi
cient
ly id
entif
y th
e sy
stem
’sst
reng
ths
and
area
s in
nee
d of
deve
lopm
ent,
as w
ell a
s to
eva
luat
eth
e ef
fect
ivene
ss o
f the
sys
tem
. The
reis
clear
and
con
tinuo
us e
viden
ce o
fth
e sy
stem
’s su
cces
sful
dev
elop
men
tw
ork.
Afte
r the
firs
t aud
it, th
e HE
I has
syst
emat
ically
impr
oved
the
func
tiona
lity
and
fitne
ss fo
r pur
pose
of th
e qu
ality
sys
tem
. Spe
cial a
ttent
ion
has
been
give
n to
the
wor
kloa
dpr
oduc
ed b
y th
e sy
stem
. The
sys
tem
has
been
dev
elop
ed in
a v
ery
succ
essf
ul a
nd e
ffect
ive m
anne
r.
3. D
evel
opm
ent o
f the
qua
lity
syst
em
Follo
w-u
p se
ctio
n fo
r the
HEI
ssu
bjec
t to
the
seco
nd F
INHE
EC a
udit:
�
The
qual
ity m
anag
emen
t pro
cedu
res
are
not f
ully
func
tiona
l and
do
not
supp
ort t
he a
chie
vem
ent o
f goa
ls se
t for
the
oper
atio
ns in
a m
eani
ngfu
l man
ner.
The
goal
s ar
e no
t lin
ked
to th
e HE
I’sov
eral
l stra
tegy
.- -
- - -
- - -
-Th
e qu
ality
sys
tem
pro
vides
insu
fficie
ntin
form
atio
n fo
r the
qua
lity
man
agem
ent
of th
e op
erat
ions
, and
info
rmat
ion
use
issp
orad
ic an
d/or
info
rmat
ion
colle
ctio
n is
an e
nd in
itse
lf.- -
- - -
- - -
-Th
e pe
rson
nel g
roup
s, s
tude
nts
and
exte
rnal
sta
keho
lder
s ar
e no
t inv
olve
d in
the
deve
lopm
ent o
f the
ope
ratio
ns in
am
eani
ngfu
l man
ner.
- - -
- - -
- - -
The
qual
ity m
anag
emen
t of k
ey s
uppo
rtse
rvice
s is
not f
unct
iona
l.
The
HEI h
as s
yste
mat
ic an
d w
ell-
esta
blish
ed q
ualit
y m
anag
emen
tpr
oced
ures
that
pro
vide
exce
llent
supp
ort f
or th
e de
velo
pmen
t of t
heop
erat
ions
and
the
impl
emen
tatio
n of
the
inst
itutio
n’s
over
all s
trate
gy. T
here
is cle
ar a
nd c
ontin
uous
evid
ence
of
the
syst
em’s
effe
ctive
ness
inac
hiev
ing
the
goal
s se
t for
the
oper
atio
ns.
- - -
- - -
- - -
The
HEI h
as s
yste
mat
ic an
d ex
celle
ntpr
oced
ures
use
d to
pro
duce
info
rmat
ion
for t
he q
ualit
ym
anag
emen
t of t
he o
pera
tions
.In
form
atio
n is
used
sys
tem
atica
lly, a
ndth
ere
is cle
ar a
nd c
ontin
uous
evid
ence
to s
how
that
it is
suc
cess
fully
use
d to
deve
lop
the
oper
atio
ns.
- - -
- - -
- - -
Pers
onne
l gro
ups
and
stud
ents
are
com
mitt
ed a
nd v
ery
activ
ely
invo
lved
in d
evel
opin
g th
e op
erat
ions
. Spe
cial
atte
ntio
n ha
s be
en g
iven
to th
ew
orkl
oad
gene
rate
d by
the
qual
itym
anag
emen
t pro
cedu
res.
Exte
rnal
stak
ehol
ders
are
invo
lved
in th
ede
velo
pmen
t wor
k in
a m
eani
ngfu
lm
anne
r.- -
- - -
- - -
-Th
e HE
I has
sys
tem
atic
and
wel
l-es
tabl
ished
pro
cedu
res
for t
he q
ualit
ym
anag
emen
t of k
ey s
uppo
rt se
rvice
s.Th
ere
is cle
ar a
nd c
ontin
uous
evid
ence
that
the
proc
edur
es fu
nctio
nw
ell.
Func
tiona
l qua
lity
man
agem
ent
proc
edur
es a
dvan
ce th
e de
velo
pmen
t of
the
oper
atio
ns a
nd th
e ac
hiev
emen
t of
goal
s se
t for
the
oper
atio
ns. T
heob
ject
ives
are
mos
tly li
nked
to th
eov
eral
l stra
tegy
of t
he H
EI.
- - -
- - -
- - -
The
qual
ity s
yste
m p
rodu
ces
rele
vant
info
rmat
ion
for t
he q
ualit
y m
anag
emen
tof
the
oper
atio
ns, a
nd th
e in
form
atio
n is
used
to d
evel
op th
e HE
I’s o
pera
tions
ina
mea
ning
ful m
anne
r.- -
- - -
- - -
-Pe
rson
nel g
roup
s an
d st
uden
ts a
rein
volve
d in
the
deve
lopm
ent o
f the
oper
atio
ns in
a m
eani
ngfu
l man
ner.
Exte
rnal
sta
keho
lder
s al
so p
artic
ipat
e in
the
deve
lopm
ent w
ork.
- - -
- - -
- - -
The
qual
ity m
anag
emen
t of k
ey s
uppo
rtse
rvice
s fu
nctio
ns re
lativ
ely
wel
l.
4. Q
ualit
y m
anag
emen
t of t
hehi
gher
edu
catio
n in
stitu
tion’
sba
sic
dutie
s
4a) D
egre
e ed
ucat
ion
4b) R
esea
rch,
dev
elop
men
t and
inno
vatio
n ac
tiviti
es, a
s w
ell a
sar
tistic
act
iviti
es
4c) S
ocie
tal i
mpa
ct a
nd re
gion
alde
velo
pmen
t wor
k (in
cl. s
ocia
lre
spon
sibi
lity,
con
tinui
nged
ucat
ion,
ope
n un
iver
sity
and
open
uni
vers
ity o
f app
lied
scie
nces
edu
catio
n, a
s w
ell a
spa
id-s
ervi
ces
educ
atio
n)
4d) O
ptio
nal a
udit
targ
et
The
qual
ity s
yste
m s
how
s a
com
plet
eab
senc
e of
or m
ajor
sho
rtcom
ings
in th
e:■
qual
ity m
anag
emen
t pro
cedu
res
used
to a
chie
ve th
e go
als
set f
or th
eop
erat
ions
■lin
ks b
etw
een
goal
s se
t for
the
activ
ities
and
the
HEI’s
ove
rall
stra
tegy
■pa
rticip
atio
n of
the
inst
itutio
n’s
pers
onne
l gro
ups,
stu
dent
s or
ext
erna
lst
akeh
olde
rs in
the
deve
lopm
ent o
fth
e op
erat
ions
or
■qu
ality
man
agem
ent o
f sup
port
serv
ices
that
are
key
to th
eop
erat
ions
.
Th
e fu
lfil
men
t o
f th
e fo
llo
win
g c
rite
ria
is r
evie
wed
sep
arat
ely
fo
r ea
ch b
asic
du
ty a
nd
op
tio
nal
au
dit
tar
get
:T
he
fulf
ilm
ent
of
the
foll
ow
ing
cri
teri
a is
rev
iew
ed s
epar
atel
y f
or
each
bas
ic d
uty
an
d o
pti
on
al a
ud
it t
arg
et:
Th
e fu
lfil
men
t o
f th
e fo
llo
win
g c
rite
ria
is r
evie
wed
sep
arat
ely
fo
r ea
ch b
asic
du
ty a
nd
op
tio
nal
au
dit
tar
get
:T
he
fulf
ilm
ent
of
the
foll
ow
ing
cri
teri
a is
rev
iew
ed s
epar
atel
y f
or
each
bas
ic d
uty
an
d o
pti
on
al a
ud
it t
arg
et:
Th
e fu
lfil
men
t o
f th
e fo
llo
win
g c
rite
ria
is r
evie
wed
sep
arat
ely
fo
r ea
ch b
asic
du
ty a
nd
op
tio
nal
au
dit
tar
get
:
��
The
qual
ity m
anag
emen
t pro
cedu
res
rela
ted
to th
e pl
anni
ng o
f edu
catio
nar
e sy
stem
atic
and
wel
l-est
ablis
hed
and
prov
ide
exce
llent
sup
port
for
plan
ning
.
The
qual
ity m
anag
emen
t pro
cedu
res
rela
ted
to th
e im
plem
enta
tion
ofed
ucat
ion
are
syst
emat
ic an
d w
ell-
esta
blish
ed a
nd p
rovid
e ex
celle
ntsu
ppor
t for
impl
emen
tatio
n.
Pers
onne
l gro
ups
and
stud
ents
are
com
mitt
ed a
nd v
ery
activ
ely
invo
lved
in th
e de
velo
pmen
t of t
he o
pera
tions
.Ex
tern
al s
take
hold
ers
are
also
invo
lved
in th
e de
velo
pmen
t wor
k in
am
eani
ngfu
l man
ner.
Ther
e is
clear
and
con
tinuo
us e
viden
ceof
the
effe
ctive
ness
of t
he q
ualit
yw
ork.
5. S
ampl
es o
f deg
ree
educ
atio
n:de
gree
pro
gram
mes
Plan
ning
of e
duca
tion
■Cu
rricu
la a
nd th
eir p
repa
ratio
n■
Inte
nded
lear
ning
out
com
es a
ndth
eir d
efin
ition
■Li
nks
betw
een
rese
arch
,de
velo
pmen
t and
inno
vatio
nac
tiviti
es, a
s w
ell a
s ar
tistic
activ
ities
, and
edu
catio
n■
Life
long
lear
ning
■Re
leva
nce
of d
egre
es to
wor
king
life
■Pa
rtici
patio
n of
diff
eren
tpe
rson
nel g
roup
s, s
tude
nts
and
exte
rnal
sta
keho
lder
s.
Impl
emen
tatio
n of
edu
catio
n■
Teac
hing
met
hods
and
lear
ning
envi
ronm
ents
■M
etho
ds u
sed
to a
sses
sle
arni
ng■
Stud
ents
’ lea
rnin
g an
d w
ell-
bein
g■
Teac
hers
’ com
pete
nce
and
occu
patio
nal w
ell-b
eing
■Pa
rtici
patio
n of
diff
eren
tpe
rson
nel g
roup
s, s
tude
nts
and
exte
rnal
sta
keho
lder
s.
Effe
ctiv
enes
s of
qua
lity
wor
k■
Suita
bilit
y of
key
eva
luat
ion
met
hods
and
follo
w-u
pin
dica
tors
and
thei
r im
pact
on
the
achi
evem
ent o
f goa
ls.
The
qual
ity m
anag
emen
t pro
cedu
res
rela
ted
to th
e pl
anni
ng o
f edu
catio
n ar
eno
t ful
ly fu
nctio
nal a
nd d
o no
t sup
port
the
plan
ning
of e
duca
tion
in a
mea
ning
ful m
anne
r.
The
qual
ity m
anag
emen
t pro
cedu
res
rela
ted
to th
e im
plem
enta
tion
ofed
ucat
ion
are
not f
ully
func
tiona
l and
do n
ot s
uppo
rt im
plem
enta
tion
in a
mea
ning
ful m
anne
r.
The
pers
onne
l gro
ups,
stu
dent
s an
dex
tern
al s
take
hold
ers
are
not i
nvol
ved
in d
evel
opin
g th
e op
erat
ions
in a
mea
ning
ful m
anne
r.
Ther
e is
little
evid
ence
of t
heef
fect
ivene
ss o
f the
qua
lity
wor
k.
The
qual
ity s
yste
m s
how
s a
com
plet
eab
senc
e of
or m
ajor
sho
rtcom
ings
inth
e:■
qual
ity m
anag
emen
t pro
cedu
res
rela
ted
to th
e pl
anni
ng o
f edu
catio
n■
qual
ity m
anag
emen
t pro
cedu
res
rela
ted
to th
e im
plem
enta
tion
ofed
ucat
ion
■pa
rticip
atio
n of
the
inst
itutio
n’s
pers
onne
l gro
ups,
stu
dent
s or
exte
rnal
sta
keho
lder
s in
the
deve
lopm
ent o
f the
ope
ratio
ns o
r■
effe
ctive
ness
of t
he q
ualit
y w
ork.
Th
e f
ulf
ilm
en
t o
f th
e f
oll
ow
ing
cri
teri
a i
s re
vie
we
d s
ep
ara
tely
fo
r e
ach
de
gre
e p
rog
ram
me
:T
he
fu
lfil
me
nt
of
the
fo
llo
win
g c
rite
ria
is
rev
iew
ed
se
pa
rate
ly f
or
ea
ch d
eg
ree
pro
gra
mm
e:
Th
e f
ulf
ilm
en
t o
f th
e f
oll
ow
ing
cri
teri
a i
s re
vie
we
d s
ep
ara
tely
fo
r e
ach
de
gre
e p
rog
ram
me
:T
he
fu
lfil
me
nt
of
the
fo
llo
win
g c
rite
ria
is
rev
iew
ed
se
pa
rate
ly f
or
ea
ch d
eg
ree
pro
gra
mm
e:
Th
e f
ulf
ilm
en
t o
f th
e f
oll
ow
ing
cri
teri
a i
s re
vie
we
d s
ep
ara
tely
fo
r e
ach
de
gre
e p
rog
ram
me
:
The
qual
ity m
anag
emen
t pro
cedu
res
rela
ted
to th
e pl
anni
ng o
f edu
catio
nen
hanc
e th
e qu
ality
of p
lann
ing
and
supp
ort p
lann
ing
itsel
f.
The
qual
ity m
anag
emen
t pro
cedu
res
rela
ted
to th
e im
plem
enta
tion
ofed
ucat
ion
enha
nce
the
qual
ity o
fth
e im
plem
enta
tion
and
supp
ort
impl
emen
tatio
n its
elf.
Pers
onne
l gro
ups
and
stud
ents
are
invo
lved
in d
evel
opin
g th
e op
erat
ions
in a
mea
ning
ful m
anne
r. Ex
tern
alst
akeh
olde
rs a
lso p
artic
ipat
e in
the
deve
lopm
ent w
ork.
Ther
e is
clear
evid
ence
of t
heef
fect
ivene
ss o
f the
qua
lity
wor
k.
�
The
qual
ity m
anag
emen
t pro
cedu
res
form
a d
ynam
ic an
d co
mpr
ehen
sive
syst
em.
The
qual
ity s
yste
m c
over
s al
l of t
heba
sic d
utie
s of
the
HEI a
nd p
rovid
esex
celle
nt s
uppo
rt fo
r the
inst
itutio
n’s
over
all s
trate
gy a
nd th
e de
velo
pmen
tof
the
entir
e in
stitu
tion’
s op
erat
ions
.Th
ere
is cle
ar a
nd c
ontin
uous
evid
ence
that
the
syst
em h
as a
n im
pact
on
the
deve
lopm
ent o
f the
ope
ratio
ns.
The
wel
l-est
ablis
hed
qual
ity c
ultu
repr
ovid
es e
xcel
lent
sup
port
for t
hede
velo
pmen
t of t
he o
pera
tions
.
The
qual
ity m
anag
emen
t pro
cedu
res
cons
titut
e a
func
tioni
ng s
yste
m.
The
qual
ity s
yste
m c
over
s th
e es
sent
ial
parts
of t
he b
asic
dutie
s of
the
HEI a
ndpr
ovid
es m
eani
ngfu
l sup
port
for t
hede
velo
pmen
t of t
he o
pera
tions
. The
reis
evid
ence
that
the
syst
em h
as a
nim
pact
on
the
deve
lopm
ent o
f the
oper
atio
ns.
The
deve
lopm
ent o
f the
ope
ratio
ns is
base
d on
an
exist
ing
qual
ity c
ultu
re.
The
HEI h
as o
nly
indi
vidua
l and
unre
late
d qu
ality
man
agem
ent
proc
edur
es th
at d
o no
t for
m a
stru
ctur
ed s
yste
m.
Ther
e is
no e
viden
ce o
f the
pro
cedu
res’
impa
ct o
n th
e de
velo
pmen
t of t
heop
erat
ions
.
The
qual
ity m
anag
emen
t pro
cedu
res
dono
t for
m a
func
tioni
ng a
nd u
nifie
dsy
stem
.
The
qual
ity s
yste
m e
ncom
pass
es s
ome
of th
e HE
I’s b
asic
dutie
s bu
t doe
s no
tpr
ovid
e m
eani
ngfu
l sup
port
for t
hede
velo
pmen
t of t
he o
pera
tions
. The
re is
little
evid
ence
of t
he s
yste
m’s
impa
ct o
nth
e de
velo
pmen
t of t
he o
pera
tions
.
The
inst
itutio
n’s
qual
ity c
ultu
re is
onl
yju
st e
mer
ging
.
6. T
he q
ualit
y sy
stem
as
a w
hole
�
The HEI registers for an audit■ The institution and FINHEEC agree on a preliminary audit time frame based
on the registration�
Agreement negotiation between the HEI and FINHEEC■ FINHEEC and the HEI sign an agreement on the audit� The agreement
specifies the audit targets� procedure and time frame� national or
international composition of the audit team and language to be used to
carry out the audit� duration of the audit visit� price of the audit and
commitment to a potential re�audit�
Appointment of the audit team■ FINHEEC usually appoints an audit team with five to seven members�
Compilation of audit material and preparationof the self�evaluation report■ The HEI compiles audit material� the goal being to provide the audit team
with a sufficient knowledge base and evidence for the evaluation of the
quality system� The material consists of basic material and a self�evaluation
report drawn up by the institution� The material is submitted to FINHEEC
at the latest �� weeks prior to the audit visit�
Briefing and discussion event■ Around four weeks prior to the audit visit� the chair of the audit team and
the FINHEEC project manager visit the HEI subject to the audit� The
purpose of the visit is to arrange an open event for the institution’s staff
and students at which the objectives and implementation of the audit can
be discussed�
Audit visit■ The audit team’s visit to the HEI lasts from three to five days� depending on
the size of the institution and on the audit task�
Audit report■ The audit team draws up a report based on the material accumulated during
the evaluation and on the analysis of that material� In accordance with the
principle of continuous enhancement� the report points out the strengths
and good practices in the HEI’s quality system� in addition to giving the
institution recommendations for further development�
APPENDIX �:
Audit stages and time frame
▼
▼
▼
▼
▼
▼
�
Consequences of audit■ In its report� the audit team presents its appraisal of whether the HEI
should pass the audit or whether a re�audit needs to be conducted� The
Evaluation Council decides on the audit result on the basis of the
appraisal�
The HEI passes the audit■ The institution receives
a quality label and is added
to the register of audited
institutions maintained on
FINHEEC’s website�■ The quality label is valid for
six years�
Follow�up■ Around three years after the audit� the HEI takes part in a national
seminar arranged by FINHEEC� The seminar’s main objective is to provide
feedback on post�audit development work and enable parties in the field
of higher education to discuss the development of quality systems and
share experiences and good practices related to the quality work� HEIs
prepare a short report on their post�audit development work for the
seminar�
The HEI does not passthe audit and mustundergo a re�audit■ The institution does not receive
a quality label�
Concluding seminar■ FINHEEC and the HEI arrange a joint seminar�
usually within one month of the audit decision� The
seminar gives the institution’s staff and students the
opportunity to openly discuss the audit results
and conclusions with representatives of FINHEEC
and the audit team�
Re�audit in two to threeyears■ If the HEI passes the re�audit�
it is added to the register of
audited HEIs and receives a
quality label that is valid for
six years�
▼
▼ ▼
▼▼
▼
▼ ▼
APPENDIX :
Guidelines for the self�evaluation report
GUIDELINES:
■ The HEI chooses how to carry out its self�evaluation and write the report�■ The report must be structured according to the headings listed below� The
institution may freely decide on the use of any sub�headings�■ In its report� the institution is expected to carry out as reflective a self�
evaluation as possible� identify areas in need of development and provide
a concrete description of its practical measures related to the quality work�
The report must focus on evaluation rather than description�■ The HEI should be prepared to present evidence of the issues presented in the
report during the audit visit�■ The self�evaluation report is ��–�� pages long in total�■ The layout of the text is as follows: page size: A� margins: ��� cm� spacing: ��
and font: ARIAL �� pt or similar� Texts exceeding the maximum length are not
taken into consideration� The report may not include links to internet pages�
CONTENT AND HEADINGS OF THE SELF�EVALUATIONREPORT:
�� THE QUALITY POLICY OF THE HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTION�� THE QUALITY POLICY OF THE HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTION�� THE QUALITY POLICY OF THE HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTION�� THE QUALITY POLICY OF THE HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTION�� THE QUALITY POLICY OF THE HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTION
a) Objectives of the quality systema) Objectives of the quality systema) Objectives of the quality systema) Objectives of the quality systema) Objectives of the quality system
Description:Description:Description:Description:Description: What are the key objectives of your quality system and how are they
set?
Evaluation:Evaluation:Evaluation:Evaluation:Evaluation: Assess the clarity of the objectives� as well as how successful and
inclusive the procedure for setting them is�
b) Division of responsibility related to the quality systemb) Division of responsibility related to the quality systemb) Division of responsibility related to the quality systemb) Division of responsibility related to the quality systemb) Division of responsibility related to the quality system
Description:Description:Description:Description:Description: Describe the responsibilities in your quality system�
Evaluation:Evaluation:Evaluation:Evaluation:Evaluation: Assess the functioning of the division of responsibility (e�g� the
clarity� suitability and workload of the division)� Assess the skill level
and commitment of the people responsible for quality management�
c) Documentation and communicativeness of the quality systemc) Documentation and communicativeness of the quality systemc) Documentation and communicativeness of the quality systemc) Documentation and communicativeness of the quality systemc) Documentation and communicativeness of the quality system
Description:Description:Description:Description:Description: How is the quality system and the information produced by it
documented? How are the information needs of user groups
determined and taken into account? How are users notified about
the information produced by the system?
Evaluation:Evaluation:Evaluation:Evaluation:Evaluation: Assess the clarity and usability of the documentation from the
perspective of different parties and their needs� Assess the suitability�
activeness and success of communication�
d) Quality culture of the higher education institutiond) Quality culture of the higher education institutiond) Quality culture of the higher education institutiond) Quality culture of the higher education institutiond) Quality culture of the higher education institution
Description:Description:Description:Description:Description: Describe the quality culture of your higher education institution�
What concrete measures does your institution use to advance the
emergence and development of a quality culture?
Evaluation:Evaluation:Evaluation:Evaluation:Evaluation: Assess the quality culture and its stage of development in your
institution�
e) Summary: e) Summary: e) Summary: e) Summary: e) Summary: Summarise� in table format� the key strengths and areas in need of
development related to audit target ��
StrengthsStrengthsStrengthsStrengthsStrengths Areas in need of developmentAreas in need of developmentAreas in need of developmentAreas in need of developmentAreas in need of development
�� STRATEGIC AND OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT�� STRATEGIC AND OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT�� STRATEGIC AND OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT�� STRATEGIC AND OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT�� STRATEGIC AND OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT
a) Linking of the quality system to strategic and operations managementa) Linking of the quality system to strategic and operations managementa) Linking of the quality system to strategic and operations managementa) Linking of the quality system to strategic and operations managementa) Linking of the quality system to strategic and operations management
Description:Description:Description:Description:Description: How is the quality system linked to strategic planning� management
and operations management? What information does the quality
system produce for the needs of strategic and operations
management?
Evaluation:Evaluation:Evaluation:Evaluation:Evaluation: Assess how well the quality system and the information produced by
it serve the needs of strategic and operations management� Assess
also the significance of the information produced by the system for
the overall evaluation of the quality of the operations�
b) Functioning of the quality system at different organisational levelsb) Functioning of the quality system at different organisational levelsb) Functioning of the quality system at different organisational levelsb) Functioning of the quality system at different organisational levelsb) Functioning of the quality system at different organisational levels
Description:Description:Description:Description:Description: How is the quality system used in management at different
organisational levels?
Evaluation:Evaluation:Evaluation:Evaluation:Evaluation: Assess the system’s functioning� effectiveness and workload in terms
of management at different organisational levels� as well as the
commitment to joint quality work of managers involved in
operations management�
c) Summary: c) Summary: c) Summary: c) Summary: c) Summary: Summarise� in table format� the key strengths and areas in need of
development related to audit target ��
StrengthsStrengthsStrengthsStrengthsStrengths Areas in need of developmentAreas in need of developmentAreas in need of developmentAreas in need of developmentAreas in need of development
�
� DEVELOPMENT OF THE QUALITY SYSTEM� DEVELOPMENT OF THE QUALITY SYSTEM� DEVELOPMENT OF THE QUALITY SYSTEM� DEVELOPMENT OF THE QUALITY SYSTEM� DEVELOPMENT OF THE QUALITY SYSTEM
a) Procedures for developing the quality systema) Procedures for developing the quality systema) Procedures for developing the quality systema) Procedures for developing the quality systema) Procedures for developing the quality system
Description:Description:Description:Description:Description: Describe the procedures for evaluating and developing the quality system�
Evaluation:Evaluation:Evaluation:Evaluation:Evaluation: Assess the system’s ability to meet the objectives set for it and how
systematic the system development is�
Summarise� in table format� the key strengths and areas in need of development
related to the procedures for developing the quality system�
StrengthsStrengthsStrengthsStrengthsStrengths Areas in need of developmentAreas in need of developmentAreas in need of developmentAreas in need of developmentAreas in need of development
b) Development stages of the quality systemb) Development stages of the quality systemb) Development stages of the quality systemb) Development stages of the quality systemb) Development stages of the quality system
Description:Description:Description:Description:Description: Describe the key development stages of the quality system� Higher
education institutions subject to second audit must also explain
which of the essential recommendations given in the first audit they
have reacted to and how�
Evaluation:Evaluation:Evaluation:Evaluation:Evaluation: Assess the success of the system’s development and describe further
development needs of the system�
� QUALITY MANAGEMENT OF THE HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTION’S BASIC DUTIES� QUALITY MANAGEMENT OF THE HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTION’S BASIC DUTIES� QUALITY MANAGEMENT OF THE HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTION’S BASIC DUTIES� QUALITY MANAGEMENT OF THE HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTION’S BASIC DUTIES� QUALITY MANAGEMENT OF THE HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTION’S BASIC DUTIES
The higher education institution prepares a self�evaluation of the quality
management related to audit targets a–d� A separate section is drawn up for each
sub�target� including descriptive and evaluative sections in accordance with the
following guidelines�
Description:Description:Description:Description:Description: What goals have been set for the operations and what are the key
quality management procedures used to achieve them? How do
different parties (personnel groups� students� external stakeholders)
participate in the quality work and how is participation supported?
Evaluation:Evaluation:Evaluation:Evaluation:Evaluation: Assess:
�) the achievement of the objectives and how the objectives are
linked to the institution’s overall strategy
�) the functioning of quality management procedures and their
impact on the development of the operations
) the comprehensiveness� usability and utilisation of the
information produced by the quality system
) the roles� involvement and commitment of different parties in
terms of quality work� as well as the workload created by the
procedures
� Support services include e�g� library and information services� personnel services� IT services�
financial administration� career and recruitment services� student services� communication
services� facilities management and international services�
�
�) the functioning� workload and effectiveness of the quality
management of support services� that are key to the operations�
Summary: Summary: Summary: Summary: Summary: Summarise� in table format� the key strengths and areas in need of
development in quality management�
StrengthsStrengthsStrengthsStrengthsStrengths Areas in need of developmentAreas in need of developmentAreas in need of developmentAreas in need of developmentAreas in need of development
a) Degree educationa) Degree educationa) Degree educationa) Degree educationa) Degree education (including first�� second� and third�cycle education)
b) Research� development and innovation activities� as well as artistic activitiesb) Research� development and innovation activities� as well as artistic activitiesb) Research� development and innovation activities� as well as artistic activitiesb) Research� development and innovation activities� as well as artistic activitiesb) Research� development and innovation activities� as well as artistic activities
c) Societal impact and regional development worc) Societal impact and regional development worc) Societal impact and regional development worc) Societal impact and regional development worc) Societal impact and regional development work (incl� social responsibility�
continuing education� open university and open university of applied sciences
education� as well as paid�services education)
d) Optional audit targetd) Optional audit targetd) Optional audit targetd) Optional audit targetd) Optional audit target
�� SAMPLES OF DEGREE EDUCATION: DEGREE PROGRAMMES�� SAMPLES OF DEGREE EDUCATION: DEGREE PROGRAMMES�� SAMPLES OF DEGREE EDUCATION: DEGREE PROGRAMMES�� SAMPLES OF DEGREE EDUCATION: DEGREE PROGRAMMES�� SAMPLES OF DEGREE EDUCATION: DEGREE PROGRAMMES
Under item a� the higher education institution is requested to provide a self�
evaluation of the quality management of degree education at a general level� Under
item �� the institution provides a self�evaluation of the quality management of
primarily two degree programmes chosen as samples of degree education�
Universities of applied sciences choose one programme leading to a bachelor’s
degree and one programme leading to a university of applied sciences master’s
degree� Universities choose one module leading to a degree that includes both
bachelor’s and master’s education� as well as one programme leading to a doctoral
degree� The institution is requested to explain the reasons for its selections and
evaluate how representative the quality management of the selected programmes
is in relation to other degree education� Programmes used as samples are evaluated
as independent audit targets� but they also complement the evaluation of the
quality management of education by providing detailed information at the level of
degree programmes�
The institution prepares separate self�evaluations of both degree programmes
according to the guidelines and headings listed below�
Based on the basic audit material supplied by the institution� the audit team chooses
a third degree programme for evaluation at the latest four weeks prior
to the audit visit� The self�evaluation report drawn up on this programme in
accordance with the guidelines must be submitted to FINHEEC at the latest one
week prior to the audit visit�
�
a) Planning of educationa) Planning of educationa) Planning of educationa) Planning of educationa) Planning of education
Description:Description:Description:Description:Description: Describe how the quality of the following matters is ensured:
– Curricula and their preparation
– Intended learning outcomes and their definition� as well as the
assessment of learning that supports the intended learning outcomes
– Links between research� development and innovation activities� as
well as artistic activities� and education
– Lifelong learning
– Relevance of degrees to working life�
Describe also how personnel groups� students and external
stakeholders participate in the quality work related to the planning
of education�
Evaluation:Evaluation:Evaluation:Evaluation:Evaluation: Assess the functioning� workload and impact of the procedures used
for planning education� as well as how different parties participate in
the quality work�
b) Implementation of educationb) Implementation of educationb) Implementation of educationb) Implementation of educationb) Implementation of education
Description:Description:Description:Description:Description: Describe how the quality of the following matters is ensured:
– Teaching methods and learning environments
– Methods used to assess learning
– Students’ learning and well�being
– Teachers’ competence and occupational well�being�
Describe also how personnel groups� students and external
stakeholders participate in the quality work related to the
implementation of education�
Evaluation:Evaluation:Evaluation:Evaluation:Evaluation: Assess the functioning� workload and impact of the procedures used
for implementing education� as well as how different parties
participate in the quality work�
c) Effectiveness of quality workc) Effectiveness of quality workc) Effectiveness of quality workc) Effectiveness of quality workc) Effectiveness of quality work
Description:Description:Description:Description:Description: Describe:
– the key evaluation methods and follow�up indicators in terms of
development at the level of degree programmes
– the development of operations in the past three to five years� using
indicators
– the measures currently in progress for improving the quality of
education�
Evaluation:Evaluation:Evaluation:Evaluation:Evaluation: Assess:
– the impact of the quality work on the achievement of the
objectives set for the programme�
d) Summary: d) Summary: d) Summary: d) Summary: d) Summary: Summarise� in table format� the key strengths and areas in need of
development related to the quality management of the degree programme�
StrengthsStrengthsStrengthsStrengthsStrengths Areas in need of developmentAreas in need of developmentAreas in need of developmentAreas in need of developmentAreas in need of development
�� IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SELF�EVALUATION�� IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SELF�EVALUATION�� IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SELF�EVALUATION�� IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SELF�EVALUATION�� IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SELF�EVALUATION
Describe how your institution carried out the self�evaluation and prepared the self�
evaluation report� What ideas did the evaluation process bring up? Evaluate the
success of the process�
�
APPENDIX :
Audit concepts
The following list contains FINHEEC’s interpretation of the concepts used in this
manual�
AuditAuditAuditAuditAudit
An audit is an independent and systematic external evaluation� It assesses whether
the quality system of a higher education institution is fit for purpose and
functioning and whether it complies with the agreed criteria� An audit focuses on
the procedures that the institution uses to maintain and develop the quality of its
operations�
Enhancement�led evaluationEnhancement�led evaluationEnhancement�led evaluationEnhancement�led evaluationEnhancement�led evaluation
The goal of enhancement�led evaluation is to help higher education institutions
identify the strengths� good practices and areas in need of development in their own
operations� The purpose is� thus� to help higher education institutions achieve their
strategic objectives and steer future development activities in order to create a
framework for the institutions’ continuous development�
External stakeholderExternal stakeholderExternal stakeholderExternal stakeholderExternal stakeholder
An external stakeholder is a party outside the higher education institution that
cooperates and is involved with the institution� It is an organisation or party that is
affected by the institution’s operations or that can affect the institution�
Good practiceGood practiceGood practiceGood practiceGood practice
Good practice is a form of high�quality operation carried out by a higher education
institution� In principle� such a practice can also be identified in other organisations�
Good practice is� thus� an exemplary and innovative procedure the dissemination
and implementation of which is desirable also in other higher education institutions�
Quality cultureQuality cultureQuality cultureQuality cultureQuality culture
Among other things� quality culture describes the environment and atmosphere in
which the operations are developed� as well as the individual and collective
commitment to the quality work� Higher education institutions themselves define
in concrete terms what quality culture means in their context of operation�
Quality labelQuality labelQuality labelQuality labelQuality label
A quality label indicates that the quality system of a higher education institution
has passed FINHEEC’s audit� Institutions may� if they so require� use the label when
describing their operations to internal and external stakeholders�
�
Quality managementQuality managementQuality managementQuality managementQuality management
Quality management refers to the procedures� processes or systems that the higher
education institution uses to maintain and develop the quality of its activities�
Quality policyQuality policyQuality policyQuality policyQuality policy
The quality policy of a higher education institution encompasses the goals of the
quality system� the division of responsibility� documentation of the system and the
information produced by it as well as the communicativess of the system�
Quality systemQuality systemQuality systemQuality systemQuality system
A quality system encompasses the quality management organisation� division of
responsibility� procedures and resources� which all contribute to the development
of the operations� Each higher education institution decides on the objectives�
structure and operating principles of its quality system� as well as the procedures
used and the development of quality management�
Self�evaluationSelf�evaluationSelf�evaluationSelf�evaluationSelf�evaluation
Self�evaluation refers to an evaluation that a higher education institution performs
of its own operations and their development� In accordance with the principle of
enhancement�led evaluation� self�evaluation primarily functions as a tool that the
institution can use to develop its operations� even though it is required by an
external party in an audit� Identifying the institution’s own strengths� and especially
the ability to determine areas in need of development� are proof that the institution
has a functioning quality system and an established quality culture�