tempus project bihtek: benchmarking as a tool for...

of 158

Quality monitoring report by Stefanie Lochbaum and Nora Skaburskiene

Period of implementation of the quality monitoring visit: 14-18 March, 2016

1 Title of the Project:

TEMPUS project BIHTEK: Benchmarking as a tool for enhancement of the HEI

performance

2 WP 8:

Quality monitoring

3 Deliverable:

8.1 Set of feedback reports

8.2 Annual quality expert control

8.3 Assessment of the project management results

4 Objective:

The objectives of each visit to each university, the relevant Ministries and the Higher Education

Agencies were:

1. To meet with relevant staff, including a member of the senior management team in the case

of universities, and to discuss the progress made by each University on the implementation of

benchmarking as management tool.

2. To consider any difficulties that any of the BiH partners might had experienced in the use of

benchmarking procedure.

3. To consider the dissemination activities undertaken by each institution.

4. To consider the action plan for the sustainability of usage of benchmarking in further

enhancement of activities of higher education institution.

of 158

5. Outcomes, conclusions and recommendations:

Outcomes of quality monitoring visit held in March 2016:

Introduction

The visiting team from CEENQA travelled to each public university, the Higher Education Agency

(HEA) and Higher Education Accreditation Agency of Republika Srpska (HEAARS), met with

representatives of universities and agencies and discussed the implementation of the benchmarking

procedure.

Below is a summary of the findings for each visit, followed by overall conclusions for the site visits

and recommendations to all university partners and the HEA and HEAARS. Detailed self-evaluation

reports prepared by partner universities from B&H are contained in the Annexes to this document.

University of Mostar

Participants from the University of Mostar:

Ljerka Ostojić, Rector

Izabela Dankic, Vice-rector for International Relations

Ana Dujmovic, QM coordinator

The meeting was held in the rectorate of the university. Izabela Dankic commenced the report by

making a comprehensive explanation on the current situation and the challenges the University of

Mostar is facing in terms of the BIHTEK team changes that had to be made inside the university. It

was stated that due to changes in the management of the university the Rector took over the project

having an incomplete set of project documentation. Due to this reason the university had not

submitted a written report on the progress of benchmarking prior to the site visit. For future projects

it was clear, that more internal monitoring should be done in order to have documents to rely on.

Benchmarking process

Mrs. A. Dujmovic stated that they are eager to finish the project in time and would like to

concentrate on one benchmark only – the institutional internationalization. The University of Mostar

has chosen this benchmark because although it is the 3rd goal of the institutional strategic goals, in

the last accreditation report internationalization was stated as a weakness in the University of

Mostar, so there is a big gap that could be filled with benchmarking in this area.

of 158

The persons attending the meeting showed their full commitment to finish the benchmarking

exercise in the really short amount of time left. It was agreed on handing in a detailed action plan

and a self report until 18 March 2015. According to the vice-rector a new capable team was formed

and the responsibilities are distributed according to the action plan.

The equipment that was foreseen to be purchased for the project could still not be purchased. All

three efforts of procurement were denied by EACEA, so there will be no new equipment given to the

university.

Dissemination

The University of Mostar is responsible for translating the handbook into Croatian and is going to

finish it by the end of the week. After having the translation they are going to published it on the

website, which is under construction at the moment, and distribute it to other universities.

The university is going to develop a completely new action plan, a final dissemination is planned to

take place during the final conference in April 2015.

Other comments

Guidelines for National Quality Assurance Strategy: The University has received the draft of the

Guidelines for National Quality Assurance Strategy and is going to revise it according to the

comments of other partners and send it to CEENQA again for revision.

A detailed action plan and the afterwards handed in self-report are given in Annex 1 (attached).

of 158

University of Džemal Bijedić Mostar

Participants from University of Džemal Bijedić Mostar:

Professor Dr Nina Bijedić, Vice-Rector for International Relations

Alim Abazovic, QA coordinator

Azra Bajramovic, responsible for funding issues

Goran Skondic, responsible for purchase and installation of IT

The meeting was held in the rectorate of the university. It commenced with a discussion with the

Vice-Rector of the university on the advantages and potential for the University of achieving the

objectives of the project. The Vice-Rector confirmed that the entire team did an extensive job and

has fully implemented benchmarking activity.

The University could be commended in producing a very detailed self-evaluation report on pilot

benchmarking, which serves as a basis for the meeting.


The university has worked according to the Benchmarking Handbook, which was created during the

project, and is expecting to publish the document on the website of the University when translations

into local languages will be done.

After finishing benchmarking process university has compiled an action plan that was afterwards

used as a plan for improvement. Action plan also served as an input to self-evaluation report

prepared by the institution. Results of benchmarking are going to be used as part of strategic

management. Some results related to financing were presented to Steering Committee. Another

result of benchmarking is development of operational plan.

The equipment that was purchased by the university according to project activities is installed and

used by the project team. The data that was gathered during benchmarking is stored on the servers

purchased from the project.

The university could be commended for development of their own software for the benchmarking

process that is used intensively.

Dissemination

The University has organized the workshop on benchmarking with wide participation of university

staff in December 2014. Information about the project progress was also presented during an

internal dissemination event of the university. Short trainings for small staff groups that were

involved whether in providing data for benchmarking or in the process of benchmarking were

organized in the university during the whole process of piloting.

of 158

While discussing about the usage of the project’s website it appeared that it was not used widely as

it didn’t contain much information needed for the project partners. The team suggested that maybe

HEA could be responsible for sharing platform inside B&H, as they are responsible for quality

assurance on the country level.

University has published 3 articles on benchmarking on the website of the university.

Sustainability

Representatives have confirmed that they are planning to continue benchmarking activities after the

end of the project. In some cases it will be used for internal benchmarking, for example

benchmarking of all study programmes of the university. This would let management to make

decisions for improvement based on the data received.

Other comments

Guidelines for National Quality Assurance Strategy. University has received the draft version of the

“Guidelines for National Quality Assurance Strategy” and is going to send their comments to

coordinators of the projects by the end of the week. University team has expressed a suggestion to

correct the title of the document into “Guidelines for Quality Assurance strategy development in

Bosnia and Hercegovina”.

Management of the project. More rigor management tools should be applied in order to demand all

partners to do activities on time and to receive meaningful results. Better coordination between

partners is needed.

The project was valuable, but the Benchmarking handbook could be developed a bit earlier. In this

case partners would have had more time to discuss on the criteria, indicators and measures.

A self-evaluation report on the progress on implementation of benchmarking is given in Annex 2

(attached).

of 158

University of Sarajevo

Participants from University of Sarajevo :

Prof. dr. Mekić, Vice-Rector

doc. dr Dušanka Bošković,

doc. Dr. Aleksandra Nikolić

The meeting was held in the Rectorate of the university. The meeting started with the discussions on

the advantages of the project and benchmarking. University took great advantage from the project

activities and performed internal and external benchmarking processes.

University has delivered a very detailed self-evaluation report on pilot benchmarking. The higher

education institution could be commended on good practice of dissemination of information about

the project activities – they regularly provided information on the website, placed some information

on the project in the booklet on international activities of the university.





Representatives confirmed that they highly value their involvement in project activities. University

staff has learned that benchmarking differs from quality assurance.

Internally 5 faculties of the university (from different study areas) took part in the benchmarking.

External benchmarking was conducted with Paderborn as a partner. This was also a learning process

as Paderborn university has already long experience in benchmarking and provided a lot of advises.

Benchmarking results were presented to all community. Participants expect more faculties to join

benchmarking and use software. They also would like to establish support for all faculties to produce

data for benchmarking.

The reports from benchmarking contained recommendations for management. At the moment it is

not finally set if the management will make any decisions regarding recommendations received as an

election of new Rector and the Management is going on. The project team strongly believes that

recommendations received after internal benchmarking will be used on the faculty level for

improvement of their activities. It is also expected that results from external benchmarking will be

used as an input into development of new strategy.


used by project team. Developed software for monitoring of universities impact and visibility will

support gathering of data about staff members’ activities. New software will be integrated into the

existing integral human resource management and informational system.

of 158

Dissemination

University has organized two training sessions for their staff and dissemination event. Top

management was involved as well. In 2016 university has organized presentation of software and

presentation of benchmarking results. At least 6 dissemination events were conducted through the

project. Representatives expect to publish information about results of the project after the final

conference.

In order to have good internal communication, university has used additional dissemination tool - a

group on facebook for benchmarking purposes. The aim is to publish material that would be easily

accessible for the members of the group. This tool is also used for communication purposes as staff

from different faculties takes part in benchmarking. At the moment it is a closed group with 24

members as there is a need to share internal documents with confidential information.

Sustainability

The benchmarking reports with clear action plan for improvement are basis for project results’

sustainability and impact.

The existence of UNSA benchmarking community which is seen as a tool to raise awareness and

knowledge about benchmarking process is additional outcome that ensures sustainability.

Well trained teams for external and internal benchmarking (10 persons) will ensure UNSA capability

to pursue with benchmarking practice as a part of permanent quality improvement system.

During the discussions representatives of the universities shared their wish to put efforts to proceed

with internal benchmarking which could give an added value to existing internal quality assurance

system. University has succeeded in building a positive attitude towards benchmarking idea within

university and people are motivated to make a change.

Other comments


“Guidelines for National Quality Assurance Strategy” and sent their comments to coordinators.

University team supports the opinion of changing the title of the document into “Guidelines for

Quality Assurance strategy development in Bosnia and Hercegovina”. Representatives also suggested

that the document should be further enhanced in better describing the current system of Quality

assurance in B&H, shortening the third part and focusing on the forth part that should be the core of

the document.


(attached).

of 158

University of East Sarajevo

Participants from the University of East Sarajevo:

Nenad Marković, Quality Assurance Officer

Sandra Ivanovic, Vice-rector,

Slobodanka Krulj, International Cooperation Coordinator,

Nina Licina, Senior Officer for Quality Assurance

The visiting team was welcomed to the university by the Quality Assurance Officer. Detailed and

comprehensive answers were given to all the questions on the project implementation by the visiting

team. The CEENQA team was impressed by the implementation level on benchmarking in the

University of East Sarajevo. The university was very involved in the project and the representatives

were very aware that this is a very important project for them and stated that they accomplished

much more than they planned at the beginning.


The representatives explained that they found the benchmarking handbook very useful. Before the

start of the project benchmarking was much unknown in the university. They used the handbook for

disseminating the meaning of benchmarking, what qualitative and quantitative data is etc. Although

the University did not set up measures within the benchmarking, measures were however set up in

the University’s strategy.

A very strong cooperation with the University of Zenica was carried out cause of similar conditions in

terms of circumstances, funding, internationalization etc. Data was also compared with the

University of Paderborn, KU Leuven and the University of Vigo. Overall 8 teams were involved on

different levels, 5 teams in the faculties and 3 teams on rectorate level.

All the equipment has been purchased and everything has been registered and distributed to

different faculties. The representatives are very satisfied with the software. Currently over 100

indicators are being collected and the university is now able to collect and publish much more data

than before. Benchmarking between the faculties has become much easier therefore and an analysis

is going to be conducted every year. This data was not only used for an extensive SWOT analysis but

also for financial planning and distribution.

Dissemination

For the first meeting both two rectors were invited and afterwards very much supported the

benchmarking teams. Seminars on all levels and different faculties were organized. Overall 8 teams in

5 faculties were involved. Furthermore all project meetings, trainings etc. were disseminated with

pictures on the University’s website. After its translation, the university is going to also put the

of 158

benchmarking handbook on its website. Several visits with other universities were organized and

among them were 2 self-financed meetings with the University of Zenica.

Sustainability

The representatives are fully committed to benchmarking after the official end of the project. They

are going to keep cooperating with the University of Zenica and KU Leuven. Through data analysis

they are very aware of their strength and weaknesses and incorporated the benchmarking exercise

into the university’s strategic and financial planning. A detailed action plan which can be found in the

attached self-report has been developed accordingly and it is planned to focus on certain areas.

The seriousness of further cooperation with other EU universities could also be seen from the fact

that the BIHTEK coordinator of the University left for a meeting in Paderborn on the same date of the

QMV visit.

Other comments

Guidelines for National Quality Assurance Strategy: The University has received the draft version of

the “Guidelines for National Quality Assurance Strategy” and sent their comments to the

coordinators. The University team supports the opinion of changing the title of the document into

“Guidelines for Quality Assurance strategy development in Bosnia and Herzegovina”.

Project management: To the university representatives the other partners made a very ambitious

impression. It was noted however that there were some serious financial issues during the project

and that payments were done really late.

A detailed report on the progress to date and the outcome of the meeting is given in Annex 4

(attached). The university also handed in some very detailed attachments. It would have been to

large to also attach these.

of 158

University of Zenica

Participants from University of Zenica

Professor Dr. Darko Petkovic, Director of Innovation and Entrepreneurship Centre

Mr. Sc. Ibrahim Plančić, Quality Assurance Officer

Prof dr sc Malik Cabaravdic Vice rector For International cooperation nad Quality assurance

doc dr s Adnan Mujkanović QA managaer of Faculty of Metalurgy and Materials

Doc dr sc Spahija Kozlić QA manager of Faculty of Law

mr sc Adnan Mujezinovć Faculty of Health

University presented its successful participation in BIHTEK project. Along with the University of East

Sarajevo the University of Zenica has engaged with a benchmarking exercise using the KPI data.

External benchmarking was proceeded with KU Leuven University.

The university has prepared a detailed self-evaluation report which confirmed the use of the

benchmarking and the information derived there from in the planning and management of university

activities. It was very evident that the delivery of the outcomes of the project is fully embedded

within the university and is a model for others to follow.

University of Zenica could be commended for taking initiative and organizing much more events and

meetings between partner universities than it was initially planned through the project. All expenses

were covered by university itself.





The benchmarking was conducted with two BiH universities from Bihac and Mostar and with KU

Leuven university from Belgium. Good cooperation between partners led to well managed process of

benchmarking with significant outcomes that later on were used for internal development of

universities. University of Zenica presented results of benchmarking to the highest level of

management – the Senate. The discussion led to recognition of good practice that works in some

faculties and could be used in others.

The university did not stop in achieving the main results of the project. The benchmarking is still

going on with another foreign university from Vigo. Vigo university is internationally oriented higher

education institution recognized in Europe, therefore benchmarking in the area of

internationalization could give a good ground for examining the best practice and implementing it.


used by project team. The university showed the evidences of how the equipment is used and

of 158

explained its usefulness. Software will be incorporated into universities information system and used

for Senate to analyze data received during benchmarking and as repository for scientific work from

staff of all faculties.

Dissemination

The members from nearly all faculties of the university were involved in team of benchmarking. This

led to further dissemination of information in their faculties as well as to administration.

All information regarding project events was published on the website of the university. Information

about activities of the project was presented even to the highest management body – the Senate.

Institution together with benchmarking partners has organized a big workshop in Zenica with wide

participation of staff from all partners’ institutions.

Dissemination on the benchmarking was also brought onto international level – an article written

together with colleagues from East Sarajevo university was published in proceedings from

international conference “9th research/expert conference with international participation” “QUALITY

2015” under the title “Development of benchmarking methodology of higher education

organizations”.

The University of Zenica could be commended on wide dissemination activity during all project.

Sustainability

Representatives of the university have confirmed that they are planning to continue benchmarking

activities after the end of the project. Institution found benchmarking as a very useful tool and as a

starting point for strategy development. University used good opportunity provided within the

framework of the project and used benchmarking extensively. They are also open to arrange

benchmarking with other universities, because see this as an opportunity to learn.

Other comments


“Guidelines for National Quality Assurance Strategy” only a week ago and still did not provide any

comments. Project representative Darko Petkovic is going to send comments to coordinators. He

sees the shortcomings of the Guidelines in not providing a vision how the benchmarking should be

used in BiH in the framework of quality assurance.

Management of the project. Representatives also reported problems in the management of the

project, especially due to delay of payments of travel costs and staff costs. The content of the project

is well designed and could give added value. Participants of the project received a high level of

freedom for their activities which sometimes became an obstacle to reach the goals and realize some

of 158

of the tasks. Equipment that was purchased during the project helped for realization of the

processes.

University of Tuzla

Participants from the University of Tuzla

Edin Delić, Full professor and BIHTEK project coordinator

Dr. sc. Amra Bratovcic, prof. assistant

Denis Čeke, QA officer

Merima Barakovic, Senior IR Officer

Lejla Kuralic – Cisic, Prof. Ass.

Melima Bijedic, prof. ass.

The visiting team was welcomed to the University by the BIHTEK project coordinator. After

everybody was introduced, the interview began. The University expressed its total commitment to

the objectives and full implementation of the activities planned and has the intention of continuing

to use the methodology post the conclusion of the project.

Prior to the visit the university handed in a detailed self-evaluation report of the benchmarking

exercise, which serves as a basis for the meeting.


The university has worked according to the benchmarking handbook. However mentions that it is

very theoretical. They hope that the book can be revised adding some practical examples and then

be registered as an official book with ISSN that is public to everyone in Bosnia Herzegovina.

The University worked according to the objectives and deliverables in the project application and

completed these.

The University could be commended for the development of their own customized software, which

was especially adapted to the needs of the benchmarking processes in Tuzla and incorporates

experiences from the previous project SHENQA. It can be used for tracking key performance

indicators, inputting values, producing values and comparing own data to other universities. No data

input has taken place so far, which can be traced back to different reasons such as lack of staff and

late purchase of equipment. Although Tuzla University was one of the first to complete the

equipment purchase by the end of 2015, it was still comparably late within the 3 year project. This

can be traced back to unknown procedures of purchase and other problems in financial flows.

However the university is very proud of the new customized software and is committed to use it in

the future. Furthermore during the follow-up meeting held in Mostar the other partners expressed

of 158

their very real appreciation to the staff of the University of Tuzla for their engagement with the

company providing the software equipment and distribution among the partners.

Dissemination:

Around 15 persons from different departments and faculties were involved in the benchmarking

project who met up several times during the project. Different benchmarking meetings between

Tuzla University and Bihac University and several sessions with the University of Mostar were held.

Furthermore one dissemination meeting within the University took place to which staff members as

well as students were invited.

Sustainability

The University expressed its satisfaction with the project and its commitment to continue to use the

tools developed post the end of the project for university strategic planning and management. The

customized software will help to sustain project efforts and encourage further development of the

benchmarking process.

The CEENQA team was told that major changes in the upper management and QA staff occurred

during the project and that there was lack of QA staff and management commitment, which was a

major challenge for the project team to balance. Another change in management is supposed to take

place in the near future. The educated and capable staff that has put their efforts in the project is

committed to bring in benchmarking ideas and set up a new document for QA strategies.

Other comments

“Guidelines for National Quality Assurance Strategy”: The university has received the draft version of

the “Guidelines for National Quality Assurance Strategy”, has already given some smaller comments

and is going to send their comments to the coordinators of the projects by the end of the week.

Project management: A lot of financial issues have influenced the very late purchase of the

equipment. Furthermore for the whole project period there has not taken place any reimbursement

for staff cost. The university states that travel cost reimbursement is also very slow, although

documents have been handed in very quickly.


(attached).

University of Banja Luka

Participants from University of Banja Luka:

of 158

Prof. Dr. Peter Maric, BIHTEK coordinator and member of the Committee for QA at the

University of Banja Luka

Prof. Dr. Valerija Saula, Vice-Rector

Prof. Dr. Slobodan Simovic, Vice-Dean and President of the Scientific Board

Prof. Dr. Branko Blanusa, Vice-Dean

Jelena Rozic, Officer International Cooperation

Ozren Trišić, University QA coordinator

Dragana Radulovic, Officer Scientific and research work

The visiting team was welcomed to the university by the Vice-Rector and the BIHTEK coordinator.

Very demanding project, because no benchmarking activities between Universities have taken place

in Bosnia Herzegovina before and the representatives had the impression that benchmarking

between Universities is not even a very common tool in Europe. Nevertheless the whole team found

this tool very useful for quality improvements inside universities.


The representatives stated that the handbook was translated in the visiting week. Within the

upcoming weeks the University is going to print the translated handbook and distribute it within the

university and among other partners. The team was satisfied with the handbook and used the

examples as guidelines for benchmarking.

The team is aware that their IT system still needs improvements. However the purchase of

equipment (hardware and software) was finished in the beginning of 2016. Similar to other

universities the procurement was confirmed very late in October 2015. Recently the integrated

software was tested and will be put into operation now.

During the project a new rulebook for student surveys and teaching rankings including all

procedures, the process and templates was established. The document has already been adopted by

the senate and surveys by students as a part of QA monitoring is regularly implemented. The whole

system of QA measures is not fully in place yet on each faculty/department and across the University

as a whole. It is evident, that the university is fully committed to further implement these procedures

this year as the first year including the use of the new software. It is also foreseen to have formal

reports on the outcomes so that an internal benchmarking between the faculties will become a usual

practice. The team states that one of the outcomes of the project was the improvement of their QA

system overall. Indicators, measures and scopes were developed according to the handbook.

During the process the university realized, that the best way of benchmarking for them would be a

regional benchmarking since often data and circumstances are not easy to compare with European

universities. For them it was challenging to find a suitable benchmarking partner with comparable

of 158

and clear data. Therefore the team mainly developed an internal benchmarking through the new QA

system.

Dissemination

The university could be commended for the dissemination activities on its website. They saw it as a

necessity to put the outcomes of every event on the universities website, since people working on

different projects at the same time need the possibility to inform themselves. The team also

promoted and invited other team members regularly via a closed Facebook site in which also

sensible documents could be shared.

Furthermore trainings with noteworthy 3 attending vice-rectors and an info-day were organized.

Overall the university could be commended for a very good involvement of the upper management

and the management commitment to the project. During the visit this was also obvious through Vice-

Rector Valerija Saula who seemed very involved in the project.

Sustainability

The team is committed to putting the software into use from now on and the software will ensure

sustainability of the internal benchmarking not only in one faculty but in different faculties at the

same time. The representatives are also committed to further develop new strategies of the

universities including benchmarking tools. It is evident that a wide number of staff members have

been involved into the benchmarking project who are very eager to see the fruits and outcomes of

their joined efforts of developing the new QA system. The representatives are going to use the newly

developed indicators, measures and the software and further test and improve it if necessary.

Other Comments

Guidelines for National Quality Assurance Strategy: During the visit to all the universities the CEENQA

team could not find out, who wrote this document. The university representatives are also

wondering about this. The team has already sent its comments and mention that the document does

not respect the division between the relevant education authorities, as enshrined in the Constitution

of B&H and Constituion of the FB&H. The introduction and recommendations should also be

improved in that regard.

Project management: The University noted that for them the communication between the local

coordinators and the EU coordinators seemed to would have needed improvement. Sometimes

responsibilities were not clear and activities were delayed. The tendering procedure of purchasing

equipment was not clear and it took too long. The university representatives understand that the EU

partners also have many obligations; the support in terms of benchmarking opportunities, with EU

partners, comments and suggestions to documents was still criticized. Similar to other universities in

the University of Banja Luka occurred also reimbursement problems of staff and travel costs.

of 158

Meanwhile these problems are solved, the universities notes however that without these problems

better results and wider involvement of people could have been organized.

One positive aspect in the University of Banja Luka is that no staff changes occurred so that

knowledge on benchmarking and project processes could be maintained.


(attached).

Agency for Development of Higher Education and Quality Assurance (HEA)

Participants from HEA:

1. Benjamin Muhamedbegović, Assistant Director for Quality Assurance

2. Marina Matošević (excused due to illness)

Former Deputy Director Velimir Jukic who was involved in project has left the Agency and the person

responsable for BIHTEK activities in the HEA excuse herself due to illness. Mr. Benjamin

Muhamedbegović, Assistant Director for Quality Assurance, took part in the meeting as

representative of the Agency

Discussions took place on the importance of benchmarking for higher education institutions.

The sustainability plan was not provided to experts till the quality visit; thereof discussion about the

content of such plan took place. It was agreed that HEA will develop sustainability plan with the

explanation how project results will be used in the process of external evaluation of HEIs and their

study programs.

HEA is going to adopt new criteria for study programme evaluation that should meet new

requirements of ESG2015. During the changes of criteria benchmarking as a tool of quality assurance

will be considered.

HEA is also going to include a topic about benchmarking into the trainings of new experts, for them to be able to assess the importance of benchmarking in the management of HEI and employment of benchmarking results in improvement of activities.

The HEA plans to publish information about final conference and main results of the project on their

website.

of 158

Higher Education Accreditation Agency of Republika Srspska (HEAARS)

Participants from HEA:

1. Duska Radmanovic, Head of Quality Assurance and International Cooperation

Department

HEAARS has presented a sustainability plan that foresees incorporation of project results into quality

assurance. Agency has developed a new Rulebook of accreditation process. Within it benchmarking is

considered as one of the methods of quality assurance which could be taken into consideration

during external audit. A draft of a new Strategy of the RS HEAA 2016-2020 also sets benchmarking as

one of the models of quality assurance. The Agency will propose incorporating benchmarking into

the criteria for accreditation of higher education study programs.

HEAARS also widely disseminated project through the seminars, workshops, trainings and media.

In the future HEAARS is planning to involve into benchmarking private higher education institutions

which could learn from current partners of the project.

A sustainability plan is given in Annex 8 (attached).

of 158

University of Bihać

Participants from the University of Bihac:

1. Mirzet Grozdanić, QA Manager

2. Prof. Refik Sahinovic,

3. Enes Dedic, QA Officer

The meeting was held in the Biotechnological faculty of the university. The visiting team was

welcomed to the University by Prof. Refik Sahinovic, former Rector of the university. A detailed and

comprehensive self-evaluation report was presented before the visit and served as a basis for further

discussions. The University expressed its total commitment to the objectives and full implementation

of the activities planned and has every intention of continuing to use the benchmarking methodology

post the conclusion of the project. The benchmarking as a tool was found to be extremely useful for

the management of the university’s strategic aims and targets.





The University of Bihac was responsible for translation of the handbook into Bosnian language and

has successfully finished translation and are going to submit it to coordinators.

Although the university was a bit delayed with the start of benchmarking in the university, they

managed to catch-up and finish benchmarking in scheduled time. The involvement of top

management and regular discussions on the level of university and on the levels of faculties led to

successful results. Benchmarking areas as well as indicators were discussed on the level of Senate.

University was involved in internal benchmarking between the faculties of the institution and in

external benchmarking with University of Tuzla.

After finishing benchmarking process university has compiled an action plan that will be used as an

input for preparation of a new strategic plan.


used by project team and university staff. Representatives of university strongly stressed the

advantage of selection of specification for IT according to the individual needs of each university.

The university could be commended for development of their own internal information system that

is used for data collection at the university and benchmarking process as well.

of 158

Dissemination

University is regularly disseminating information about project activities by providing news on the

webpage of university. In May of 2014 had organized dissemination event in the university with the

participation of Rectorate and representatives of the faculties. Afterwards the information about

benchmarking was disseminated on faculties’ level.

QA office issues a monthly newspaper for the purposes of dissemination of various information. The

newspaper contained some articles about benchmarking.

Sustainability

Representatives have confirmed that they are planning to continue benchmarking activities after the

end of the project. Benchmarking is a tool that is really useful for the management of higher

education institution. The project activities had started the practice that will be embedded on all

levels of the university in a very structured way. University staff expects to have not only internal

benchmarking, but external benchmarking processes with other BiH universities in the future.

The project has another positive result – better cooperation between public universities of BiH.

Benchmarking could become a useful tool for networking in a more formal way.

University staff was of opinion that this project was a good opportunity for learning and led to

development of instrument that is based on real data. It also gave an opportunity to learn what and

how other partners are organizing their activities and learn from them.

The staff got aware of benchmarking process and will be able to further enhance this activity.

Equipment that was purchased according to the need on university will also help for further

sustainability.

Other comments

Guidelines for National Quality Assurance Strategy. The University has received the draft version of

the “Guidelines for National Quality Assurance Strategy”, but did not send their comments on the

document. Visiting team asked the university representatives to discuss this document between

them and provide the comments to the coordinators in order to improve the content of the

guidelines. „With reference to a proposal to delete both strategy and national from the title of

Guidelines, the university team suggested to stick to the title defined in the project application“.


(attached).

of 158

Conclusions:

1. All eight public universities have made excellent progress in benchmarking and have

successfully finished benchmarking processes. If at the beginning there were certain delays,

participants managed to catch-up and finish according to planned schedule.

2. Universities evidenced their commitment to the continued use of the tool developed post

the conclusion of the BIHTEK project. All expressed firm commitment and appreciation of

the benefits and advantages of benchmarking for the strategic management of the

universities as well as the added advantage to the overall quality of universities.

3. It is evident that involvement of top management in benchmarking process gave the best

impact on the overall results and secured further sustainability.

4. Translation of the Benchmarking handbook into Bosnian language and Croatian was not yet

finished, translation to Serbian language – finished. It is agreed that translations will be

finished by the end of March by the University of Mostar and University of Sarajevo.

5. Institutions have not yet published the Handbook and are going to do this when translations

will be finished.

6. Not all universities have prepared action plans.

7. Seven of eight universities have purchased equipment. It is commendable that universities

had a chance to choose specifications according to their individual needs. All equipment is

installed and used.

8. One of two Quality assurance agencies – HEAARS have prepared sustainability plan which

foresees inclusion of benchmarking into the system of quality assurance in Bosnia and

Herzegovina. Another agency – HEA – promised to prepare a sustainability plan till the final

conference.

9. All participants agreed that the project developed better cooperation between public

universities.

10. There was also an agreement that the project gave chances to learn a lot about

benchmarking and to pilot it.

11. All public universities are going to use benchmarking as a tool after the end of the project.

12. Benchmarking results give a chance for data-based management decisions, but not all top

management from universities had used this chance.

13. Agreement was achieved that the document “Guidelines for National Quality Assurance

Strategy” has to be improved bearing in mind comments from the institutions. It is

recommended to change the title of the document into “Guidelines for Quality Assurance

Strategy in Higher Education of Bosnia and Herzegovina”.

of 158

Recommendations:

1. To finish the translations of the Benchmarking handbook till the end of March.

2. Partners should publish the Benchmarking handbook in local languages on their webpages.

3. The University of Mostar has to finish benchmarking activity till the end of the project.

4. All universities have to finish preparing action plans till the end of the project.

5. HEA has to prepare a sustainability plan till the final conference.

6. Information about the final conference should be published on the webpages of all partners.

7. The document “Guidelines for National Quality Assurance Strategy” has to be improved

bearing in mind comments from the institutions.

8. It is recommended to change the title of the document into “Guidelines for Quality

Assurance Strategy in Higher Education of Bosnia and Herzegovina”.

Acknowledgements

The visiting team from CEENQA wishes to express its appreciation of the welcome and hospitality

shown by all institutions visited; for the excellence of the logistical arrangements (transport,

accommodation) which enabled the CEENQA team to concentrate on the objectives of the visit.

of 158

Annex 1

University of Mostar Self-report

Prepared by: Ana Dujmović – SVEMO QA coordinator I. INTRODUCTION Due to unforeseen circumstances of project management change, SVEMO project team is to modify project activities, within extended period of time. This self report gives an overview on certain actions that are taken and offer an action plan, with concrete time framework, of actions that we are obliged to do in the future. Even though, SVEMO project team has participated in the project activities from the start and showed its commitment to its realization and implementation, in the last year of the project, we faced adjustment of our role in the project. After advising with several partners in the project, international and national ones, SVEMO decided to put all its efforts to realize BIHTEK project activities. A new SVEMO project team was organized after our Rector officially took over the management of completion of the project. Participation of our management was seen as a clear sign of the top management’s commitment to project realization and implementation. Due to the change in management and time constrains and in the light what our BIHTEK commitments were, we had to modify the approach and pilots to do the benchmarking. As many other B&H’s public universities in this project, we decided that internal benchmarking is more suitable for SVEMO at the moment and it is be easier to proceed with it. Advised by project coordinator we plan to complete two pilots:

Benchmarking with UNMO in the area “Institutional Internationalization” and

Benchmarking with UNBL and UNSA in the area of “University web visibility”.

Benchmarking areas are not selected randomly. In both areas we believe that we can make significant progress since work, that has been done so far, clearly shows that there is place for improvement and concrete implementation of BIHTEK outcomes. Since we have followed suggestions from Benchmarking Handbook, which is very important outcome of this project, we truly believe that we are on the right path. We are completely aware of all risks that we are facing in the future project implementation. Since BIHTEK project so far has been challenged, SVEMO and its project team strongly believe that we can expect positive results. 1. Improvements, further developments of Work Packages and deliverables Capacity buildings trainings, meetings and conference (workpackages 3+4):

of 158

We still need additional time to collect all relevant data about visits and attended workshops. Even though we seriously miss certain documents and presentations, we plan it will be completed before the Final Project Conference.

Equipment (workpackage 4): After three public procurement calls and delays related to it, SVEMO was denied all equipment within BIHTEK project. Even though SVEMO project team gave strong assurance that process of procurement, at least for Software, can be done, within project time framework, European Commission was definite on its decision. Planned equipment was a strong point for successful sustainability of project in the future, and we are forced to find new solid sustainability grounds.

Implementation phase (workpackage 4): SVEMO participated in all planned activities, but due to unforeseen circumstances (change in management, no equipment (HR& SW), completion and implementation phase might be extended. Concrete time framework for its completion, is presented in Action Plan attached to this Report.

Dissemination activities ( Del. 3.3. + workpackage 6): Dissemination process of BIHTEK project outcomes will have different direction at SVEMO. Final conference in Mostar, which is supposed to be a final step in dissemination process, will be used as a starting point in disseminating outcomes and introducing wider university population with things that are accomplished. Handbooks will be distributed among Faculties and special attention will be given to QA coordinators at all units so that they can familiarize themselves with Guidelines for QA Strategy and role that benchmarks can play in QA system.

Sustainability (workpackage 7): Detailed plan of ways how we plan to realize sustainability of project results will be presented in Action plan in Conclusion.

Comments for quality monitoring and enhancement (workpackages 8): Monitoring visits are seen as a useful instrument in staying on the right track. Having an observer from the outside helped in unexpected situations that we faced. Even though writing the short report for every monitoring visit is additional obligation, visits are planned ahead, so writing can be easily planned.

Suggestion for the project management (workpackage 9): Project management should keep better track of all project activities and react more persistently and promptly to possible u-turns.

2. Success factor for Higher Education Benchmarking

of 158

SVEMO is planning to do two benchmarking pilots:

Benchmarking pilot between SVEMO and UNMO in the area “ Institutional Internationalization” and

Benchmarking pilot between SVEMO and UNBL and UNSA in the area “University web visibility”

2.1. Determine which area to benchmark I. Is this area aligned to strategic goals in priority areas?

The national benchmarking area of Internationalization is fully in the line with existing SVEMO strategy (strategic priority 3.). Other national benchmarking area “university web visibility” is aligned with our university mission and vision, ongoing process on internationalization and ubiquitous need of not being isolated academic entity anymore and becoming active player at the HEI market.

YES

II. Will major project in this area deliver significant benefits relative to the cost? Costs of benchmarking methodology are relatively lower comparing to others. But the fact of having no equipment, within this project, especially software one, will surely have negative impact on benefits and cost related to them. We are limited by our own resources and existing equipment.

MAYBE

III. Are there drivers in this area which will sustain energy for the process, and ensure that benchmarking is given priority? Attractiveness of benchmarking area and usefulness of its results will ensure its sustainability.

YES

IV. Is benchmarking in this area supported at the executive level and on the ground? Both benchmarking areas were selected after long consultation with wider university community, including representative of different levels. Both pilots have solid ground in existing strategic document even though certain needs are already evident.

YES

V. Are there adequate human, financial and other resources to support of benchmarking in this area? Top management of SVEMO, led by Rector and Vice Rector for International Relation, took active role in supporting BIHTEK project and realizing benchmarking in mentioned areas. Besides that, selected team for every area, are consists of professionals of different backgrounds.

YES

2. 2. Determine types and level of benchmarking I. Is there broad agreement of the types of benchmarking e.g. data sharing,

strategy sharing, evidence base self-review? The benchmarking area of Internalization was selected at first meeting and discussed with relevant stakeholders during this whole process. After appointment of new SVEMO project team, there was broad agreement to

YES

of 158

make the best use of what has been already done. II. Is there broad agreement on the level of benchmarking (policy level,

discipline level, course level, unit level)? Because of unforeseen circumstances, policy level of benchmarking is one that we could realize for the time being. Certain work on course level has been done previously, but new project team could not get information about that, to proceed with further actions.

YES/NO

III. Is there agreement on the model that should be the basis for benchmarking? If no existing model can be used or adapted, are there sufficient resources to developed and test a suitable new model? We have used model that has been developed by our partners in the project (UNMO) in benchmarking our area of Internationalization. It seems that certain templates and models are used and then improved by them. In the area of University web visibility we are creating completely new suitable model.

IV. Is there agreement on what is and what is not to be in the scope? YES V. Is the scope realistic and achievable by the participants within the

anticipated timeframe? Because of unforeseen problems within project, we will probably need additional time to realize all planned activities (sustainability and implementation). Not having equipment will definitely have a negative impact also.

2.3. Prepare benchmarking documents and templates including the purpose, scope of the project, performance indicators, performance measures and performance data 2.4. Design benchmarking process 2.5. Implement benchmarking process 2.6. Review results 2.7. Communicate results and recommendation 2.8. Implement improvement strategies II. CONCLUSION INCLUDING FURTEHR ACTION PLAN By the time it has been written, this self report dealt only with certain aspects of SVEMO progress within BIHTEK project. Since SVEMO experienced certain internal issues with the project management, which force us to completely rearrange our work on benchmarking pilots:

We are able to presents only results in some question area (1 till 2.3.);

of 158

All other activities will be included in our final Self report that will be delivered till the Final Conference in Mostar (4.4.2016.);

Action plan for realization of implementation and sustainability activities (along with Sustainability plan) will be also presented before the Final Conference.

of 158

III. ANNEX 3. Overview of planned activities from University of Mostar till Final conference (5th April 2016) DESCRIPTION TEAM MEMBERS DEADLINE NOTE

National QA

Guidelines

3 Revised draft to be

sent to CEENQA by

21/03/2016.

(16:00); Feedback

from CEENQA by

22/03/2016. On

23/03/ final draft is

sent to all partners

for comments until

28/03/. Preparation

for printing until

04/04 and printed

until 05/04.

We kindly request to help us with

the introduction and conclusion

chapters.

Self- evaluation

report

2 Draft to be sent to

CEENQA until

18/03/. Final report

completed by 04/04.

Sustainability report

(Action plan)

2 To be determine

Pilot/benchmarking

activities

5 04/04/2016

Translation of

Benchmarking

Handbook

4 28/03/2016

Printing and

publishing

2 Receive translation

from partners

(Serbian and

Bosnian) by 21/03/.

All printing and

publishing

completed by 04/04.

Equipment -- -- Procurement denied

Final conference 10 Confirmation of

attendance from

participants by

25/03/16

Annex 2

University of Džemal Bijedić Mostar Self-report

of 158

Introduction Benchmarking is not a new paradigm, but its use was not common as a part of quality assurance process in higher education till recent times in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Tempus project BIHTEK, BENCHMARKING AS A TOOL FOR IMPROVEMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTION PERFORMANCE 530696-TEMPUS-1-2012-1-BE-TEMPUS-SMGR, introduced this novel practice to BiH universities, and so improved the prospect of overall quality improvement at BiH HEI’s. University Dzemal Bijedic of Mostar (UNMO), as one of eight public universities in Bosnia and Herzegovina, approached the participation in this project as a sequel of long efforts on building a culture of quality assurance in our country. Therefore, the rector appointed a strong team, consisting mostly of representatives of management, but taking into account the necessity to include academics from various scientific backgrounds, with different academic status and experience. Thus, members of UNMO team were rector and two vice-rectors, two representatives of management board, and QA officer, with background in university management, mechanical engineering, applied mathematics, economy, IT, languages, experience varying from student, administrative staff, over teaching assistant to full professor. The team members were educated through BIHTEK and their expertize is what enabled the process of benchmarking at UNMO as well as the production of this report. It is important to emphasize the role of other partners in the process of leaning; firstly, there were international experts on the matter form KU Leuven, University of Paderborn, and CEENQA. Apart from the first sequel of education workshops organized in BiH, with the initial process of education, where UNMO sent different staff members in order to educate larger group, there was a very fruitful meeting in Bonn when all previous experiences blossomed into a proposal for benchmarks. For UNMO this meeting was the final stage in benchmarking statements development, and after that the deployment phase begun. Fine-tuning of the benchmarking statements was the process involving BiH partners too; for UNMO the most relevant were teams from the universities of Bihac and Tuzla, and from Sarajevo and Banja Luka. Since the latest two are the biggest in BiH, and therefore not suitable for comparison with UNMO, when looking for local external benchmarking partners UNMO turned to the first two. The inputs from partners were of different importance for different benchmarking topics. The strongest overall input concerning the selection of indicators was from KU Leuven; this is in particular case for the area of internationalization. When it comes to the definition of measures, the most important input (apart from benchmarking guide which provided very informative examples) was from CEENQA experts as well as staff from the University of Paderborn, for in Bonn meeting benchmarking statements were externally checked and approved. Nevertheless, the indicators that UNMO used in the process of benchmarking were discussed with the four already named BiH universities, and their input was also of the great value. Selection of topics was not an easy task, but it somehow came straightforward: funding, R&D, and internationalization. Those topics were selected in accordance to university mission and vision, taking into account the process of university integration, as well as preliminary analysis of UNMO strengths and weaknesses. This step was followed by the development of benchmarking statements, and selection of performance indicators. Members of UNMO team participated very actively in this process, and performed pilot benchmarking in the period of November 2014 to February 2015. At first, UNMO team planned to perform solely internal benchmarking, but later on in the project decided to add also benchmarking with other universities for selected topics, i.e. with the University of Tuzla for internationalization. From the very beginning it was clear that benchmarking process will be easier if BiH universities had international model partners. Even if there were two strong partners to choose between, University

of 158

of Paderborn and KU Leuven, UNMO team decided to follow the model of the later. Motive was the fact that during the project UNMO was planning and starting to implement the process of university integration, and therefore it was natural to look upon a partner with recent experience in merging, and that was KU Leuven. The issue of integration was in particular important for the area of funding, for UNMO team intended from the beginning of this project to use the benchmarking process to improve its performance, and funding is the most obvious area to do so. Deployment phase was for some areas straightforward (internationalization), while for the others very time-consuming. Nevertheless, it was a well-rewarding job, for UNMO has a very detailed input into the new strategy that will be developed this year for the period 2016-2021. UNMO now has resources for benchmarking in the form of human resources, equipment and software, and will use it for setting up a permanent benchmarking plan and procedures. Software that was developed for the project is a custom-made upgrade for UNMO information system, enabling not only the creation of PI’s and Benchmarks, but also automation of data acquisition, and reporting. Because of its importance, project findings and direct or indirect results were disseminated to the UNMO Senate and Management board on several occasions. Furthermore, project results were disseminated to UNMO students and staff and on TV, radio, university web-site and Facebook page on several occasions.

of 158

Funding Azra Bajramovic, UNMO Steering board member

Goran Skondric, UNMO Steering board member

Approach stage

Dzemal Bijedic University has been going through the process of integration throughout duration of the BIHTEK project. The University has

experienced a lot of challenges in this process and one of the most sensitive topics extremely important for the University is its funding.

In Bosnia and Herzegovina higher education is under cantonal level jurisdiction and the funding and support to universities depends on the

financial power of the cantons and different political issues. Mostar has two universities that receive limited funding from the Canton government.

Dzemal Bijedic University depends a lot on the tuition fees payed by the

students as a source of financing and potential for increasing those is also limited. The problem gets even more complicated if we take into

consideration lower population growth that reflects itself in the number of potential students. All of these points make funding extremely important

issue for University.

In order to address this topic in details two members of the University

team focused especially on this problem. Both of them are members of the University’s Steering Committee that makes financial decisions, one of

them an economist, and are familiar with funding sources issues and potential problems.

After identifying importance of the funding and choosing it as one of the benchmark areas, another point that needed to be resolved was what type

of benchmarking to undertake for the chosen area.

First we looked at the practice of European universities. According to

relevant data for universities in Europe up to 70% of funding of European

universities comes from direct public funding but this number is expected to decrease in the following years. Student participation varies in different

countries and EU funds are becoming more important but the competition for those funds is increasing. Still, expenditure on education as a

percentage of GDP is much higher than in B&H.

Being a medium sized university in economy that does not spend a lot on

university funding we realized that it is not possible to do external benchmarking with European universities. Other universities in B&H get

much more financial support from the cantonal government or are different in terms of size so they were also excluded as potential partners

for the benchmarking exercise.

We decided to do internal benchmarking i.e. analyse funding of the

faculties within the university and to use the information for better

of 158

decision-making related to funding in the context of its importance for

integrated university.

Benchmarking statements were thus at the institutional level, for UNMO

representatives deemed that specificities of the university funding would be explored better if the benchmarks were custom developed. UNMO team

also came to a consensus that it will be easier to assess the situation and come up with possible improvements that way.

For international model university UNMO selected KU Leuven for the expertize of its staff as well as the fact that KU Leuven went through a

successful process of merging during the project.

Deployment

In order to define performance indicators and evaluation criteria for the benchmarking exercise, couple of meetings of benchmarking team and

university management were held in order to define the scoping

statement, good practice statements and the list of potential indicators. The meeting was also held with the head of the Accounting department to

check what kind of data might be obtained from that department.

Following the discussion with the university management an initial list of

performance indicators was created and good practice and scoping statements were defined.

That process was followed by the data collection. There was a question on what would be an appropriate period for analysis. Since some funding

rules were changing in the previous periods we decided to analyse the data for the year of 2014. All the relevant data were mostly obtained from

two sources. Documents of the University such as the Book of Rules, Rector’s operational plan, financial plans, etc. were obtained from the

University management along with reports on financial performance of the University distributed to the members of the Steering Committee.

Financial statements were also obtained from the Accounting department.

After looking into all relevant information collected we redesigned the benchmarking template in terms that we decided to split the funding

sources benchmark exercise into two parts. One benchmark related to institutional funding sources and another one to the structure of those

sources.

of 158

The first benchmark is titled: Institutional funding sources and the aim of benchmarking this was to check planning and plans’ implementation

related to institutional funding sources. Three performance indicators (PI) were developed. They are:

PI 1: Institution’s strategic and operational plans include funding sources considerations and promote financial sustainability.

PI 2: Institution’s financial plans are aligned with institutional strategic and operational plans.

PI 3: Institution’s procedures and guidelines provide a framework for monitoring and analysis of funding sources indicators

Evaluation criteria for each of those indicators were developed too. Details on their definition may be found in Annex to this report.

From the documents mentioned above relevant information were extracted, compared and analysed. For each of the performance indicators

results of analysis were discussed among team members and weighted

and then marked according to the suggested evaluation criteria.

The second benchmark is titled: Structure of institutional funding sources.

The aim of benchmarking in this area was to evaluate adequacy of the funding sources and their diversification. Three performance indicators

(PI) were developed. They are:

PI 1: Group of measures that reflect institution’s funding structure

PI 2: Group of measures that reflect participation of faculties in specific institution funding source

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

PI1

PI2

PI3

Self-assesment UNMO funding F1: Institutional funding sources

MaxV UNMO

of 158

PI 3: Group of measures that reflect institution’s organizational units

funding structure

For each of the indicators a group of sub-indicators was developed in

order to reflect the structure of the funding sources. Performance indicator 1 consists of five sub-indicators, Performance indicators 2 and 3 consist of

three sub-indicators. The details might be found in Annex to this report. Evaluation criteria for each of those indicators and sub-indicators were

developed too.

From the financial statements obtained from the Accounting department

and reports on financial performance distributed to the Steering Committee the relevant data were extracted. Since all performance

indicators and sub-indicators represent the structure of funding through different ratios for each of the indicators the ratios that reflect funding

sources structure relevant to the indicator were calculated. Following their

calculation, the results were analysed and compared and after discussion of team members all of them were graded according to the set evaluation

criteria.

According to the required steps in the benchmarking process, after

analysis of the results in the benchmarking process initial action plan was designed that includes the following (for both benchmarks):

0 1 2 3 4

PI1

PI2

PI31

PI32

Self-assesment UNMO funding F2: Structure of institutional funding sources

MaxV UNMO

of 158

University management has to develop yearly operational plan for

funding sources that would describe the necessary steps to be undertaken for the achievement of the figures presented in a

financial plan. New and improved methodology of calculating indicators founded on

activity based costing should be implemented. The first step in the process would be a database that would contain ready information

on funding that do not need to be extracted from different statements and reports.

More detailed group of indicators need to be developed and followed regularly in set time intervals.

Data on tuition and administrative fees students pay listed according to different study programs and cycles need to be obtained.

Plans for the future diversification of funds must be made.

Review

During the process of benchmarking in the area of funding we faced a lot

of different issues and problems. The first one was what type of benchmarking to use and how to decide on what is the best practice since

the practice of universities across Europe varies. Also when looking at funding of the universities in Bosnia and Herzegovina different practices

exist dependant on the size of the university and also entities’ and cantons’ rules and regulations.

After deciding to do internal benchmarking the only logical thing to do in order to evaluate indicators was to compare them to the plans of the

University management. When it comes to funding structure we decided to link it to the strategic goals of the University in the area of funding.

Access to data and collection of all relevant information was also a challenge since the financial information may only be obtained from the

Accounting department or from the reports distributed to the Steering

Committee. Data from the Accounting department are set for one year and therefore cannot provide sufficient relevant information. It is more

important for the university to analyse financial performance for an academic year and that cannot be done in an adequate way with the

current system of providing information.

Improvement

Based on the information provided above we conclude that in order to continue with benchmarking process and more importantly to use it as an

important input for decision making it is necessary to continue working on

of 158

the set levels of indicators but also to develop the new ones, now that the

University is integrated.

Suggested indicators and measures present a starting point in

benchmarking of funding sources. These need to be developed further and followed regularly in set time intervals. Also after more regular follow up

of all relevant indicators new evaluation criteria could be defined.

Working on the achievement of the strategic goal in financing is important

but due to a lot of limitations in the political and organizational environment of the Canton achievement is not going to happen in the

near future. Still, continuation of the actions in that field is recommended.

Current accounting rules and practices do not enable decision makers to

get a full insight into the structure of revenues of each study program and other relevant data so a new and improved methodology of calculating

indicators founded on activity based costing should be implemented.

After calculations of the relevant ratios each faculty contribution to

revenues of the university as well as their own funding structure need to

be studied in details and compared to number of students, study programs and costs. Potentially some good practices in obtaining non-

tuition fees’ revenues could be identified and then used as a guide for other faculties or departments.

of 158

Institutional Internationalization Nina Bijedic, vice-rector for international cooperation

Iris Memic

Approach stage

Dzemal Bijedic University has been going through the process of

integration throughout duration of the BIHTEK project. Furthermore, since 2012, UNMO is experiencing intensification of international cooperation.

Where there were none systematic mobilities, UNMO is suddenly becoming a valued and trusted partner, and offered to participate in increasing

number of programs and projects. During the duration of the project UNMO was involved in four EMA2 networks, activated and maintained

eight Mevlana protocols on cooperation, was granted nine K107 mobility

schemes in the first call (and was offered twenty more applications), and reached the number of 60 student mobilities per year. Majority of the

mobilities are still outgoing, but it is visible that UNMO has something good to offer, because students who come are more than willing to

prolong their stay, or apply again.

Initially, there was a huge increase in mobilities, and therefore,

internationalization was selected for a benchmarking topic.

For model international partner UNMO selected KU Leuven for the previous

cooperation on the development of performance indicator on internationalization. The project participants had several discussions, that

resulted in the proposed set of indicators and measures. It is important to emphasize that in the definition of measures for performance indicators

there was also very important input from CEENQA, the University of Paderborn, and universities of Bihac, Banja Luka, Sarajevo and Tuzla.

Deployment

Definition of performance indicators for internationalization was proposed

for the project meeting in Bonn, hosted by CENQUA. UNMO team came well-prepared and offered a proposal for benchmark on Institutional

internationalization. UNMO position was at the time that the prerequisites for internationalization are the well aligned and mature strategic

documents. Therefore, six out of eight performance indicators are related to strategic documents.

The benchmark statement also includes two “quantitative” indicators; they are not fully quantitative, but are dealing with quantities, or can be

quantified easily.

Benchmark level was supposed to be national, that is, adjusted to the BiH

practices, capacities and manner. UNMO team is aware of the differences

of 158

in the possibilities for BiH HEI’s when compared to European, not only

concerning funding, but also availability of programs.

After the definition of the benchmark, data collection was a

straightforward process: the existing documents are assembled in the Office for international relations (IRO) and even if it wasn’t a short

process, it wasn’t a difficult one either.

The phase of data collection also indicated to UNMO team that it would be

necessary to define new procedures for incoming students in order to ensure automated data collection, and those procedures were developed,

and are in the process of authorization.

The relevant documents in this case were strategic university documents,

and the policies or practices that were uploaded to www.unmo.ba for the sake of incoming mobilities.

Dissemination of the ideas resulting from the process of benchmarking was mainly targeting university and faculty management, and was

discussed at the UNMO Senate on several occasions.

In the following figure is the self-assessment of UNMO concerning the institutional internationalization.

Benchmark title is Institutional internationalization, and performance indicators are as following:

PI1 Institution strategic and operational plans promote internationalization.

0

1

2

3

4

5 PI1

PI2

PI3

PI4

PI5

PI6

PI7

PI8

Benchmark 3: Institutional internationalization UNMO

UNMO MaxVal

http://www.unmo.ba/

of 158

PI2 Specific plans relating to internationalization are aligned with the

institution’s strategic directions and operational plans.

PI3 Authority and responsibility for the operational management of

internationalization are clearly articulated.

PI4 Planning for the ongoing process of internationalization is aligned

with the institutions budget process.

PI5 Institution policies, procedures and guidelines provide a framework

for internationalization at both a course and program level.

PI6 Policies, procedures and guidelines on internationalization are well

communicated and integrated into research and development processes.

PI7 The institution has memorandums on cooperation that enable

international mobility.

PI8 Quantitative aspects of internationalization: involvement in mobility

programs; student/staff mobility.

From the table it is visible that UNMO is not at the very best situation

concerning institutional internationalization, but that is also the conclusion

of the accreditation committee, and therefore, we find the benchmark well defined as well as suited to UNMO needs. The best situation for UNMO is

concerning the performance indicators 1, 2, 7 and 8, while the most immediate attention should be to improve the link between

internationalization process and R&D.

As during the project, it turned out that other universities were interested

in benchmarking concerning the institutional cooperation, UNMO agreed to perform benchmarking as opposed to the University of Tuzla. The results

are presented in the next figure. From the figure it is visible that UNTZ estimates their performance are better.

of 158

After the benchmarking, and in accordance with increased international

cooperation, UNMO team saw the need to explore university’s capacity for international cooperation, and that will most likely be done through

another round of benchmarking. First UNMO management will set the ideals for internationalization capacity, and then perform analysis, and

propose measures.

According to the required steps in the benchmarking process, after

analysis of the results in the benchmarking process initial action plan was designed that includes the following:

Redefine strategy, improve plans, set up procedures for monitoring, benchmarking and improvements, if possible

Increase the number of specific plans Plan growth of the service

Enhance possibilities for external funding

Develop more procedures, educate staff and enforce following of the procedures

Set clear criteria according strategic goals Develop specific plans and implement them.

Review

During the process of benchmarking in the area of internationalization

UNMO team observed a lot of issues, and managed to resolve some of them.

0

1

2

3

4

5 PI1

PI2

PI3

PI4

PI5

PI6

PI7

PI8

Benchmark 3: Institutional internationalization UNMO-UNTZ

UNMO UNTZ

of 158

The first one was what type of benchmarking to use and how to decide on

what is the best practice since funding UNMO is not in favour of internationalization, and it is well known that any sort of effort requires

resources.

For UNMO was at an early stage of the internationalization process, the

first proposal was to perform internal benchmarking, but later on it was distended with external. Partner was the University of Tuzla.

Access to data and collection of all relevant information was not a challenge since IR Office at UNMO is a very good one, and can be a model

for other universities in BiH.

UNMO used the experiences gained in this project to perform another

action in the process of dissemination of project results, but also in international verification of project results. That is, based in the

experiences from Tempus projects MOREMS and BIHTEK, UNMO representatives with a colleague from SVEMO prepared a paper1 and

submitted it for publication. In this paper they discussed the overall

strategy for internationalization, as well as the proposed set of indicators for benchmarking institutional internationalization presented here. The

differences in the paper and this report in the proposed levels of measurement of performance indicators arose after the inputs from Andre

Govaert, from KU Leuven.

Improvement

Based on the information provided above we conclude that in order to continue with benchmarking process and more importantly to use it as an

important input for decision making it is necessary to continue working on the set levels of indicators but also to develop the new ones, now that the

University is integrated.

Suggested indicators and measures present a starting point in

benchmarking of internationalization. As it was outlined before, there is

the need to benchmark more indicators, and the first proposed addition will be the indicators that can lead to a reliable estimate of UNMO capacity

for internationalization, for, as the cooperation intensifies, it is becoming more and more obvious that UNMO management needs to know exactly

what the students and staff want. The benchmarks should also be followed regularly in time intervals. Also after more regular follow up of all relevant

indicators new evaluation criteria could be defined.

1 http://eurasianpublications.com/Eurasian-Journal-of-Social-Sciences/Vol.-3-No.2-

2015.aspx

of 158

There were two very encouraging outcomes of the project till now. The

first one is that UNMO had to develop the missing strategic documents in order to earn a positive mark. The other one is a paper that was published

on internationalization, that included short presentation of the proposed benchmark, that was in such a way internationally verified.

Extract from the Operating plan for the development of international and interuniversity cooperation: Activity Plan till april 2018

1. Improvement of strategic documents

a. All strategic documents should be translated to English

This activity should be planned probably through capacity building projects

2. University web-page should be improved

a. Should be updated on regular basic, after the

dissemination/promotion plan

A person should be delegated; for content related to IR the

responsibility is on IRO

b. Web-page in English should be filled with more content,

should be regularly updated

c. Content upgrade

i. University organization

ii. Staff CV’s in English

Responsibility of IRO

iii. Web-pages in English of organizational units

Responsibility of organizational units

3. Exchange programs

a. Excellence in exchange programs according the university

capacities

The goal of IRO

b. Preparations for nomination for ERASMUS+ Quality award

IRO long-term goal

4. Memorandums on cooperation

a. Signing new functional memorandums on cooperation with

institutions from country, region and beyond

of 158

b. Reaching balance in cooperation at the national, regional, and

international level, regarding the UNMO capacities

University management together with IRO and organizational units

5. Mobility

a. Enhance offer in English

b. Enable systematical and constant access to mobility

c. Increase attractiveness of UNMO for incoming mobilities

(welcome, tutors, extracurricular activities, language courses, etc.)

d. Enable the development of joint study programs

e. Increase number of summer schools, programs and

conferences, according UNMO capacities

f. Set up the minimal desired numbers of student/staff mobilities

Goals of IR with cooperation with management (university and units)

6. Projects

a. Strategic goals of UNMO and units

b. Animate students and staff and capacitate them

IRO + services representing programs

c. Create internal network for project administration

d. Support applications

IRO + organizational units

7. Quality assurance

a. Create conditions to increase international ranking of UNMO

b. Transparency in the field of internationalization (dissemination)

c. Develop information packages for students and their tutors, personalized service being the ultimate goal

of 158

Research Elvir Zlomusica, vice rector for research

Nina Bijedic, vice-rector for international cooperation

Iris Memic

Approach stage

There are three pillars on which a HEI is based, and through which its

merit is measured, and that are the base for the comparison of HEI's. They are measured with performance indicators in the fields of education,

knowledge transfer and scientific research. Research, development and innovation (RDI) is most commonly a consequence of HEI’s cooperation

with relevant scientific, technological or other institutions which can contribute to the general development of a society, as well as local

community.

Teaching activity is currently primary at the University, while the

scientific-research work reduced to mostly individual projects. In scientific-research work are mostly engaged those who work on their

master and doctor thesis. This must significantly change, in the near future.

Organization of scientific-research work is very complex; it requires relatively expensive research equipment, trained staff members, planned

research programs, etc. However, it is certain that, recently, the quality of

work of higher education institutions has been measured by quality and quantity of their scientific-research work.

The main source of finance at our University and other universities in the region are budget funds and studying fee. The profit from projects and

services is relatively small. Nevertheless, even the potential sources of funding seem to be insufficient. One of the potential possibilities is invite

applications put out by Federal Ministry of Education and Science.

Even though it is insufficient, this kind of scientific-research work gives

some results, which demonstrate certain number of published books, expert and scientific papers published in journals, as well as presentations

of these papers at local and international scientific conferences. Furthermore, participation and work on a certain number of scientific-

research projects, out of which some are international. We should point out that there were also a certain number of projects at the “Dzemal

Bijedic” University of Mostar in past period, which is positively surprising

considering the structure of personnel and other, previously stated factors. Finally, we need to emphasize the inclusion of the University into

the various EU projects. For model international partner UNMO selected KU Leuven for the

research excellence they show, especially in the area of innovation, but also for the convenience of having only one international model. The

project participants had several discussions that resulted in the proposed

of 158

set of indicators and measures. It is important to emphasize that in the

definition of measures for performance indicators there was also very important input from CEENQA, the University of Paderborn, and

universities of Tuzla, Bihac, Banja Luka, and Sarajevo.

Deployment

Definition of performance indicators for research was proposed for the project meeting in Bonn, hosted by CENQUA. UNMO team came well-

prepared and offered a proposal for benchmarks on research. UNMO position was at the time that the prerequisites for research are the well

aligned and mature strategic documents. Therefore, six out of eight performance indicators are related to strategic documents.

This is a benchmark developed and agreed upon by at least half of the eight universities, and therefore it can be viewed as a national level

benchmark. That is in particular true when observing the measures for

quantitative performance indicators. The minimal value in the measure reflects the worst-case scenario in the BiH HEI’s, and was set low in order

to enable positive grade. Higher ranked measures reflect the desire to start improvements after the EU practice, but members of UNMO team are

aware that reaching such goals will take a lot of careful and innovative planning, hopefully with international support.

Data acquisition was straightforward: data was collected from the University Information system. The data was filled from the side of the

student services of the eight faculties. It is also important to note that it is official UNMO data. From the following text it is obvious that data was

collected during the three years that is for the period 2013-2015, ending with 31/12/2015.

UNMO team developed two benchmarks with the following performance indicators. The first benchmark was Institutional policy for research and

development, with performance indicators:

PI 1. Institution strategic and operational plans promote research excellence.

PI 2. Specific plans relating to R&D are aligned with the institution’s strategic directions and operational plans.

PI 3. Institutional capacity and responsibility for the operational management of R&D are clearly articulated and transparent.

PI 4. Planning for the ongoing process of R&D is aligned with the institutions budget process.

PI 5. Institution policies, procedures and guidelines provide a framework for R&D at program level.

PI 6. The institution has active partnerships in RDI that are well recognized regionally and internationally.

of 158

The second one was Institutional involvement in the process of research,

development and innovation, with the performance indicators: PI 1. The existence of adequate infrastructure needed for implementation

of RDI. PI 2. The ratio of the number of research papers per researcher in

research fields. PI 3. The number of SCI research papers per researcher per year.

PI 4. Overall cumulative index of research papers per year. PI 5. Ratio of income from RDI projects in the overall income.

PI 6. Ratio of number of PhD candidates per overall number of students. PI 7. The number of research projects per year. The following three graphs illustrate situation described with PI6 at UNMO.

The overall results of the UNMO benchmarking for R&D are illustrated in

the next two graphs. Details of the rationale and evidence are presented in Appendix 3 of this report.

19 15

20

0,43 0,34 0,43 0

5

10

15

20

25

2013. 2014. 2015.

Ach

sen

tite

l

Achsentitel

Number of PhD candidates vs overall number of students

No. Ratio

0

5

10

15

20

25

2013. 2014. 2015.

Gender structure of PhD candidates

No. Female

0

2

4

6

8

10

No

.

PhD candidates per scientific field

2013.

2014.

2015.

of 158

Review

During the process of benchmarking in the area of R&D UNMO team observed a lot of issues, and managed to resolve some of them.

The first one was what type of benchmarking to use and how to decide on what is the best practice since funding UNMO is not in favour of R&D, and

it is well known that any sort of effort requires resources.

For UNMO was at an early stage of the development of R&D process, the

first proposal was to perform internal benchmarking.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

PI1

PI2

PI3

PI4

PI5

PI6

PI7

Institutional policy for research, development and innovation

MaxVal1 RDI1

0 1 2 3 4 5

PI1

PI2

PI3

PI4

PI5

PI6

PI7

Institutional involvement in the process of research, development and innovation

MaxVal2 RDI2

of 158

Access to data and collection of all relevant information was a challenge

even if all data exited in the UNMO IS. The new software will enable automated data acquisition in the future.

Improvement In a way, improvement steps in the area of R&D are similar to those of

internationalization. Some of them can be stated as short term goals, but some will

require more time, and hence should be formulated as long term goals. Nevertheless,

based on the information provided above we conclude that in order to

continue with benchmarking process and more importantly to use it as an important input for decision making it is necessary to continue working on

the set levels of indicators but also to develop the new ones, now that the University is integrated.

Suggested indicators and measures present a starting point in benchmarking of R&D. There is the need to benchmark more indicators,

and benchmarks should also be followed regularly in time intervals. Also after more regular follow up of all relevant indicators new evaluation

criteria could be defined.

A very encouraging outcome of the project is that UNMO had to develop

some of the missing strategic documents in order to earn a positive mark.

Activities for improvement match in part those developed for

internationalization, and will not be repeated here.

of 158

Activity plan

The proposed activities that should improve UNMO funding scheme are the

following;

1. University management has to develop yearly operational plan for

funding sources that would describe the necessary steps to be undertaken for the achievement of the figures presented in a

financial plan.

2. New and improved methodology of calculating indicators founded on

activity based costing should be implemented. The first step in the process would be a database that would contain ready information

on funding that do not need to be extracted from different statements and reports.

3. More detailed group of indicators need to be developed and followed regularly in set time intervals.

4. Data on tuition and administrative fees students pay listed according to different study programs and cycles need to be obtained.

5. Plans for the future diversification of funds must be made.

The proposed activities concerning improvements in the areas of internationalization and research are the following:

6. Improvement of strategic documents

a. All strategic documents should be translated to English

This activity should be planned probably through capacity building projects

7. University web-page should be improved

b. Should be updated on regular basic, after the

dissemination/promotion plan

A person should be delegated; for content related to IR the

responsibility is on IRO

c. Web-page in English should be filled with more content,

should be regularly updated

d. Content upgrade

i. University organization

ii. Staff CV’s in English

Responsibility of IRO

iii. Web-pages in English of organizational units

Responsibility of organizational units

of 158

8. Exchange programs

e. Excellence in exchange programs according the university capacities

The goal of IRO

f. Preparations for nomination for ERASMUS+ Quality award

IRO long-term goal

9. Memorandums on cooperation

g. Signing new functional memorandums on cooperation with institutions from country, region and beyond

h. Reaching balance in cooperation at the national, regional, and international level, regarding the UNMO capacities

University management together with IRO and organizational units

10. Mobility

i. Enhance offer in English

j. Enable systematical and constant access to mobility

k. Increase attractiveness of UNMO for incoming mobilities

(welcome, tutors, extracurricular activities, language courses, etc.)

l. Enable the development of joint study programs

m. Increase number of summer schools, programs and

conferences, according UNMO capacities

n. Set up the minimal desired numbers of student/staff mobilities

Goals of IR with cooperation with management (university and units)

11. Projects

o. Strategic goals of UNMO and units

p. Animate students and staff and capacitate them

IRO + services representing programs

q. Create internal network for project administration

r. Support applications

IRO + organizational units

12. Quality assurance

s. Create conditions to increase international ranking of UNMO

of 158

t. Transparency in the field of internationalization

(dissemination)

u. Develop information packages for students and their tutors,

personalized service being the ultimate goal

of 158

Conclusions

Tempus projects in the last twenty years were implemented in BiH with

varying outcomes; some were very successful, and some less. Nevertheless, looking back now it seems that all projects were helping to

rebuild human resources at BiH universities, damaged by huge brain drain. UNMO participated in a lot of Tempus projects, and rebuild its

services and its reputation with the support of EC funds. These projects also resulted with some lasting connections and friendships, and those

were also very important for UNMO.

Tempus project with the acronym BIHTEK is one of the projects that

deployed structural measures in order to improve management of BiH universities. UNMO was a lucky partner for the project duration matched

the election of new management, so all the improvements were granted to be implemented once the project team was selected, for the members

were five from the top university management. This force was enough to

initiate changes, but also insist on implementing them.

Benchmarking proved to be a novel, but a very useful tool in quality

assurance at UNMO, for it enables not only clearly stating strategic goals and measuring their realisation through a set of performance indicators,

but also the route for improvement, which is a main pillar of every quality policy.

UNMO team selected three areas for pilot benchmarking, funding, internationalization and research capacity. Members of UNMO team were

educated during the project, and there was a dissemination workshop at UNMO at which the other interested parties at UNMO had a chance to

learn about benchmarking. Performance indicators and their measures were developed mainly by UNMO team, but with the support of other,

more experienced, project partners. Pilot benchmarking was performed in due time, being mainly internal, and it resulted not only with the activity

plan for improvements, but with some implemented improvements as

well.

UNMO team participated in all project activities, and its members are

satisfied with the experience and knowledge they gained.

For the international model partner UNMO selected KU Leuven, for their

recent experience in merging. Since UNMO was in the process of integration during the project, it was important for management to have

first-hand information that could be useful guide in resolving the issues arising from the process. KU Leuven proved to be a good model, but

of 158

UNMO received equally important and valuable inputs from the University

of Paderborn and CEENQA as well.

When it comes to cooperation with BiH universities, in this project it

turned out that UNMO had most valuable cooperation with the universities of Banja Luka, Bihac, Sarajevo and Tuzla (in alphabetical order, for all

inputs were equally important).

The first set of workshops in BiH UNMO used to educate several different

staff members. The single most important workshop for UNMO team was the one in Bonn, organized by CEENQA, for it was the crown of the first

set of activities, ending up with the verification of the proposal for benchmarking statements for all selected area that UNMO team prepared

from the previous experiences, using the guidelines developed for the project. The second most important event proved to be the latest

presentation in Ghent, where UNMO presented its benchmarking report, and received inputs for its further improvements. It would be unfair to

state that these two events stand alone, for both represent the crown of

efforts from the project consortium in the two different project stages; preparation and deployment.

It is certain that benchmarking is a useful tool for quality assurance at higher education institutions, and UNMO will certainly use it in the future

to improve its performance, using benchmarks developed in this project, but also developing new ones, for it is now capacitated for such

achievements.

of 158

Appendix 1: Benchmarking templates for funding

Benchmark No: F1 Title: Institutional funding sources

Scoping Statement: This applies to institution’s level planning and plans’ implementation in relation to funding sources issues. It includes

delegation of authority and responsibility for developing and implementing institution’s financial plans.

Good Practice Statement: The institution has established strategies,

mechanisms and policies that enable designing, implementing and evaluating plans related to funding sources and promoting financial

sustainability.

Performance Indicators and measures

PI 1. Institution’s strategic and operational plans include funding sources considerations and promote financial sustainability

1 No current strategic and operational plans 2 Strategic or operational plans but no recognition of funding sources issues

3 Strategic or operational plans have some recognition of funding sources issues and financial sustainability

4 x Strategic and operational plans have some recognition of funding sources issues and financial sustainability

5 Strategic and operational plans have clear recognition of funding sources issues and financial sustainability

Overall rating 1 2 3 4 5

Rationale and Evidence:

The operational plan of rector contains a part that refers to financing of University. It

addresses several important issues including the strategic goal of the University: to be

fully financed by the government of the Canton or make a specific agreement that would

include the aforementioned.

One of the goals for the future is also to intensify the cooperation with the industry so

that all the faculties might increase their revenue coming from the industry. The plan

also states intentions to increase the revenues from other sources such as the different

ministries, international projects etc. but it does not specify how. The plan also includes

some reference to the use of funds and solving of some long term financing issues.

of 158

PI 2. Institution’s financial plans are aligned with institutional strategic and operational plans

Financial plans exist Plans are aligned 1 No specific plans Not aligned to institution strategic and operational plans

2 x Immature plans x Aligned with either institution strategic or operational plans

3 Some specific plans Aligned with both institution strategic and operational plans

4 Numerous specific plans Aligned with either institution strategic or operational plans

5 Comprehensive suite of plans Aligned with both institution strategic and operational plans



The financial plan for the year 2014 is just partially aligned to institutions strategic and

operational plans. In the plan there are less funds planned from industry although the

goal states that those should be increased, the funds from the government of the Canton

are not changed. There are planned increases of funds coming from other projects

financed by different authorities in BiH which is in line with one of the goals in the

operational plan for 2014.

PI 3. Institution’s procedures and guidelines provide a framework for monitoring and analysis of funding sources indicators

1 No procedures or guidelines 2 Not well established procedures and guidelines 3 x Established procedures and guidelines that enable limited monitoring and analysis 4 Established procedures and guidelines that enable moderate monitoring and analysis 5 Established procedures and guidelines that enable comprehensive monitoring and analysis



Relevant set of data can be obtained from the Accounting Service of the University. Out

of those data different set of the indicators might be calculated. According to the Book of

Rules of the University one of the main activities of the Steering Committee of the

University is to analyze and make decisions related to financial issues. So, the Steering

Committee analyzes those indicators on regular basis as well as the use of those funds

and makes decisions based on the information provided. Still, due to specific distribution

of funds inside the University and some accounting rules set of indicators do not always

give the right picture of the state of funding and use of funds.

Team Consolidation Benchmark No: F1 1 2 3 4 5 PI 1 Institution’s strategic and operational plans include funding sources issues and promote financial sustainability

x

Rationale The operational plan of rector contains a part that refers to financing of University. It addresses several

of 158

important issues including the strategic goal of the University: to be fully financed by the government of the Canton or make a specific agreement that would include the above. One of the goals for the future is also to intensify the cooperation with the industry so that all the faculties might increase their revenue coming from the industry. The plan also states intentions to increase the revenues from other sources such as the different ministries, international projects etc. but it does not specify how. The plan also includes some reference to the use of funds and solving of some long term financing issues. Evidence Operational plan of the University for 2014 Financial plan of University for 2014 PI 2 Institution’s financial plans are aligned with institutional strategic and operational plans

x

Rationale The financial plan for the year 2014 is just partially aligned to institutions strategic and operational plans. In the plan there are less funds planned from industry although the goal states that those should be increased, the funds from the government of the Canton are not changed. There are planned increases of funds coming from other projects financed by different authorities in BiH which is in line with one of the goals in the operational plan for 2014. Evidence Operational plan of the University for 2014 Financial plan of University for 2014 PI 3 Institution’s procedures and guidelines provide a framework for monitoring and analysis of funding sources indicators

x

Rationale Relevant set of data can be obtained from the Accounting Department of the University. Out of those data different set of the indicators might be calculated. According to the Book of Rules of the University one of the main activities of the Steering Committee of the University is to analyse and make decisions related to financial issues. So, the Steering Committee analyses those indicators on regular basis as well as the use of those funds and makes decisions based on the information provided. Evidence Book of Rules of Dzemal Bijedic University of Mostar Steering Committee decisions and recommendations for 2014

Benchmark No F2 Title: Structure of institutional funding sources Scoping Statement: This applies to institution’s level capacity and plans’ implementation

in relation to funding sources. It includes indicators and measures that enable institution

to evaluate funding sources’ structure.

Good Practice Statement: The institution has adequate funding sources structure as

projected in financial plan that promotes financial sustainability.

of 158

Performance Indicators and measures:

PI 1: Group of measures that reflect institution’s funding structure:

PI 1a: Ratio of government funds to total revenue of the institution

PI 1b: Ratio of student fees (tuition and administrative) to total revenue of the

institution

PI 1c: Ratio of non-commercial funds to total revenue of the institution

PI 1d: Ratio of funds from industry to total revenue of the institution

PI 1e: Ratio of other funds to total revenue of the institution

1 All of the ratios’ values are significantly different from those in financial plan 2 x Some of the ratios’ values are significantly lower than predicted in financial plan 3 All of the ratios’ values are as projected in financial plan

Overall rating 1 2 3


For the purpose of this self-assessment exercise financial data for the year 2014 were

analysed. Financial statements and different types of reports were obtained from

University’s Accounting Service. Set of data were extracted from the financial statements

and reports obtained and ratios, as explained above, were calculated. Each of the type of

the revenues were compared to the financial plan for the year of 2014. Comparison of

those information showed some items were a bit higher than projected by financial plan,

but there were two types of revenues that showed significantly lower value than the ones

set by plan.

of 158

PI 2: Group of measures that reflect participation of faculties in specific

institution funding source: PI 2a: Ratio of student fees (tuition and

administrative) of a faculty to total

Institution’s revenue from student fees

PI 2b: Ratio of non-commercial funds of a faculty to total non-commercial

funds

PI 2c: Ratio of funds from industry of a faculty to total revenue from

industry

PI 2a: Ratio of student fees (tuition and administrative) of a faculty to total institution’s

revenue from student fees 1 x 20% of faculties contribute significantly to institution’s total revenue from student fees 2 Half of the faculties contribute significantly to institution’s total revenue from student fees 3 All faculties participate equally in institutions’ total revenue from student fees



Analysis of the ratios calculated shows unequal participation of faculties in total

institution’s funds from student fees. Two of the faculties participate almost 50% in total

revenue from student fees.

PI 2b: Ratio of non-commercial funds of a faculty to total revenue from non-commercial

funds

1 x 20% of faculties contribute significantly to institution’s total revenue from non-commercial funds

2 Half of the faculties contribute significantly to institution’s total revenue from non-commercial funds

3 All faculties participate equally in institutions’ total revenue from non-commercial funds




institution’s revenues from non-commercial funds. One of the faculties participate with

more than one third in total revenue from non-commercial funds.

PI 2c: Ratio of funds from industry of a faculty to total revenue from industry

1 x 20% of faculties contribute mostly to institution’s total revenue from industry 2 Half of the faculties contribute significantly to institution’s total revenue from industry 3 All faculties participate equally in institutions’ total revenue from industry




institution’s revenues from industry. One of the faculties participate with more than two

thirds in total revenue from industry.

PI 3: Group of measures that reflect institution’s organizational units funding

structure:

of 158

PI 3a: Ratio of student fees (tuition and administrative) of a faculty to

faculty’s total revenue

PI 3b: Ratio of non-commercial funds of a faculty to faculty’s total revenue

PI 3c: Ratio of funds from industry of a faculty to faculty’s total revenue

For each of the eight institution’s organizational units (faculties) ratios given

above (from PI 3a to PI 3b) were calculated. (Faculties were assigned numbers

from 1-8)

Faculty 1: 1 x One funding source is dominant in funding structure 2 At least two funding sources contribute significantly to faculty’s revenue 3 Funding structure is diversified



Analysis of the ratios calculated shows unequal participation of different sources of

funding in funding structure. In this case revenue from student fees (over 95%

participation) is the most important and highly dominant source of funding. When we

take ratios from PI 2 we can see that this faculty takes fourth position when contribution

of faculties’ student fees to total institution fees is taken into consideration.






participation) is the most important and dominant source of funding. When we take

ratios from PI 2 we can see that this faculty takes seventh (one before last) position

when contribution of faculties’ student fees to total institution fees is taken into

consideration.







take ratios from PI 2 we can see that this faculty takes second position when contribution


Faculty 4:

1 One funding source is dominant in funding structure

of 158

2 At least two funding sources contribute significantly to faculty’s revenue 3 Funding structure is diversified






take ratios from PI 2 we can see that this faculty takes third position when contribution


Faculty 5: 1 One funding source is dominant in funding structure 2 x At least two funding sources contribute significantly to faculty’s revenue 3 Funding structure is diversified



Analysis of the ratios calculated shows some diversification of funding structure

compared to previous four faculties. In this case revenue from student fees (over 79%

participation) is also the most important source of funding but funds from industry also

contribute with over 16%. When we take ratios from PI 2 we can see that this faculty

takes fifth position when contribution of faculties’ student fees to total institution fees is

taken into consideration and second position when contribution of faculties’ revenue from

industry to total institution revenue from industry is taken into consideration.

Faculty 6:

1 One funding source is dominant in funding structure 2 x At least two funding sources contribute significantly to faculty’s revenue 3 Funding structure is diversified



Analysis of the ratios calculated shows some diversification of funding structure In this

case revenue from student fees (42% participation) is not the most important source of

funding. For this faculty revenue from industry is the most important source with 54%

participation. When we take ratios from PI 2 we can see that this faculty takes sixth

position when contribution of faculties’ student fees to total institution fees is taken into

consideration and the first position when contribution of faculties’ revenue from industry

to total institution revenue from industry is taken into consideration.

of 158

Faculty 7: 1 One funding source is dominant in funding structure 2 At least two funding sources contribute significantly to faculty’s revenue 3 Funding structure is diversified



Analysis of the ratios calculated shows some diversification of funding structure In this

case revenue from non-commercial funds is the most important source of funding with

participation rate of more than 56%. This is the faculty that takes the first position when

contribution of faculties’ non-commercial funds to total institution non-commercial funds

is taken into consideration.

Faculty 8: 1 One funding source is dominant in funding structure 2 At least two funding sources contribute significantly to faculty’s revenue 3 Funding structure is diversified






take ratios from PI 2 we can see that this faculty takes the first position when

contribution of faculties’ student fees to total institution fees is taken into consideration

but it is also the faculty that charges the highest tuition fees.

Based on the financial data from Accounting Department of the University the above set

of indicators was calculated for year 2014. For indicators PI 2 to PI 3 three most

important funding sources were taken into consideration. Financial statements are not

based on academic year so the correct information on revenues from particular academic

year, namely student fees and their structure may not be obtained.

of 158

Team Consolidation Benchmark No: F2 1 2 3 PI 1 Group of measures that reflect institution’s funding structure

x

Rationale For the purpose of this self-assessment exercise financial data for the year 2014 were analysed. Set of data were extracted from the financial statements and reports obtained and ratios were calculated. Each of the type of the revenues were compared to the financial plan for the year of 2014. Comparison of those information showed some items were a bit higher than projected by financial plan, but there were two types of revenues that showed significantly lower value than the ones set by plan. Evidence Financial statements and different types of reports from University’s Accounting Service University’s financial plan for 2014 Values of the ratios calculated PI 2 Group of measures that reflect participation of faculties in specific institution funding source

x

Rationale Analysis of the ratios calculated shows unequal participation of faculties in total institution’s funds from student fees. Two of the faculties participate almost 50% in total revenue from student fees. Analysis of the ratios calculated shows unequal participation of faculties in total institution’s revenues from non-commercial funds. One of the faculties participate with more than one third in total revenue from non-commercial funds. Analysis of the ratios calculated shows unequal participation of faculties in total institution’s revenues from non-commercial funds. One of the faculties participate with more than two thirds in total revenue from non-commercial funds. Evidence Financial statements and different types of reports from University’s Accounting Service Values of the ratios calculated. PI 3 Group of measures that reflect institution’s organizational units funding structure:

PI 3a: Ratio of student fees (tuition and administrative) of a faculty to total faculty’s revenue from student fees PI 3b: Ratio of non-commercial funds of a faculty to faculty’s revenue from non-commercial funds PI 3c: Ratio of funds from industry of a faculty to faculty’s revenue from industry

PI 3 Faculties 1, 2, 3, 4, 8

x

Rationale Analysis of the ratios calculated shows unequal participation of different sources of funding in funding structure of five faculties. Revenue from student fees is the most important and highly dominant source of funding for those faculties. Four out of five faculties in this group have participation rate of 95% of student fees in their revenue. These four faculties take first four positions when contribution of faculties’ student fees to total institution fees is taken into consideration. Evidence Financial statements and different types of reports from University’s Accounting Service

of 158

Values of the ratios calculated.

PI 3 Faculties 5, 6, 7

x

Rationale Analysis of the ratios calculated shows some diversification of funding structure compared to previous four faculties. For two of the faculties, student fees are not the most important source of revenue. For one of the faculties funds from industry are the most important and for another one non-commercial funds and these faculties take the first positions when contribution of faculties’ revenue from industry to total institution revenue from industry is taken into consideration and when contribution of faculties’ non-commercial funds to total institution non-commercial funds is taken into consideration respectively. Evidence Financial statements and different types of reports from University’s Accounting Service Values of the ratios calculated.

of 158

Appendix 2: Internationalization

Benchmark No 3 Name: Institutional internationalization

Scoping Statement

This applies to institution level planning, policy development, institutional capacity and

implementation in relation to the internationalization. It includes the delegation of

authority and responsibility for developing and implementing policy, and strategic and

operational plans.

Good Practice Statement

The institution has established, well understood strategy, governance mechanisms,

policies and capacities that enable involvement in the international networks/programs,

international mobility of students and staff, with the aim of international recognition and

good reputation/ranking.


PI 1. Institution strategic and operational plans promote internationalization.

1 No current strategic or operational plans 2 Strategic or operational plan but no recognition of internationalization 3 Strategic or operational plan includes some elements of internationalization 4 x Strategic and operational plans both have some elements of internationalization 5 Strategic and operational plans both have clear recognition of internationalization

Indicate where you believe you rate above.


Strategy for internationalization developed through MOREMS TEMPUS project,

internationally verified. Action plan developed through BIHTEK Tempus project.

Rector's work plan contains basic elements of internationalization development at the

University.

PI 2. Specific plans relating to internationalization are aligned with the institution’s strategic directions and operational plans. Specific plans exist Plans are aligned

1 No specific plans Not aligned to institution strategic and operational plans

2 Immature plans 2 Aligned with either institution strategic or operational plans

3 3 Some specific plans Aligned with both institution strategic and operational plans






There is a strategy for internationalization as well as the action plan.

The Work plan of the Rector contains basic elements of internationalization development

at the University.

of 158

PI 3. Authority and responsibility for the operational management of internationalization are clearly articulated. Authority and responsibility Clearly articulated

1 Non-existent Not articulated

2 Not well established or defined Very limited articulation

3 Established but only partially defined Moderately articulated

4 x Well defined but maturing x Substantial articulation

5 Well established and mature Comprehensively articulated




There is a Vice Rector for international and interuniversity cooperation as well as the

Office for international cooperation. The number of staff employed is not enough as well

as the additional funds. Motivation is increased due to the successful implementation of

international cooperation through new programs.

PI 4. Planning for the ongoing process of internationalization is aligned with the institutions budget process.

1 No alignment 2 Limited alignment 3 x Moderate alignment 4 Considerable alignment 5 Complete alignment



The funds are secured through projects.

PI 5. Institution policies, procedures and guidelines provide a framework for internationalization at both a course and program level. Course level Program level

1 No policies, procedures and guidelines applied at the course level

No policies, procedures and guidelines applied at the program level

2 Little alignment with policies, procedures and guidelines

Little alignment with policies, procedures and guidelines

3 x Some alignment with policies, procedures and guidelines

x Some alignment with policies, procedures and guidelines

4 Good alignment with policies, procedures and guidelines

Good alignment with policies, procedures and guidelines

5 Comprehensive alignment with policies, procedures and guidelines

Comprehensive alignment with policies, procedures and guidelines




There is an offer of courses in English language and there is an interest of incoming

students and professors. University rulebooks.

of 158

PI 6. Policies, procedures and guidelines on internationalization are well communicated and integrated into research and development processes. Communicated Integrated

1 Not communicated Not integrated 2 Poorly communicated Poorly integrated 3 x Moderately communicated x Moderately integrated 4 Substantially communicated Substantially integrated 5 Widely communicated Fully integrated




Procedure on international cooperation, Rulebook on mobility and elements of Statute

book. With the increase in mobility possibilities and flows, researchers are beginning to

rely on the existence of international cooperation, and therefore, there is moderate

alignment.

PI 7. The institution has memorandums on cooperation that enable international mobility. Memorandums on cooperation

1 Non-existent or expired 2 Covering only one region, or only one mobility scheme, or less than ten

3 Covering variety of institutions and programs, but not in effective use

4 x Well distributed but maturing 5 Well distributed and mature




Agreements with all public Universities in Bosnia and Herzegovina, with two international

private universities and other relevant partners (Intera technology Park) with the

majority of public universities in the region, with eight public higher education institutions

from Turkey, fifteen from EU. There is an ongoing activity of signing the ERASMUS

bilateral agreements on credit mobility with institutions relevant for University itself or

organizational units.

PI 8. Institution is involved in mobility programs for both students and staff. Involvement in Programs Mobility

1 None, or inactive No mobility 2 Only regional cooperation x Up to 5 in-coming or out-going 3 x Moderate international cooperation x Sufficient but unbalanced 4 x Well distributed but incidental Well balanced but incidental 5 Well distributed and regular Well balanced regular mobility




We have just started with the ERASMUS+ networks, we have very good results in the

framework of Mevlana exchange program with Turkish higher education institutions, with

more than 20 students of different study programs per year and more than 20 academic

staff members of different study programs per year.

of 158

Team Consolidation Benchmark 3: Institutional internationalization 1 2 3 4 5

1. Institution strategic and operational plans promote internationalization. x Rationale and evidence Strategy for internationalization developed through MOREMS TEMPUS project, internationally verified. Action plan developed through BIHTEK Tempus project. Rector's work plan contains basic elements of internationalization development at the University. Improvements Redefine strategy, improve plans, set up procedures for monitoring, benchmarking and improvements, if possible

2. Specific plans relating to internationalization are aligned with the institution’s strategic directions and operational plans.

x

Rationale and evidence There is a strategy for internationalization as well as the action plan. The Work plan of the Rector contains basic elements of internationalization development at the University. Improvements Develop strategic documents, plans, align them. Increase the number of specific plans

3. Authority and responsibility for the operational management of internationalization are clearly articulated.

x

Rationale and evidence There is a Vice Rector for international and interuniversity cooperation as well as the Office for international cooperation. The number of staff employed is not enough as well as the additional funds. Motivation is increased due to the successful implementation of international cooperation through new programs. Improvements Plan growth of the service

4. Planning for the ongoing process of internationalization is aligned with the institutions budget process.

x

Rationale and evidence The funds are secured through projects. Improvements Enhance possibilities

5. Institution policies, procedures and guidelines provide a framework for internationalization at both a course and program level.

x

Rationale and evidence There is an offer of courses in English language and there is an interest of incoming students and professors. University rulebooks. Improvements Develop more procedures, educate staff and enforce following of the procedures

6. Policies, procedures and guidelines on internationalization are well communicated and integrated into research and development processes.

x

Rationale and evidence Procedure on international cooperation, Rulebook on mobility and elements of Statute book. With the increase in mobility possibilities and flows, researchers are beginning to rely on the existence of international cooperation, and therefore, there is moderate alignment. Improvements Further development

7. The institution has memorandums on cooperation that enable international mobility.

x

Rationale and evidence Agreements with all public Universities in Bosnia and Herzegovina, with two international private universities

of 158

and other relevant partners (Intera technology Park) with the majority of public universities in the region, with eight public higher education institutions from Turkey, fifteen from EU. There is an ongoing activity of signing the ERASMUS bilateral agreements on credit mobility with institutions relevant for University itself or organizational units. Improvements Set clear criteria according strategic goals

8. Quantitative aspects of internationalization: involvement in mobility programs; student/staff mobility.

x

Rationale and evidence We have just started with the ERASMUS+ networks, we have very good results in the framework of Mevlana exchange program with Turkish higher education institutions, with more than 20 students of different study programs per year and more than 20 academic staff members of different study programs per year. Improvements Develop specific plan, implement them

of 158

Appendix 3: Benchmarking templates for research

Benchmark No: 4 Name: Institutional Policy for Research, Development and Innovation

Scoping Statement

This applies to institution level planning, policy development, institutional capacity and

implementation in relation to the research and development. It includes the delegation of

authority and responsibility for developing and implementing policy, and strategic and

operational plans.


The institution has established, well understood strategy, governance mechanisms,

policies and capacities that enable involvement in the international networks/programs,

visible successful outcomes of students and staff research, with the aim of nurturing

academic excellence, and earning international recognition and good reputation/ranking.



1 No current strategic or operational plans 2 × Strategic or operational plan but no recognition of research excellence 3 Strategic or operational plan includes some elements of research excellence 4 Strategic and operational plans both have some elements of research excellence 5 Strategic and operational plans both have clear recognition of research excellence




There exists a document strategy of development of UNMO. The document was made

with much seriousness and quality, but a certain time period has passed and changes are

necessary. It should also be noted that in this document very little homage is paid for

research excellence. The operative plans still don’t exist. The decision was made, along

with the necessary work group for development of a new strategy for the development of

the university at the most recent senate in 2015.

PI 2. Specific plans relating to R&D are aligned with the institution’s strategic directions and operational plans. Specific plans exist Plans are aligned

1 × No specific plans × Not aligned to institution strategic and operational plans

2 Immature plans Aligned with either institution strategic or operational plans

3 Some specific plans Aligned with both institution strategic and operational plans



of 158




Specific plans for the R&D don’t exist. It was done from a project standpoint. In

development of specific documents...

PI 3. Institutional capacity and responsibility for the operational management of R&D are clearly articulated and transparent. Capacity and responsibility Clearly articulated and transparent

1 Non-existent Not articulated nor transparent

2 × Established but only partially defined × Moderately

3 Well established and mature Comprehensively




There exists an organizational structure which should by procedure take care of R&D

(dean, vice dean, rector, vice rector, NNV, Senate ...), but all of that should be taken to a

much higher level.


1 No alignment 2 × Limited alignment 3 Moderate alignment 4 Considerable alignment 5 Complete alignment




It’s very hard to plan specific fund because only basic demands for the university’s

function are met. A possibility of financing research projects exists from responsible

ministries from an entity and state level, just like from international projects.

PI 5. Institution policies, procedures and guidelines provide a framework for R&D at program level. Program level

1 No policies, procedures and guidelines applied at the program level

2 × Some alignment with policies, procedures and guidelines


Overall rating 1 2 × 3



On the basis of adequate procedure that is the rulebook of academic progress and choice

of teaching on the basis of the Statute itself there exist certain procedures.

PI 6. The institution has active partnerships in RDI that are well recognized regionally and internationally. Regionally Internationally

of 158

1 No relevant partners No relevant partners 2 × Several relevant partnerships × At least 1 partner per unit

3 Well established relevant regular partnerships

Well established relevant regular partnerships

Overall rating 1 × 2 3



Yes, there exists a certain bond with the partner institutions in the country and abroad.

The last few years, it was mostly tied to technical and biotechnical faculties. Of course,

it’s still inefficient.

Team Consolidation Benchmark 4: Institutional policy for research, development and innovation 1 2 3 4 5

1. Institution strategic and operational plans promote research excellence.

x

Rationale & Evidence There exists a document strategy of development of UNMO. The document was made with much seriousness and quality, but a certain time period has passed and changes are necessary. It should also be noted that in this document very little homage is paid for research excellence. The operative plans still don’t exist. The decision was made, along with the necessary work group for development of a new strategy for the development of the university at the most recent senate in 2015. Improvements

2. Specific plans relating to RDI are aligned with the institution’s strategic directions and operational plans.

x

Rationale & Evidence Specific plans for the R&D don’t exist. It was done from a project standpoint. In development of specific documents ... Improvements

3. Institutional capacity and responsibility for the operational management of RDI are clearly articulated and transparent.

x

Rationale & Evidence There exists an organizational structure which should by procedure take care of R&D (dean, vice dean, rector, vice rector, NNV, Senate ...), but all of that should be taken to a much higher level. Improvements

4. Planning for the ongoing process of RDI is aligned with the institutions budget process.

x

Rationale & Evidence It’s very hard to plan specific fund because only basic demands for the university’s function are met. A possibility of financing research projects exists from responsible ministries from an entity and state level, just like from international projects. Improvements

5. Institution policies, procedures and guidelines provide a framework for RDI at program level.

x

Rationale & Evidence On the basis of adequate procedure that is the rulebook of academic progress and choice of teaching on the

of 158

basis of the Statute itself there exist certain procedures. Improvements

6. The institution has active partnerships in RDI that are well recognized regionally and internationally.

x

Rationale & Evidence Yes, there exists a certain bond with the partner institutions in the country and abroad. The last few years, it was mostly tied to technical and biotechnical faculties. Of course, it’s still inefficient. Improvements

of 158

Benchmark No 5 Name: Institutional involvement in the process of research, development and innovation

Scoping Statement

This applies to institution level capacity and implementation in relation to the research,

development and innovation. It includes actual quantitative indicators and measures,

which enable the institution to realistically evaluate own RDI capacities at local, regional

and global level and to establish policies for improvement.


The institution has adequate infrastructure for RDI, concerning space, equipment, and

human resources. It has well established network of relevant local, regional and global

partners, which results in institutions involvement in globally relevant research projects,

and a significant number of globally relevant research publications and innovations.


PI 1. The existence of adequate infrastructure needed for implementation of RDI.

1 Non-existing 2 × Existing but not sufficient (in quantity) or not in use 3 Existing but not in order or outdated 4 Existing, sufficient and in use

Overall rating 1 2 3 4



Some primary, basis, should we call it, infrastructure exists. Of course, it can and must

be a lot better, especially for technical, biotechnical and natural sciences. It should also

be noted that it’s also insufficiently used and/or is outdated. It’s necessary to reinforce

the office for R&D, choose vice deans for R&D at all faculties, form a unique university

institution and so on …

PI 2. The ratio of the number of research papers per researcher in research fields. The ratio

1 Less than minimal legal requirement 2 × In accordance with legislation but not 30% over the minimum 3 Sufficient




The exact relation in this moment is hard to find. Knowing the general state in high

education in Bosnia and Herzegovina and at UNMO, it’s something above the bare

minimum of the suiting acts. The minimal number is regulated by different acts such as:

1. The statute of UNMO.

2. The rulebook of minimal conditions in the procedure of election to academic titles

of UNMO

3. The rulebook on a register of national and international publications (journals and

of 158

conference procedures) of UNMO

4. The rules of studying at the third cycle and awarding a doctoral degree at UNMO

5. The decision of changes and revisions of the rules of studying at the third cycle

and awarding a doctoral degree at UNMO.

PI 3. The number of SCI research papers per researcher per year. The number of SCI research papers

1 No papers 2 × 0,1-0,9 papers on average 3 One paper 4 More than one

Overall rating 1 2 3 4



The exact number is impossible to know, for that is an information that UNMO does not

follow. This should be improved. Nevertheless, progress is evident in the consecutive

years, but it is not sufficient. One of the reasons are working conditions that are not

satisfactory, but there also is lack of information flow. In the period 2012-2016 there was

proposed a sequel of documents aiming to improve the existing situation:

1. The rulebook on a register of national and international publications (journals and

conference procedures) of UNMO

2. Decision on measures for enabling visibility and UNMO presence on the Internet

3. The rules of studying at the third cycle and awarding a doctoral degree at UNMO

4. The decision of changes and revisions of the rules of studying at the third cycle

and awarding a doctoral degree at UNMO.

PI 4. Overall cumulative index of research papers per year. Cumulative Impact factor per year

1 × Unsatisfactory 2 Moderately satisfactory 3 Satisfactory




There exist no such information at UNMO. It is a well-known fact that BiH is lagging when

compared to the other countries in the WBC region, therefore it can be assumed that

situation at UNMO is not satisfactory.

PI 5. Ratio of income from RDI projects in the overall income. Ratio of income

1 No income from RDI

2 × From 1% to 20%

3 More than 20%




of 158

In October 2014 (when benchmarking was initially performed) it is very difficult to

estimate inflow from R&D for a time period, say year 2013. Accounting office is not a

problem, but there is an issue of data privacy, as well as lack of transparency.

Nevertheless, it is a known fact that major financing source is the Federal Ministry of

Education and Science, with grants of average 7000€. The measure for improvement

would be to regularly update register of active projects, the existing register is at the

link: http://www.unmo.ba/naucno-istrazivacki-rad.aspx).

PI 6. Ratio of number of PhD candidates per overall number of students. Ratio of PhD candidates per number of students

1 × Up to 1% - unsatisfactory 2 From 1% to 5% 3 Over 5%




According the available data, in the period 2010-2012 48 doctoral titles were awarded at

UNMO.

In the year 2013 there were 19 promotions:

5 in social sciences, 2 in technical, 5 in humanities, 4 I n natural and 3 in

biotechnical sciences

10 women and 9 men

The ratio is 0.43% compared to the overall number of students, or 11.37%

compared to the number of master students (there is a very big drop-out rate in

the first cycle, for majority of students pay only the smallest tuition fee).


7 in social sciences, 4 in technical, 2 in humanities, 2 in biotechnical sciences

2 women and 13 men


compared to the number of master students.


9 in social sciences, 5 in technical, 4 in humanities, 1 in natural and 1 in

biotechnical sciences

6 women and 14 men


compared to the number of master students.

PI 7. The number of research projects per year. National + Regional International

1 No projects × No projects

2 × Up to 50% of research units have 1 new project per year

Up to 10% of research units have 1 new project per year

3 More than 50% of research units have 1 new project per year

More than 10% of research units have 1 new project per year




http://www.unmo.ba/naucno-istrazivacki-rad.aspx

of 158

In the year 2013 there were 4 research projects financed by the Federal ministry of

education and science.

In the year 2014 there was 1 research project financed by the Federal ministry of


In the year 2015 there was 1 research project financed by the Federal ministry of


Team Consolidation Benchmark 5: Institutional involvement in the process of research, development and innovation

1 2 3 4 5

1. The existence of adequate infrastructure needed for implementation of RDI.

x

Rationale & Evidence Some primary, basis, should we call it, infrastructure exists. Of course, it can and must be a lot better, especially for technical, biotechnical and natural sciences. It should also be noted that it’s also insufficiently used and/or is outdated. It’s necessary to reinforce the office for R&D, choose vice deans for R&D at all faculties, form a unique university institution and so on … Improvements

2. The ratio of the number of research papers per researcher in research fields.

x

Rationale & Evidence The exact relation in this moment is hard to find. Knowing the general state in high education in Bosnia and Herzegovina and at UNMO, it’s something above the bare minimum of the suiting acts. The minimal number is regulated by different acts such as:

1. The statute of UNMO. 2. The rulebook of minimal conditions in the procedure of election to academic titles of UNMO 3. The rulebook on a register of national and international publications (journals and conference

procedures) of UNMO 4. The rules of studying at the third cycle and awarding a doctoral degree at UNMO 5. The decision of changes and revisions of the rules of studying at the third cycle and awarding a

doctoral degree at UNMO. Improvements

3. The number of SCI research papers per researcher per year. x Rationale & Evidence The exact number is impossible to know, for that is an information that UNMO does not follow. This should be improved. Nevertheless, progress is evident in the consecutive years, but it is not sufficient. One of the reasons are working conditions that are not satisfactory, but there also is lack of information flow. In the period 2012-2016 there was proposed a sequel of documents aiming to improve the existing situation:

1. The rulebook on a register of national and international publications (journals and conference procedures) of UNMO

2. Decision on measures for enabling visibility and UNMO presence on the Internet 3. The rules of studying at the third cycle and awarding a doctoral degree at UNMO 4. The decision of changes and revisions of the rules of studying at the third cycle and awarding a

doctoral degree at UNMO. Improvements

4. Overall cumulative index of research papers per year. x Rationale & Evidence There exist no such information at UNMO. It is a well-known fact that BiH is lagging when compared to the

of 158

other countries in the WBC region, therefore it can be assumed that situation at UNMO is not satisfactory. Improvements

5. Ratio of income from RDI projects in the overall income. x Rationale & Evidence In October 2014 (when benchmarking was initially performed) it is very difficult to estimate inflow from R&D for a time period, say year 2013. Accounting office is not a problem, but there is an issue of data privacy, as well as lack of transparency. Nevertheless, it is a known fact that major financing source is the Federal Ministry of Education and Science, with grants of average 7000€. The measure for improvement would be to regularly update register of active projects, the existing register is at the link: http://www.unmo.ba/naucno-istrazivacki-rad.aspx). Improvements

6. Ratio of number of PhD candidates per overall number of students. x Rationale & Evidence

According the available data, in the period 2010-2012 48 doctoral titles were awarded at UNMO. In the year 2013 there were 19 promotions: 5 in social sciences, 2 in technical, 5 in humanities, 4 I n natural and 3 in biotechnical sciences 10 women and 9 men The ratio is 0.43% compared to the overall number of students, or 11.37% compared to the number of master students (there is a very big drop-out rate in the first cycle, for majority of students pay only the smallest tuition fee). In the year 2014 there were 15 promotions: 7 in social sciences, 4 in technical, 2 in humanities, 2 in biotechnical sciences 2 women and 13 men The ratio is 0.34% compared to the overall number of students, or 5.72% compared to the number of master students. In the year 2015 there were 20 promotions: 9 in social sciences, 5 in technical, 4 in humanities, 1 in natural and 1 in biotechnical sciences 6 women and 14 men The ratio is 0.43% compared to the overall number of students, or 7.66% compared to the number of master students.

Improvements

7. The number of research projects per year. x Rationale & Evidence In the year 2013 there were 4 research projects financed by the Federal ministry of education and science. In the year 2014 there was 1 research project financed by the Federal ministry of education and science. In the year 2015 there was 1 research project financed by the Federal ministry of education and science. Improvements

of 158

of 158

Annex 3

Report on site visit to University of Sarajevo

I. INTRODUCTION/ BRIEF SUMMARY

The final conclusion is that UNSA project team was able to implement all planned project activities

on time.

Top management commitment which is necessary for realization of activity plan for quality

improvement to reach planned benchmarking results (change). Therefore it is main project and

benchmarking challenges.

The internal benchmarking is more suitable for UNSA at this moment. It offers improvement

solutions based on current resources (human and financial). Such solutions increase efficiency of

public funds utilization and quality improvement.

The capable well educated benchmarking team, UNSA benchmarking community and HR software

which is tailored to UNSA staff and management needs are core of project sustainability.

Documents: Benchmarking handbook and Guidelines for QA strategy are seen as very important

outcomes of project. In spite of its importance there is a huge space for improvement.

UNSA implemented two pilot benchmarking:

International benchmarking between UNSA and UNPA in the area “Governance of funding

and financial resources within universities”; and

Internal benchmarking between Faculty of Agriculture and Food Sciences, Faculty of

Electrical Engineering (ETF), Faculty of Medicine (MF), Faculty of Philosophy (FF), School of

Economics and Business (EF) in the area “University visibility and impact”

The change of university management is a risk for project implementation. First project was

endangered by the institutional change at KULUEVEN and finally change of top management at

SVEMO had negative impact on BiH coordination and management.

1. Improvements, further developments of Work Packages and deliverables

Capacity building trainings, meetings and conferences (workpackages 3 + 4):

Visit to Padeborn (UNSA only) – was excellent and very useful. That was

opportunity to discuss and improve definition of benchmarks, best practice and

benchmarking indicators.

Bihać conference – the conference was useful providing to all participants

guidelines for benchmarking report preparation. It was opportunity to discuss

translation of Handbook and its further improvement.

Mostar conference – was well organized. It was very good opportunity for each

university to present an improve benchmarking reports. At this meeting was

of 158

agreed to prepare Guidelines for quality assurance strategy at BiH universities.

Colleagues from RS were against title which includes word national. Also, they

pointed out that project team is not in position to define Strategy, but

guidelines for strategy preparation for them was acceptable.

Visit to Gent was very well organized. Discussion was very constructive

covering set of unclear questions regarding preparation strategy for quality

assurance at UNSA. UNSA team suggested change of wording in benchmarking

report titles. We agreed that result of benchmarking has to be change, not

measurement of performance level which suggest only rang. Therefore, It was

suggested to change title “Result of benchmarking” into “Definition of best

practice and performance gap”.

Equipment (workpackage 4):

The equipment has been purchase during the period Jun to August 2015.

KULUEVEN put additional effort to manage this process. UNSA had been

responsible to provide 3 offers for equipment and best offer has been selected

by KU LUEVEN.

UNSA provided three offers for HR software development. The best offer has

been selected by KU LUEVEN. The software has been developed, evaluated and

improved. The presentation of software was done at the dissemination

meeting at UNSA (10.2.2016)

Implementation phase (workpackage 5):

All planned activities regarding International benchmarking has been

successfully implemented: workshop in Sarajevo (15-16.12.2014), workshop in

Padeborn (January, 2015), self evaluation of Padeborn and UNSA (February –

May, 2015), analysis and gap definition, preparation of report and plan for QA.

During period may, 2015 – march 2016 all planned activities regarding internal

benchmarking has been successfully implemented: definition of benchmarks,

best practice, benchmarking indicators, formation of data gathering team, self-

evaluation report preparation, gap analysis and definition of recommendations

and action plan. The benchmarking findings has been disseminated at

dissemination event 10.2.2016

Dissemination activities (Del. 3.3 + workpackage 6):

Workshop in Sarajevo (December, 2014) was used to disseminate project

results and raise top management commitment.

Erasmus day has been used to promote project results.

Workshop in Sarajevo (10.2..2016) has been used to disseminate findings of

benchmarking process and to present developed HR software.

The benchmarking community was facilitated trough facebook page.

Sustainability (workpackage 7):

The benchmarking reports with clear action plan for improvement are basis for

project results sustainability and impact.

of 158

The existence of UNSA benchmarking community which is seen as a tool to

raise awareness and knowledge about benchmarking process, is additional

outcome that ensures sustainability.

Well trained teams for International and Internal benchmarking (10 persons)

will ensure UNSA capability to pursue with benchmarking practice as a part of

permanent quality improvement system.

The prepared and signed plan for quality assurance will contribute to the

project sustainability.

Comments for quality monitoring and enhancement (workpackage 8):

The preparation of quality monitoring visit is better and includes preparation of

short report. This is additional burden for the UNI teams, but will increase

efficiency of quality insurance.

QA first report includes some statement which are not fully in line with reality

(comments about Handbooks and mailings)

Suggestions for the project management (workpackage 9):

The project management has been improved significantly. Procedure for

payment is still quite long.

2. Success Factors for Higher Education Benchmarking

UNSA implemented two pilot benchmarking:

International benchmarking between UNSA and UNPA in the area “Governance of funding

and financial resources within universities”; and

Internal benchmarking between Faculty of Agriculture and Food Sciences, Faculty of

Electrical Engineering (ETF), Faculty of Medicine (MF), Faculty of Philosophy (FF), School of

Economics and Business (EF) in the area “University visibility and impact”

2.1. Determine which areas to benchmark

I. Is this area aligned to strategic goals in priority areas? The internal benchmarking area was „University visibility and impact“. This area is fully in line with UNSA strategical priority area 2.2. Research and 2.5. International cooperation The international benchmarking area „Governance of funding and financial funds within university“ is fully in line with UNSA strategical priority area 2.3. Funding of the university activities. In addition it is in line with the legislative request to integrate UNSA.

Yes

of 158

II. Will a major project in this area deliver significant benefits relative to the costs? Having in mind that internal benchmarking exercise offer improvement solution based on current resource, one cam assumed that strengthening of capacity for open publishing and indexing of existing journals will deliver higher benefits relative to the costs. The HR software will provide different services to the staff and management enabling them to provide evidence about UNSA visibility and impact. The main recommendation is to develop overall BiH initiative to start negotiation process with responsible ministries about university funding and accountability will not bring measurable benefits in short run, but it will establish path to the sustainable funding of HEIs in BiH.

Yes (especially internal benchmarking)

III. Are there drivers in this area which will sustain energy for the process, and ensure that benchmarking is given priority? Attractiveness of both benchmarking area and directly observed benefits for staff and management will raise recognition of benchmarking usefulness.

Yes

IV. Is benchmarking in this area supported at the executive level and on the ground? The benchmarking area for international benchmarking exercise has been selected by UNSA top management. The internal benchmarking area was selected by UNSA benchmarking community on the first training implemented at UNSA

Yes

V. Are there adequate human, financial and other resources to support benchmarking in this area? The two teams (see selfassessment report) has been selected and trained.

Yes

2.2. Determine types and level of benchmarking

I. Is there broad agreement on the types of benchmarking, e.g. data-sharing, strategy-sharing, evidence-based self-review? The benchmarking area for international benchmarking exercise has been selected by UNSA top management and discussed at workshop with wither group of appointed representatives of UNSA members. The internal benchmarking area was selected by UNSA benchmarking community on the first training implemented at UNSA. This was opportunity to discuss about whole process.

Yes

II. Is there broad agreement on the level of benchmarking (e.g. policy level, discipline level, course level, unit level)? Selection of benchmarking area was done by experts, top management and UNSA benchmarking community

Yes

III. Is there agreement on the model that should be the basis for benchmarking? If no existing model can be used or adapted, are there sufficient resources to develop and test a suitable new model? Pilot benchmarking exercise are seen as a learning experience. Therefore model applied was improved within process. This improved model is accepted.

Yes

IV. Is there agreement on what is and what is not to be in scope? The definition of benchmarking area and scope was done at training workshops

Yes

of 158

in Sarajevo and final tuning was done also at training workshops in Sarajevo and Padeborn.

V. Is the scope realistic and achievable by the participants within the anticipated timeframe? Self-evaluation report is evidence.

Yes

2.3. Prepare benchmarking documents and templates including the purpose, scope of project,

performance indicators, performance measures and performance data

I. Have the indicators and measures been clearly documented and thoroughly reviewed by each university for alignment to local structures, processes and terminology? The self-assessment report is evidence.

Yes

II. Are the indicators and measures aligned to accepted standards and good practice across the sector?

Yes

III. Have participants who will be carrying out the benchmarking, e.g. Faculty and/or professional leaders, had the opportunity to provide feedback to ensure clarity and fit?

Yes

2.4. Design benchmarking process

I. Is there a benchmarking reference/steering group?

UNSA benchmarking community and top management

Yes

II. Have Faculty and/or professional leaders had the opportunity to comment and

contribute to the design of the process?

See pervious comments

Yes

III. Does the benchmarking process encourage:

Engagement? Yes

Sharing, both within and across areas? Yes

Reflection?

Benchmarking model includes first stem self evaluation – measurement

of performance level and gap identification and second step reflection to

define factors, resources processes and methods that shape difference in

performance level.

Very

much

An evidence-based approach?

Benchmark indicators are defined as qualitative indicators describing

resources, methods, processes behind performance level.

Yes

Identification of good practice?

The learning workshops in Sarajevo and Paderborn were dedicated to

the definition of best/better practice

Yes

Identification of areas for improvement? Yes

of 158

IV. Does the choice of process align with organisational culture - for example, does it

mirror other forms of scholarly collaboration (e.g. round-tables, academic

committees, surveys, comments on papers)?

Yes

V. Does the process minimise demands on staff time? Yes

2.5. Implement benchmarking process

I. Is there a action plan? Action plan was presented at Mostar meeting and reported within benchmarking report

Yes

II. Have Faculty and/or professional leaders been briefed on their responsibilities? Is there appropriate project management? There are permanent meetings with Vice Rector who was active member of benchmarking team.

Yes

III. Are there clear expectations for deliverables and deadlines? See Action plan which was presented at Mostar meeting and reported within benchmarking report

Yes

IV. Is there a checking process (quality assurance)? Discussion with project team at Gent and with UNSA benchmarking community and top management.

Partly

2.6. Review results

I. Have Faculty and/or professional leaders had the opportunity to contribute to the review process? Does the review process encourage engagement, reflection and sharing, both within and across institutions? Discussion with project team at Gent and with UNSA benchmarking community and top management.

Yes

II. Is the review process designed to produce a clear evaluation, including ratings, identification of good practice and identification of areas for improvement? See benchmarking reports and presentations from Mostar and Gent meeting.

Yes

III. Is the review process carried out at multiple levels, e.g. faculty level, institutional level, across institutions? Discussion with project team at Gent and with UNSA benchmarking community and top management.

Partly

2.7. Communicate results and recommendations

I. Do reports clearly identify good practice, standard practice and recommendations for improvement for each university?

Yes

II. Within each university, is there a consultation process to obtain agreement on recommendations, e.g. through management and committee structures?

Partly

III. Were participants acknowledged and thanked? At dissemination event and on UNSA benchmarking community facebook page

Yes

IV. Is there a process for sharing the benchmarking methodology and lessons learned with other areas of the university?

No

of 158

This is just Pilot exercise.

2.8. Implement improvement strategies

I. Are there clearly assigned responsibilities for implementing the recommended improvements? Only plan for quality assurance for internal benchmarking exercise is signed by Vice Rector and UTIC started initiative to offer new services to strengthen faculty capability for open publishing. The HR software has been implemented and in use as a part of integral UNSA information system.

Partly

II. Have future collaborations between the universities been agreed, where this would assist improvements?

No

III. Is there a process for monitoring and reporting on the implementation Annual report of UTIC and faculties.

Yes

II. Conclusion including further action plan

Currently new UNSA development strategy have to be created. The recommendations (activity plan)

for improvement of Governance of funding and financial resources within university will be prepared

and presented as official document to the UNSA top management, UNSA Secretary and to all QA

representatives from all UNSA members. This document will suggest implementation of following

activities:

a. Develop overall BiH initiative to start negotiation process with responsible ministries about

university funding and accountability. The funding scheme has to be connected (partly) to

the UNI objectives and performances. In the same time the multiyear funding schemes

(programs) have to be established in order to provide and facilitate academic freedom,

business performances and creativity

b. Visibility study focused on development of integrated MODEL of financial governance which

includes new efficient IT infrastructure, clear and simplified decision making procedures,

clear producers, guidelines and responsibilities for monitoring. Such model have to increase

transparency, flexibility (fast adaptation to international funding opportunities) and internal

and external accountability. In the same time it has to preserve and enhance academic

freedom and creativity.

c. Strategic planning and operational planning procedures have to be improved and used to

increase UNSA overall performances. Clear connection between strategy and operational

annual plans have to be established trough clear procedure of monitoring and evaluation and

risk management plan. It has to be part of TQM system at UNSA

d. Development of financial department(s) capacity to provide financial management for

different types of research projects and services at the market place. Permanent training

program focusing this issue have to be established.

e. Development of infrastructure, documentation, processes and methodologies necessary for

establishment of communication system (institutional memory/documents), negotiation,

coordination, work description (more precise, defined scope and type of responsibilities) to

of 158

promote academic autonomy and freedom based on accountabity / responsibility and free

access to information

The University visibility and impact will be improved trough following actions:

a. The UTIC (University Tele-Information Center) will

prepare set of new services for UNSA member in

order to increase capacity for open publishing,

both in services offered within the UNSA and

awareness of importance

responsible persons UTIC

manager prof. dr S.

Mrdović;

Started – first

presentation

10.2.16

b. Changes in bibliographic data collection and

creating provisions for monitoring, reporting and

incentives system for this area. HR software

developed and implemented as a part of

integrated IT system at UNSA – first step to

improve informational infrastructure

responsible persons UTIC

manager prof. dr S.

Mrdović;

Started - first

presentation

10.2.16

c. Building awareness: case studies related to best

practices and breakthroughs - Case studies for 3

partner institutions respective to 3 benchmarks

BIHTEK team UNSA

benchmarking community

Dissemination

trough

facebook

page

d. Academic staff training

Vice Rector and BIHTEK

team

Started with

the training

10.2.2016

of 158

Annex 4

Report on site visit to University of East Sarajevo

I. Introduction

BIHTEK project contributed in raising of awareness of Universities and their

organizational units about importance of benchmarking process and comparison of

different parameters with accepting of the best practices. This is not a novelty in science,

which following benchmarking. Benchmarking is accepted as methodology for comparing

profiting and non-profiting organizations 50 years ago as strategy from underdeveloped

organizations, regions and countries to accept best practices in same or similar

job/occupation and to introduce improvements following best practices.

In Higher education area in BH we did not have any important comparison between

different parameters. BIHTEK project through its realization offered partner universities

possibility to compare themselves on different levels. Concretely, UES compared

quantitative and qualitative indicators with University of Zenica and their five faculties.

We created action plan, which influenced creation of University strategy 2015-2020. On

this way project directly influenced creation of internal acts and documents. Also because

of pilot benchmarking process UES gained many benefits especially in area of

sustainability of project activities after ending of the project. Different activities are

incorporated in regular and everyday university procedures. Dissemination of project

activities helped to raise awareness among academic community about importance of

benchmarking process and on that way to incorporate on better way this process in our

system.

UES is aiming toward better organization and functioning and that is way good

importing practices from regional and European universities are very welcomed. For good

benchmarking with external institutions it is necessary to have internal benchmarking

system introduced through the process of comparison of different organizational units

inside university. That is also a key thing achieved on our University during this project.

of 158

II. Improvements

University of East Sarajevo actively contributed in realization of working package 1,

mostly in creating of benchmarking handbook through participation of representatives of

Universities in this activity. This book was used as guideline during running of pilot

benchmarking procedure. We have a plan to use this book, after ending of the project for

benchmarking procedures on our and other high education institutions.

In working package 2, representatives of UES participated in all trainings. Also,

existing practice connected with benchmarking methodology is presented by our

University. Representatives of our University actively contributed in activities organized

by working groups formed during trainings. All trainings were good bases for education of

academic community on the University of East Sarajevo.

Working package 3 predicted dissemination activities on each participating partner

institution, what UES did on very good way. We educated key persons on organizational

units in charge of benchmarking process. On the meeting at Vigo UES had three

representatives who were not very satisfied with quality of training during this meeting..

In working package 4 and 5 we found equipment and software for UES what were

very important facts for sustainability of project activities. We found informatical

equipment and software which improved functioning of our University. UES had

representatives on trainings in Mostar and Bonn where action plans for implementation of

pilot benchmarking study with University of Mostar and Leuven were presented in details.

This plan was fully performed during implementation of benchmarking pilot project.

Dissemination package 6 influenced University on the way that many formal bodies

like( Senat, Committee for quality assurance, rector collegium) were informed about

project BIHTEK. Also many university representatives took part in project activities, so

wide auditorium accept project aims and results.

Sustainability (work package 7) of the project results is assured through

benchmarking exercises with University of Zenica and Leuven, which results became part

of the University strategy 2015-2020. Mechanisms of reporting of the project results and

strategy became regular procedures on the University and strategy with strategic plan,

measures and indicators were partly based on results of pilot study done through


In the work package 8, University was checked through quality control measures

and monitoring activities. Through work package 9 University participated in all

management and financial activities predicted in the project.

Weak sides of projects identified by University of East Sarajevo were:

- Delay payment of travel cost and cost of stay

- Web page

Changes compared to the previous report

Monitoring done by CEENQA on 18.11.2014 clearly showed that all predicted activities in

the project during that time were implemented in accordance with activities planned in

project application. Only risk, which existed during that time, was problem with payment

of staff and travel costs. This problem was solved. This is very important warning for

future project that delay in payment can produce large problem in implementation of

project activities.

of 158

III. Success factors

1.Determine which areas to benchmark

I. Is this area aligned to strategic goals in priority areas?

Yes, all benchmark areas are in accordance with strategic goals of University. Selected

areas are from two levels, university level and faculty level. From the university level

selected areas are: financing, internationalization and QA. From the faculty level selected

areas are library, research, human resources, assessment and study programs. So, all

areas are related to regular university functioning.

II. Will a major project in this area deliver significant benefits relative to the

costs?

Surely. But all realized benefits by benchmarking exercise have to show significant

progress in the future period.

III. Are there drivers in this area which will sustain energy for the process, and

ensure that benchmarking is given priority?

Yes, there are. Key drivers are project team at university and selected people from

faculties ad rectorate as participants in the benchmarking process with UNZE and KU.

IV. Is benchmarking in this area supported at the executive level and on the

ground?

Yes, it is. At our first practical seminar held in East Sarajevo, rectors of both universities

(UES and UNSA) were participated and very openly gave the support to this process.

Participants list and pictures from this seminar is proof.

V. Are there adequate human, financial and other resources to support

benchmarking in his area?

Yes, there are, as we shown during the benchmarking process. Firstly we educate

around 50 persons from rectorate and 5 faculties, and then we undertook benchmarking

in accordance with defined themes and indicators.

University of East Sarajevo co-financed benchmarking exercise at seminar in East

Sarajevo and in Zenica through co-financing arrival of its people firstly to East Sarajevo,

then in Zenica.

2.Determine types and level of benchmarking (see attachment Banchamrking

model

I. Is there broad agreement on the types of benchmarking, e.g. data-sharing,

strategy-sharing, evidence-based self-review?

Yes, there is. Rector and vice-rector for international cooperation and quality assurance

gave their confirmation on conducting benchmarking procedure and data sharing with

UNZE and KU.

II. Is there broad agreement on the level of benchmarking (e.g. policy level,

discipline level, course level, unit level)?

of 158

Yes, there is. In accordance with agreement between key persons and bodies at

university, the decision about level of benchmarking is made.

III. Is there agreement on the model that should be the basis for benchmarking? If

no existing model can be used or adapted, are there sufficient resources to

develop and test a suitable new model?

Yes, there is. UES accepted model developed in the Benchmarking handbook. Together

with UNZE, this model is developed and elaborated in detail. It is in the attachment.

IV. Is there agreement on what is and what is not to be in scope?

Yes, there is. In benchmarking model scoping statement for each benchmarking theme is

defined with support of defined indicators for each theme.

V. Is the scope realistic and achievable by the participants within the anticipated

timeframe?

Yes, the scope is realistic and in accordance with criteria for accreditation of higher

education institutions.

3.Prepare benchmarking documents and templates including the purpose,

scope of project, performance indicators, performance measures and

performance data

I. Have the indicators and measures been clearly documented and thoroughly

reviewed by each university for alignment to local structures, processes and

terminology?

Yes, all indicators and measures are part of internal benchmarking of University (see

attachment Internal benchmarking).

II. Are the indicators and measures aligned to accepted standards and good

practice across the sector?

Yes, they are. All indicators are analyzed at each university separately.

III. Have participants who will be carrying out the benchmarking, e.g. Faculty

and/or professional leaders, had the opportunity to provide feedback to ensure

clarity and fit?

Yes, they fill out benchmarking themes, each for its sector (see attachment Final

Benchmark UNI OU).

4.Design benchmarking process

I. Is there a benchmarking reference/steering group?

Yes, there is. The team was consisted of key management persons, rector, vice-rectors,

QA coordinator, General Secretary. See the attachment, presentation, slide number 8.

II. Have Faculty and/or professional leaders had the opportunity to comment and

contribute to the design of the process?

of 158

No, the benchmarking model is made in coordination with 2 steering group UES and

UNZE.

III.

Does the benchmarking process encourage:

Engagement?

Yes, we engaged a lot of people for this benchmarking process that is proven

through participants lists and pictures, as well as through done work in

benchmarking.

Sharing, both within and across areas?

Yes.

Reflection?

An evidence-based approach?

Yes, everything in benchmarking is based on the evidence for each element.

Identification of good practice?

That is essence and core of the benchmarking.

Identification of areas for improvement?

That was the aim.

IV. Does the choice of process align with organizational culture - for example, does

it mirror other forms of scholarly collaboration (e.g. round-tables, academic

committees, surveys, comments on papers)?

No, organizational culture and context is quite different.

V. Does the process minimize demands on staff time?

To some extent.

5.Implement benchmarking process

I. Is there a action plan?

Yes, see presentation, slide number 10, 16 and 17.

II. Have Faculty and/or professional leaders been briefed on their responsibilities?

Is there appropriate project management?

Yes, during seminars. Each team has its own responsibilities. But we didn’t do any

rulebook, but Benchmarking handbook yes.

III. Are there clear expectations for deliverables and deadlines?

Yes, each team had to fill out each section in accordance with certain evidences.

IV. Is there a checking process (quality assurance)?

Yes, by Quality Assurance Office of the University.

6.Review results

of 158

I. Have Faculty and/ or professional leaders had the opportunity to contribute to

the review process? Does the review process encourage engagement, reflection

and sharing, both within and across institutions?

No, review process is done by steering group and quality assurance office at the highest

level, not from faculty level.

II. Is the review process designed to produce a clear evaluation, including ratings,

identification of good practice and identification of areas for improvement?

Review process was organized in order to enable filling the documents for benchmarking.

III. Is the review process carried out at multiple levels, e.g. faculty level,

institutional level, across institutions?

Institutional level only.

7.Communicate results and recommendations

I. Do reports clearly identify good practice, standard practice and

recommendations for improvement for each university?

Final report is based on action plan as the results of benchmarking process with UNZE

and KU. Also, this action plan was one of the factors that impact directly to new

university strategy 2015-2020. The most of elements mentioned in the action plan is

contained in the university strategy 2015-2020.

II. Within each university, is there a consultation process to obtain agreement on

recommendations, e.g. through management and committee structures?

Yes. Consultation process was done through Commission for creation strategy of

university 2015-2020. On this way we provide that this benchmarking exercise had key

impact on the university functioning.

III. Were participants acknowledged and thanked?

Yes, after their submitting of reports.

IV. Is there a process for sharing the benchmarking methodology and lessons

learned with other areas of the university?

Currently, no, on this way. University has its own methodology for internal

benchmarking that use it for financial managing of University. University will use this

project developed methodology for the future benchmarks with other universities.

8.Implement improvement strategies

I. Are there clearly assigned responsibilities for implementing the recommended

improvements?

Implementation of action plan will be constituent part of implementation of university’s

strategy. On this way we plan to ensure sustainability of this project and key project

activities.

II. Have future collaborations between the universities been agreed, where this

would assist improvements?

Of course, we established good contact with EU project partners. We plan to do at the

end of the project maybe 2 more visits with the aim of benchmarking, with University of

Vigo and University of Paderborn.

III. Is there a process for monitoring and reporting on the implementation of

of 158

recommended improvements and their effectiveness?

Yes, it will be constituent part of the university strategy.

IV. Conclusion including further action plan

Action plan of University of East Sarajevo derived from benchmarking process with UNZE an KU

QUALITY ASSURANCE

No Activities Responsibilities Period

1 Establish principles from European Charter and Code (C&C) and related procedures

Vice-rector for science, research and development

01.12.2017.

2 Establish quality standards for teaching process

Vice-rector for teaching process 01.12.2017.

3 Informatization of collection all KPIs Vice-rector for international cooperationa and QA

01.06.2016.

4 Procurement of software for HR registry Vice-rector for international cooperationa and QA

01.12.2015.

5 Procurement of software for alumni Vice-rector for international cooperationa and QA

01.12.2015.

INTERNATIONALIZATION


1 Increase a number of foreign students Vice-rector for international cooperationa and QA

Continuously

2 Establish better sistem of marketing outside Republika Srpska and BiH

Rector - Deans Continuously

3 Enable conducting of study programs in English language

Vice-rector for international cooperationa and QA - Deans

Continuously

4 Increase number of trainings for teaching staff about Erasmus +

Vice-rector for international cooperationa and QA

Continuously

5 Attract more funds for mobility of students and teaching staff


Continuously

6 Stimulate our employees and students for going abroad


Continuously

7 Increase number of organization of summer schools

Vice-rector for international cooperationa and QA - Deans

Annually

FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT


1 Increase percentage of own revenues in the total budget through systematic way

Vice-rector for finance / Financial Director Continuously

2 Decrease percentage of student fees in the OU budgets but Increase funds for other categories

Deans Continuously

3 Increase number of internal revision visits at each OU

Internal revisor Continuously

4 Ensure confirmation of university budget Vice-rector for finance / Financial Director Continuously 5 Attract more investments Vice-rector for finance / Financial Director Continuously

of 158

LIBRARY


1 Ensure all obligatory literature in libraries Deans Continuously 2 Ensure reading room for students at each OU Deans Continuously

3 Ensure satisfied number of copies for all obligatory library titles

Deans Continuously

4 Offer to students different journals for seminars and final work

Deans Continuously

5 Offer to students and employees access to different scientific database

Deans Continuously

RESEARCH


1 Increase number of publications in SCI journals Vice-rector for science, research and development/ teaching staff

Annually

2 Ensure that each OU organize minimum 1 scientific conference

Deans Annually

3 Increase number of participation in research projects

Deans Annually

4 Organization of different trainings for teaching staff with the aim of stimulation for participation in research projects

Deans/ Vice-rector for science, research and development

Continuously

5 Ensure procurement of integrated research software


01.12.2016.

HUMAN RESOURCES


1 Ensure sustainability of existing study programs in the terms of sufficient number of teaching staff


2 Continuation with developing of own teaching staff


3 Increase funding for professional education for teaching staff


4 Introduce Moodle system at each OU and educate teaching staff

Rector - Deans 01.12.2017.

STUDY PROGRAMS


1 Update of all learning outcomes and competences

Vice-rector for teaching process 01.12.2018.

V. Appendixes

Appendixes are in another folder.

of 158

Annex 6

Report on site visit to University of Tuzla

1. Introduction/Brief summary

University of Tuzla did not implement any official benchmarking procedure. However, many EU projects

implemented at the UNTZ included methods of comparison that could be considered as a sort of benchmarking

(comparison of study programs, qualification frameworks, QA, policies, etc.)

University of Tuzla has recognized the importance of benchmarking as a tool for improvement, and as an

efficient means of theory and practice transfer through cooperation with other countries.

Important characteristics of benchmarking are:

- easy access to information on working process

- experience exchange

- increasing the level of knowledge

The main objective concerns the introduction of benchmarking methodology at University of Tuzla as a modern

management tool as well as the most effective quality enhancement method;

Benchmarking as a tool for improvement of higher education eill enable UNTZ to improve own capacities

through already established good practices and achieve the level necessary for an efficient academic and

financial operation.

UNTZ is still in the process of transformation and improvement and can achieve even more by learning from

those who already achieved that objective.

- The team consists of five members creating the next three groups:

1. Coordinator PhD, Edin Delić, full professor

2. Representative of academic staff – Meliha Bijedić, PhD, Lejla Kuralić-Čišić,PhD, Zlatan Begić,PhD

4. QA coordinator- Amra Bratovčić,PhD

Source data and service for internal benchmarking used during this process are as following:

- statistical data (half-year and annual),

- existing data basis as well (QA office, International Relations Office),

- student surway and

- Information System.

All of them provided systemic comperison and evaluation by which performances can be measured and assessed.

Activities CEENQA’s Delta of change to last

of 158

assessme

nt

and

commen

ts

report

Workpackages 1 + 2: Benchmarking handbook

and methodology:

‐ The first meetings in Gent and Sarajevo were good

for getting information about the project

activities, for getting acquainted with project

partners.

‐ We asked the local coordinators to send us the

handbook before Vigo meeting, but received only

in September 2014 /in fact, it was sent around in

August 2014/

‐ More details would be good, good practice

example, common definitions, etc.; it seems to us

still to be a draft; /The university did not provide

any feedback on the handbook in the time they

were asked to do so/

‐ Generally, we have very diverse methods and

management systems, so the standard book is

very difficult to be used;

‐ The draft handbook gave a good understanding of

what have to do.

‐ Trainings were at a very high level: we got a lot of

useful things connected to benchmarking

process, methods, and practices. Reflection from

ES experts was also very helpful.

Aims as

declared

in

the final

submissi

on

achieved; the

partners

have a good

understandin

g of the

benchmarkin

g process

After receiving a handbook

we were able to

understand better


Capacity building trainings, meetings and

conferences (workpackages 3 + 4):

‐ The trainings were on the high level, the university

staff got some useful information

Aims

achieved

of 158

‐ We received information on practical

implementation process.

‐ The visit to Vigo was not really helpful. There were

technical problems as well,

as the whole day of the trainings was lost due to

flight delay.

as

envisage in

the

final

submissi

on


To what extent has the equipment been

purchased?

‐ The university has sent specification on equipment

one year ago to the Granholder.

‐ University has software purchased through SHEQA

project, but do not use it at the moment.

Risk of

major

delay

during the

impleme

ntation

phase due to

lacking

equipment at

the

University

We purchased all the

equipment envisaged

by the BIHTEK

project and is installed

at the University.

Implementation phase (workpackage 5):

‐ We developed an implementation plan which was

discussed during the

Mostar meeting

‐ Since then no actions were taken to proceed the

work according to the plan.

‐ We agreed to do benchmarking with the Bihać

university.

‐ We did not participate in Bonn meeting because of

financial issues (no reimbursement of travel costs

received for over one year).

‐ We think that benchmarking plan should be

developed together with benchmarking partner,

and for the time being, we are lacking the

financial resources for travelling to Bihać and

There is a

major

risk

of a

considera

ble

delay due to

the lack

of financial

resources

and also

descreasi

ng

motivatio

Some of the financial

issues are solved in the

meantime. Even all the

existing financial

problems (still didn’t

received staff cost) the

members of the

BIHTEK project from

the University of Tuzla

participate in all

project activities.

The University of Bihac

was a fully partner in

the implementation

of 158

cannot discuss the procedure. We agreed to use

KPIs from SHEQA project for the time being.

‐ We think that it will be good to benchmark within

the project with all partners on certain agreed

areas.

‐ A travel to Bihać for benchmarking exercise (to

discuss areas of benchmarking, to discuss on

implementation of benchmarking) would help a

lot in order to catch up; for the time being, we

envisage the following areas for benchmarking:

strategic planning, internal and external QA, some

key KPIs from the

SHEQA project (2‐3 to be selected).

‐ We would appreciate it very much if we had more

concrete guidelines for implementation

at the overarching project level

‐ There should be more possibilities to transfer good

practice from EU countries to B&H

n to take

part in

the mobility

phase of the project.

Dissemination activities (Del. 3.3 + workpackage

6):

‐ no dissemination activities have taken place so far;

‐ no information on the university webpage, all this

for the costs reason;

‐ Training in Tuzla was partly used as a

dissemination activity; a broader publichas been

invited

‐ When the benchmarking process will start, we plan

to make a public announcement

on the website

‐ We had a dissemination publication about the

training in Tuzla at the beginning

of 2014

‐ Our rector gave an introduction with the ideas of

The

dissemin

ation

activities do

not

fulfill the

quality

requirements

. No

disseminatio

n

activities

have started

On 15th May 2015 has been

disseminated the

BIHTEK project

activities.

At the following link

www.untz.ba/index.php?pa

ge=bihtekprezentacija-

rezultata-tempus-

projekta

of 158

benchmarking.


‐ We thought to quit the project due to financial

problems and the stuck cash

flow;

‐ We would like to have extension of project

activities in order to be able to

catch up with the rest of the consortium

‐ We need to get support from their Rector on

proceeding with benchmarking process also after

the project. By now, the support is rather

intermediate

Partners will

try to

catch up

with the

activities, but

think

that

extension

of

activities

would be

good

The University of Tuzla

has been fully

integrated all project

activities, caught up

hole missed activities,

and this extension of 6

months of project was

good because we were

able to finish

equipment instalment.

This equipment will

ensure the

sustainability of the

BIHTEK project

activities. We didn’t

ensure the staff to

introduce all data in

the system. We need a

more help from the

management of the

University.

Comments for quality monitoring and

enhancement (workpackage 8):

‐ We are satisfied with the level of the quality

monitoring.

Suggestions for the project management

(workpackage 9):

‐ There are no problems of communication flow with

project management;

‐ There are massive problems with financing – the

payment for travelling was

The financial

issues,

as well as

partly

Some of the financial

issues are solved, but

some of them are still

problem such as staff

of 158

not received for a period of one year;

‐ We suggest to provide options for traveling and let

partners to choose the way of traveling;

‐ The expected outcomes of the project must however

be clearly defined and

communicated

unclear

communi

cation

on meeting

outcomes,

impedes

a smooth

project

run

cost.

After our Vigo training we

have more possibilities

to choose the way of

travel and transport.

2.1 Determine which areas to benchmark

University of Tuzla choose three area for benchmarking:

1. Institutional Internationalization

2. Research (Institutional policy for research, development and innovation)

3. Human Resourses

2.2 Determine types and level of benchmarking

By definition of the Consortioum for excelence in Higher Education (2003) identifies 7 main approaches to

benchmarking and according to those definitions we performed competitive benchmarking that is a process

whereby organizations use performance measures to compare themselves against similar organizations.

Banchmarking has been done at the national level except the human resources area which will be conducted at

international level at Kaho St Lieven Hoge School.

2.3; 2.4 & 2.6 Prepare benchmarking documents and templates including the purpose, scope of project,

perfomance indicators, perfomance measures and perfomance data, design benchmarking process and

review results.

Name: Institutional internationalization

Scoping Statement

This applies to institution level planning, policy development, institutional capacity and implementation in

relation to the internationalization. It includes the delegation of authority and responsibility for developing and

implementing policy, and strategic and operational plans.

of 158


The institution has established, well understood strategy, governance mechanisms, policies and capacities that

enable involvement in the international networks/programs, international mobility of students and staff, with the

aim of international recognition and good reputation/ranking.



1 No current strategic or operational plans

2 Strategic or operational plan but no recognition of internationalization

3 Strategic or operational plan includes some elements of internationalization

4 Strategic and operational plans both have some elements of internationalization

5 Strategic and operational plans both have clear recognition of internationalization




The University of Tuzla defined its commitment to the field of international cooperation in the

“Strategic Development Plan for the University of Tuzla for the period 2011 - 2015"[8] under

the sections as follows: "Promotion of European Cooperation and Quality Assurance ","European

dimension of the University and European Studies","Internationalization of the University" and

"Joint doctoral studies".

PI 2.Specific plans relating to internationalization are aligned with the institution’s strategic

directions and operational plans.

Specific plans exist Plans are aligned

1 No specific plans Not aligned to institution strategic and operational

plans

2 Immature plans Aligned with either institution strategic or

operational plans

3 Some specific plans Aligned with both institution strategic and

operational plans

4 x Numerous specific plans x Aligned with either institution strategic or

operational plans

of 158

5 Comprehensive suite of plans Aligned with both institution strategic and

operational plans




PI 3.Institutional capacity for international cooperation and responsibility for the operational

management of internationalization are clearly articulated.

Capacity and responsibility Clearly articulated




4 x Well defined but maturing x Substantial articulation





PI 4. Planning for the ongoing process of internationalization is aligned with the institutions

budget process.

1 No alignment

2 Limited alignment

3 x Moderate alignment

4 Considerable alignment

5 Complete alignment



PI 5.Institution policies and procedures provide a framework for internationalization at both a

course and program level.

Course level Program level

of 158

1 No policies and procedures applied at the

course level

No policies and procedures applied at the

program level

2 Some alignment with policies and

procedures

Some alignment with policies and

procedures

3 x Comprehensive alignment with policies

and procedures x

Comprehensive alignment with policies

and procedures




PI 6.Policies, procedures and guidelines on internationalization are well establishedand

integrated into research and development processes.

Established Integrated

1 Not established Not integrated

2 Moderately established x Moderately integrated

3 x Widely established Fully integrated




The University has recognized the need for a special organizational sub-unit at the University

level which would coordinate the activities in the domain of international cooperation. The Statute

of the University, Article 55, establishes the "International Relations Office" which is run by the

Vice-rector for International Relations.

One, already a traditional form of international cooperation of the University of Tuzla is the

International Summer University Tuzla (LJUT) , which has been organized ever since 1996,

with participants from various countries in Europe and from around the world.

PI 7.The institution has memorandums on cooperation that enable international mobility.

Memorandums on cooperation

1 Non-existent or expired

2 Covering only one region, or only one mobility scheme, or less than minimum

of 158

3 Covering variety of institutions and programs, but not in effective use

4 x Well distributed but maturing

5 Well distributed and mature




PI 8.Institution is involved in mobility programs for both students and staff.

Involvement in Programs Mobility

1 None, or inactive No mobility

2 Only regional cooperation

Up to 0,1% for students and 1% for

staff in-coming or out-going

(eligible students)

3 Moderate international cooperation Sufficient but unbalanced

4 Well distributed but incidental Well balanced but incidental

5 x Well distributed and regular x Well balanced regular mobility




The basic form of cooperation between the University of Tuzla and other universities from BiH

and the Region is generally implemented through academic exchange. The number of visiting

professors at the University of Tuzla is currently higher compared to the number of the Tuzla

University professors visiting other universities. The cooperation with the universities from the

Western European countries, USA and other countries, is mainly carried out through Tempus

projects and grants of various kinds.

Our students participate in international cooperation through a number of exchange programs

(ERASMUS-MUNDUS, CEEPUS, MEVLANA). However the total number of students who

participate in the exchange programs is not satisfactory and it is necessary to work on improving

the conditions at the University to increase this number. The existing procedures at the University

verify and recognize student mobility in line with the Rules on Mobility adopted by the University

of 158

Senate. The aforementioned programs also allow academic staff mobility, which is mainly

implemented in cooperation with the universities in European Union and Turkey.

The „Rules on Mobility“ (No. 03-8040-11/12 ) was created and adopted by the University Senate

on 3 October 2012. The main document used for student mobility is Learning Agreement signed

by the host institution, home institution and student participating in the exchange program. The

purpose of the Learning Agreement is to record student performance at the host institution and

have it approved and signed by the authorities at home university. The Learning Agreement is the

tool for the students’ academic recognition at the home institution. Furthermore, there are

additional documents necessary for student mobility, and those are mainly defined by each

exchange program. Student is obliged to provide the home institution with a transcript of records

confirming that the agreed program has been completed, specifying the results achieved at the

host institutions+.

Ongoing mobility projects at the University within Erasmus-Mundus program are:

-JOINEU-SEE Penta – The project is being implemented since 2010 and includes 20 universities,

10 of which are from EU and 10 from Western Balkan Countries.

. Sigma – The project is being implemented since 2010 and includes 19 universities, 9 of which

are from EU and 10 from Western Balkan Countries.

. Basileus – The project is being implemented since 2009 and the University of Tuzla has

participated as associated partner.

The main objective of these projects is academic exchange between EU universities and Western

Balkan universities participating in the projects. The mobility schemes of the aforementioned

projects are available to students from first, second and third cycle studies, post-doctorate

researchers and administrative staff.

CEEPUS (Central European Exchange Program for University Studies) is a multilateral exchange

program for Central and Eastern Europe. The University of Tuzla has participated in CEEPUS

program with two mobility schemes for student and academic staff members, one implemented at

the Faculty of Technology and one at the Faculty of Science (Department of Geography).

As stated before, the University of Tuzla has signed cooperation agreements with 10 universities

from the Republic of Turkey within the Mevlana exchange program, with an aim of student and

of 158

academic staff exchange. Within the Mevlana program, students spend up to two semesters at a

host university, while academic staff members spend from one week to one month at a host

university.

In addition to these programs, Office of International Relations is responsible for implementation

of numerous scholarship schemes for students and academic staff offered by international

programs implemented by DAAD, embassies and governments of other countries (USA, Japan,

Italy, Greece, France, etc). As part of the Fulbright Program, implemented by the U.S. Embassy in

Bosnia and Herzegovina, visiting scholars from the USA universities spend one or two semesters

at the University of Tuzla.

Research

Benchmark No 1

Name: Institutional policy for research, development and innovation

Scoping Statement


relation to the research and development. It includes the delegation of authority and responsibility for developing

and implementing policy, and strategic and operational plans.


The institution has established, well understood strategy, governance mechanisms, policies and capacities that

enable involvement in the international networks/programs, visible successful outcomes of students and staff

research, with the aim ofnurturing academic excellence, and earning international recognition and good

reputation/ranking.




2 Strategic or operational plan but no recognition of research excellence

3 Strategic or operational plan includes some elements of research excellence

4 Strategic and operational plans both have some elements of research excellence

5 x Strategic and operational plans both have clear recognition of research excellence




of 158

Articles 21, 30, 31, 32 and 37 through 49 of the University Statute define forms of scientific/artistic and research

activity conducted by the organizational units of the University. of Research (Article 33 of Rules on internal

organization and systematization of workplaces), run by Vice-rector for Research (Article 106 of the Statute),

while faculties appoint their respective Vice Deans for research (Article 145 of the Statute). For the purposes of

commercialization of research and artistic work at the University and its organizational units, Article 18 of the

Rules on Internal Organization and Systematization of Workplaces, defines the organization of sub-

organizational units as follows: ECTS Coordinator Office, Center for Quality Assurance and Internal Evaluation,

Media Centre, Language Centre, Distance Learning Centre, Publishing Activity Center, Development and

Entrepreneurship Center, Center for Sports and University Library. It is essential that units such as Media

Center, Language Center, Publishing Activity Centre and Development and Entrepreneurship Center, which

have never been established, or the operations of which have been discontinued due to the lack of funding, be

organized with the aim of improving research activity at the University level.

Office of Research posts all research related information on the website

http://www.untz.ba/index.php?page=ured-za-pitanja-naucnoistrazivackog-rada.

Such information include activities from the field of research, notices and open calls for projects, information for

students, academic staff and University research capacity. Furthermore, each faculty publishes ongoing or

completed research projects on their websites. Bibliography, which represents an overview of the overall

achievements of the academic staff, is published annually.

The overview of the research activities conducted by the scholars at the University is carried out by the means of

the application, "Register of Researchers at the University of Tuzla" .

For this purpose, the University has established a special web portal www.nir.untz.ba. The software provides a

centralized database of basic data on researchers, their respective fields of research, published papers and a list of

projects in which they participated.

PI 2.Specific plans relating to R&D are aligned with the institution’s strategic directions and

operational plans.



plans


operational plans


operational plans

4 Numerous specific plans Aligned with either institution strategic or

operational plans

5 x Comprehensive suite of plans x Aligned with both institution strategic and

operational plans

http://www.untz.ba/index.php?page=ured-za-pitanja-naucnoistrazivackog-rada

of 158




The adoption of the "Development Strategy of the University of Tuzla," resulted from both internal and the

external requirements. Internal requirements are presented by the need for a strategic development document

which would serve as the basis for designing annual development plans in which the projects and programs

would be aligned with the long-term development goals. In that way, the University of Tuzla proposes to the

founders, academia and the general public concrete plans and expectations, while keeping an open mind to all

ideas and constructive criticism.

A special annex to the “Strategic Development Plan for the University of Tuzla for the period 2011 - 2015" is

contained in Guidelines of Institutional Development Plan including:

1. Adoption of the legal documents in accordance with the law,

2. Adoption of relevant documents regulating studies and fields of science,

3. Adoption of relevant documents regulating the University profile,

4. Adoption of relevant documents regulating the rights and freedoms of self-organization and gathering,

5. Adoption of relevant documents regulating institutional autonomy of the University,

6. Promotional initiatives of the University organizational units,

7. Adoption of relevant documents regulating lifelong learning at the institutional level,

8. Establishment of the University companies for certain activities,

9. Implementation of internal control in all University bodies, institutions and units,

10. Enhancing library and information capacity at the University.

Specific Operational Objectives of the Institutional Development Plan and Institutional Development Plan

by 2015 have been identified and expressed through eight key objectives as follows:

1. addressing the problem of lack of staff,

2. addressing the problem of lack of space and modernization of the University,

3. establishing partnership with the industry, government, institutes, NGOs, civil and cultural institutions,

4. implementing changes in legislation in the field of higher education,

5. implementing reform of the curricula and improvement in the efficiency of the studies,

6. implementing advancement in the field of research at the University,

7. providing high quality support to students,

8. strengthening international position and reputation and promotion of the University.

Concrete steps in achieving the set objectives, expected results and responsibilities for implementation of the

activities are described in the Action Plan.

of 158

PI 3.Institutional capacity and responsibility for the operational management of R&D are clearly

articulated and transparent.

Capacity and responsibility Clearly articulatedand transparent


2 Established but only partially defined Moderately

3 x Well established and mature x Comprehensively




Research activity at the University has a rich tradition and reputation at national and regional level. The

University covers a wide range of fields of science, which is a good precondition for multidisciplinarity and

interdisciplinarity. The University Statute, Chapter IV, University Activities, in addition to higher education,

defines research and experimental development in the fields of applied, formal, natural, and social sciences and

humanities for the educational and teaching purposes as one of the core activities of the University. Article 34 of

the Statute stipulates that organizational units - faculties/academy, are entitled to have their sub-organizational

units for organizing research activities, such as: institutes, clinics, centers, stage, film, television and audio

studios, laboratories, workshops , television stations, radio stations, information centers, clubs, etc., connecting

the science, that is, the arts and practice to the higher education, and may involve students, experts and artists

who are not engaged in the teaching process. Articles 21, 30, 31, 32 and 37 through 49 of the University Statute

define forms of scientific/artistic and research activity conducted by the organizational units of the University.

Organizational units within the University have competencies to perform legal transactions with third parties in

the field of research, with the corresponding codes from 2010 Official Activity Classification, as defined in

individual Court Registration Certificates.

In order to support the teaching process and foster research activity, the University established the Office of

Research (Article 33 of Rules on internal organization and systematization of workplaces), run by Vice-rector

for Research (Article 106 of the Statute), while faculties appoint their respective Vice Deans for research (Article

145 of the Statute).

During the reporting period, the University and faculties/academy implemented relevant research activities and

projects, provided the units with relevant information, coordinated, monitored, and supported research activities,

undertook improvement measures, provided opinions and recommendations in the field of research at the

University level. In the field of research activity, the University had been: - Implementing research projects; -

of 158

Monitoring, initiating, coordinating and preparing applications for the calls published by the economy sector,

non-economy sector and the public sector; - Monitoring, informing, preparing and providing assistance in calls

for research projects and scholarships published by the Federal Ministry of Education and Science (hereinafter

FMOES), Ministry of Education, Science, Culture and Sports of Tuzla Canton (hereinafter: MONKS TK), the

Ministry of Civil Affairs and joint research projects co-financed by the Republic of Slovenia and Bosnia and

Herzegovina, and the Republic of Montenegro and Bosnia and Herzegovina; - Monitoring, informing and

educating the employees of the University about open calls for research proposals financed by the European

Union (FP7, COST, EUREKA), and bilateral or multilateral research projects supported by individual countries

Switzerland (Scopus), Norway (HERD) Turkey (TUBITAK), the EU (FUNGITECT - FP7) - Tracking research-

related revenue regardless of sources of financing. The University is incorporated and has good cooperation with

the Bosnian-Herzegovinian national network of contact points (NCP BiH) for FP7 project support.

Horizon 2020.


1 No alignment

2 Limited alignment






Funds collected through the implementation of research (applicative) projects with industry are allocated in

accordance with the Rules on the type, manner and deadlines for the allocation of revenues derived from

research and artistic activity and professional services provided by the Faculties/ Academy of the University of

Tuzla , while the funds allocated through international research projects (EU, FMOES, MONKS TK) are

distributed in accordance to the rules of financiers. A number of research projects implemented from 2011 to

2013 were funded by the Federal Ministry of Education and Science (FMOES), which financed and co-financed

projects as follows: in 2011 - 30 project, in 2012 - 18 projects and in 2013 - 81 projects of which 38 projects

from the fields of research, 33 projects supporting doctoral candidates employed at the University and 10

equipment procurement projects. In accordance with the Decision adopted by the Federal Government on the

adoption of the funding program with criteria for current transfers established by the Budget of the Federation of

Bosnia and Herzegovina for 2013, No. 295/2013 of 26 April 2013, the FMOES has signed with the University of

Tuzla Agreement on financing/co-financing projects in the field of science relevant to the Federation, with the

total value of 102.934.00 KM. The Ministry has also signed Agreement on financing/cofinancing equipment

procurement projects of equipping of importance to the Federation in 2013, with the total value of 135.342,35

of 158

KM. In compliance with the agreements, the University published internal competition for 2013, allocating the

funds.

PI 5.Institution policies, procedures and guidelines provide a framework for R&D at program level.

Program level


2 Some alignment with policies, procedures and guidelines





External requirements for designing "Development Strategy of the University of Tuzla" emerged from the

application of laws and strategic documents adopted at various levels in Bosnia and Herzegovina, some of which

are as follows: "The Framework Law on Higher Education in Bosnia and Herzegovina", "Framework Law on

Research Activity and Coordination of National and International Research Cooperation and Herzegovina“,

„Strategic Directions for the Development of Education in Bosnia and Herzegovina within Implementing Period

2010-2015","Development Strategy in the Field of Science in Bosnia and Herzegovina for the period 2010 –

2015” “Research Strategy for the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina" (2010).

PI 6.The institution hasactive partnershipsin RDIthat are well recognized regionally and

internationally.

Regionally Internationally

1 No relevant partners No relevant partners

2 Several relevant partnerships At least 1 partner per unit

3 x Well established relevant regular

partnerships x

Well established relevant regular

partnerships




The University of Tuzla defined its commitment to the field of international cooperation in the “Strategic

Development Plan for the University of Tuzla for the period 2011 - 2015"[8] under the sections as follows:

"Promotion of European Cooperation and Quality Assurance ","European dimension of the University and

European Studies","Internationalization of the University" and "Joint doctoral studies". The basic form of

cooperation between the University of Tuzla and other universities from BiH and the Region is generally

of 158

implemented through academic exchange. The number of visiting professors at the University of Tuzla is

currently higher compared to the number of the Tuzla University professors visiting other universities. The

cooperation with the universities from the Western European countries, USA and other countries, is mainly

carried out through Tempus projects and grants of various kinds. Our students participate in international

cooperation through a number of exchange programs (ERASMUS-MUNDUS, CEEPUS, MEVLANA).

However the total number of students who participate in the exchange programs is not satisfactory and it is

necessary to work on improving the conditions at the University to increase this number. The existing procedures

at the University verify and recognize student mobility in line with the Rules on Mobility adopted by the

University Senate. The aforementioned programs also allow academic staff mobility, which is mainly

implemented in cooperation with the universities in European Union and Turkey. The University has recognized

the need for a special organizational sub-unit at the University level which would coordinate the activities in the

domain of international cooperation. The Statute of the University [1], Article 55, establishes the "International

Relations Office" which is run by the Vicerector for International Relations. One, already a traditional form of

international cooperation of the University of Tuzla is the International Summer University Tuzla (LJUT) [18],

which has been organized ever since 1996, with participants from various countries in Europe and from around

the world. In order to implement the teaching process and research projects successfully, the University of Tuzla

established numerous links with businesses, organizations and institutions in the area of Tuzla Canton, Bosnia

and Herzegovina and beyond. Majority of faculties have established relationships with specific business partners

so that the teaching process regularly includes field visits to companies where students have the opportunity to

learn about the practical problems of their prospective vocation and conduct their practice classes. On the other

hand, some faculties such as the Faculty of Medicine and the Faculty of Pharmacy, conduct some of their classes

at the premises of University Clinical Center Tuzla. In the field of research, numerous projects are being

implemented as a result of joint efforts of the employees of the University and research institutions, institutes or

other organizations, or as a result of the cooperation established by the experts from the University and relevant

economy sectors. In this respect, the cooperation with the public administration sector at all levels of government

(municipal, cantonal, entity and state government) is certainly significant, since it aims at designing numerous

expert and research projects. Students can participate in these projects and thus have the opportunity to improve

their knowledge through practice. Funds collected through the implementation of research (applicative) projects

with industry are allocated in accordance with the Rules on the type, manner and deadlines for the allocation of

revenues derived from research and artistic activity and professional services provided by the Faculties/

Academy of the University of Tuzla, while the funds allocated through international research projects (EU,

FMOES, MONKS TK) are distributed in accordance to the rules of financiers.

HR

of 158

Scoping Statement


relation to the human resources. It includes the delegation of authority and responsibility for developing and

implementing policy, and strategic and operational plans for academic staff.


The institution has sufficient KPI in HR formal authority for staff development, adequate and sufficient human

resources for academic programs, established, well understood strategy, governance mechanisms, policies and

capacities that enable active role of University in staff engagements and development, related to the strategic

plan and standards.


PI 1. Institution performance indicators related to HR.

1 Institutional indicators in HR are above standards in most areas and institutional capacity

to engage external HR or other kind of staff development is not sufficient.

2 Institutional indicators in HR are above standards in some areas, and institutional

capacity to engage external HR or other kind of staff development is not sufficient.

3

Institutional indicators in HR are according to the standards in most areas, and

institutional capacity for engagement of external staff and staff development is

limited

4 Institutional indicators in HR adequate in terms of standards, but institutional capacity for

engagement of external staff and staff development process is not sufficient

5

Institutional indicators in HR are adequate in terms of standards and requirements for

education process and institution is capable to develop in HR according to standards

and strategic plan.




Management of the University and respective organizational units regularly review the quality management

system in order to check its efficiency, in accordance with the adopted policies and quality objectives.

The foundations for the quality management system revision are:

• reports on regular and extraordinary, internal and external quality management system reviews, • customer

satisfaction surveys,

of 158

• comments, recommendations and suggestions by the interested parties and operations efficiency reports,

• results of the users’ complaints surveys,

• organizational changes,

• changes in laws and regulations,

• analysis of the financial effects.

Management with executive authority takes measures to improve quality management system, increase users'

satisfaction and eliminate reasons for users' dissatisfaction, increase work efficiency, adjust and comply the

system with the existing laws and regulations, but in more occasions there is no increasing development of

capacities of HR as institutional goal. There is no established standards and procedures which provides

systematic development of HR.

The Statute of the University (Chapter VII - The Bodies of the University, Articles 59 and 117) stipulates that

the University bodies have their own expert committees and other advisory and expert bodies/authorities as

permanent entities, appointed by the Senate. With an aim of continuous implementation of the Quality Assurance

Policy and, thus, the periodic self-evaluation, on the proposal of the Faculty Councils, and appointed members of

the Committee for the quality at the University of Tuzla, composed of about 50% of the academic staff, 25% of

the administrative staff and 25% of students

The Statute of the University of Tuzla (Article 56) stipulates establishment of the Center for Quality Assurance

and Internal Evaluation. Article 272 of the Statute stipulates that the Senate shall pass the act on the quality

assurance policy (Quality Assurance Policy at the University of Tuzla), while an entire Chapter XV - Internal

Evaluation and Quality Assurance - of the Statute regulates the field of quality assurance.

PI 2.Plan for staff development.



plans


operational plans


operational plans


operational plans

5 Comprehensive suite of

plans

Aligned with both institution strategic and

operational plans

of 158




The University is trying to develop and implement policies relating to continuous training of the academic staff

and other employees, enabling them to develop their research, technical, artistic and pedagogical skills, but

without plan and long-term goals. There is no strategic and operational plan for staff development.

Even though we have all Roles, we have not a clear Plan for HR development which takes into consideration all

policies and facilitates employees to acquire new knowledge, skills and vocations. Such plan must be followed

by:

- The Professional Development Office/Institute/Center, as a center dedicated to providing professional

development training programs and resources for staff that supports identified staffing needs across

University. The body which needs to provide long-term training programs with a tailored curriculum

designed to develop skills and capabilities needed to fill identified job opportunities across University.

- New Projects with which Staff members could obtain opportunities to develop new skills such as web

design, academic writing, project management and ect.

- Workshops & Seminars – which could assist staff members to develop their work and computer

technology skills.

- Recording and analyzing the staff member's progress, by collecting feedback from the staff

member, about their development progress to assist in identifying what the staff member is doing well,

build on their skills, correct any problems that may arise, and help them develop new abilities that will

improve personal performance as well as organizational outcomes.

PI 3.Institutional capacity for HR and responsibility for the operational management of HR are

clearly articulated.





4 Well defined but maturing Substantial articulation




http://www.hr.duke.edu/training/workshops/index.php

of 158


The objectives are defined, quantitatively expressed, clear and focused on the fulfillment of the University

mission.

The University management, which carries the main responsibility for meeting the set objectives, constantly

reviews and alters the objectives in accordance with the users’ demands and changing conditions under which it

operates. University management, as executive authority, defines its commitment to establishing, implementing

and continuously improving the quality management system including HR development, through clearly defined

policies and strategic objectives in line with the mission and vision of the organization, defined key processes,

measurable objectives and continuous, periodical review of the quality management system in order to increase

its effectiveness and efficiency. But, as mentioned above, in PI 2 there is no Plan for staff development followed

by institutional capacities for implementation, which could provide articulation of management of HR .

The “Strategic Development Plan for the University of Tuzla for the period 2011 - 2015 " focused on:

• modernization of the curricula in all three cycles of studies;

• procurement of modern infrastructure and equipment;

• connecting the teaching process with research activity;

• employment of young academic staff;

• encouraging students to graduate on time;

• compliance with the enrollment policies with the labor market demands.

It is planned to employ young academic staff, but there is no structural plan with procedures, and it is a

problem because financing of University which is dependent by Government.

PI 4. Planning for the ongoing process of HR is aligned with the institutions budget process.

1 No alignment

2 Limited alignment

3 Moderate alignment





The University of Tuzla is a public institution founded by the Tuzla Canton Assembly, with all the rights and

responsibilities of the founder of the University defined by the „Law on the University of Tuzla" ("Official

Gazette of the Tuzla Canton" No. 9 / 08 of 26 September, 2008). Pursuant to the aforementioned law the founder

assumes responsibilities of funding the University. Article 39 of the Law stipulates that the funding of the

University will be done in a way that the University will acquire the funds to carry out its activities through: a)

founders, b) funds, c) donations, endowments and gifts, d) its own revenues, in accordance with the law and

of 158

other regulations, e) other sources of financing in accordance with the law. All funds belong to the University

and are allocated in accordance with the laws, bylaws, the Statute and the adopted financial plan, and are

reported and recorded in accordance with the treasury financing system of Tuzla Canton. The organizational unit

of the University may acquire assets from item a) through e) in accordance with the Law and the Statute of the

University. In accordance with the provisions of the Law, the Statute of the University defines financing issues

and disposition of the acquired assets in Articles 13, 20 and 32. The "Tuzla Canton Law on Higher Education”

(Article 140) stipulates that the funds granted to higher education institutions are to be allocated to: a) salaries,

allowances, and fees for the employees of public higher education institution in accordance with the law and

other regulations; b) compensation to other persons participating in the teaching process in accordance with the

law, bylaws and rules on salaries; c) equipment procurement and creation of favorable studying conditions; d)

material costs and investments; e) the work of other legal entities founded by the higher education institution, the

activities of which are required to ensure the comprehensiveness and the required standards of the higher

education system; f) development and investment relating to the institution, encouraging the development of the

teaching process and research activity; g) work with the gifted students and international cooperation; h) other

purposes in accordance with the law. The funding of the University is an essential requirement for the fulfillment

of the University’s mission and development, and represents a basic prerequisite for institutional autonomy of

the University. Therefore, the “Strategic Development Plan for the University of Tuzla for the period 2011 -

2015 "addresses this issue in more detail than previous documents. Chapter VI “University Financial Policy" for

the aforementioned period stipulates the following: Financial operations of the University and its organizational

units will be based on:

• compliance with financial regulations of BiH, FBiH and TC;

• optimal implementation of the teaching and research activities by the University and its organizational units;

• adherence to the principles of cost-effectiveness;

• adherence to the principles of solidarity of the University and its units;

• adherence to the principles of autonomy of the University to use its own revenues;

Specific Operational Objective of the Institutional Development Plan and Institutional Development Plan by

2015 have been identified and expressed through key objectives as addressing the problem of lack of staff.

PI 5.Institution policies and procedures provide a framework for HR development (academic,

administrative and technical).

Academic staff Administrative staff Technical staff

1 Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient

2

HR KPI are not

sufficient, but it no

major effect to

HR KPI are not


major effect to

HR KPI are not sufficient,

but it no major effect to

support of processes

of 158

procedures administration

3

HR KPI are in

accordance to

standards

HR KPI are in

accordance to

standards

HR KPI are in accordance to

standards

Overall

rating

1 2 3



Higher education standards and norms adopted by the Government of Tuzla Canton, published in the Official

Gazette No. 8/2006 define the "optimal" and the minimal resource requirements for the implementation of higher

education. The University Statute (Chapter XIII Academic staff members, Articles 237 through 264) defines the

teaching process and research activity conducted by the University academic staff. The Statute defines the

academic titles as follows: full professor, associate professor, assistant professor, college professor, college

lecturer (professor) and language specialist, senior teaching assistant and teaching assistant (assistants). Articles

238 through 242 define the requirements for the appointment of the academic staff. Periods of appointment of

the academic staff members by ranks are as follows:

1) Teaching Assistant - a period of 4 (four) years, without possibility of re-election;

2) Senior Teaching Assistant - for a period of 5 (five) years, with possibility of re-election only if they acquire a

third cycle degree;

3) Language Specialist - a period of 5 (five) years, without possibility of re-election;

4) College Lecturer - for a period of 5 (five) years, with possibility of re-election;

5) Assistant Professor - for a period of 5 (five) years, with possibility of re-election;

6) Associate Professor - a period of 6 (six) years, with possibility of re-election and

7) Full Professor and College Professor – permanent appointment. A full professor and college professor sign

permanent employment contracts. The appointment of the academic staff members is conducted by the Senate.

The Faculty Dean initiates the call for the election and appointment of the academic staff for a course or a

specific field of science matching the faculty academic profile, and forwards it to the Faculty Council, which

then adopts the call proposal. The Faculty/Academy Council also establishes a proposal for issuing a call for the

courses or fields of science that do not belong to the scope of the University activity, that is, if they are included

within the curricula of the I cycle of studies taught at the Faculty/Academy/College.

Based on the submitted proposals from the previous paragraph of the Statute, the Senate publishes the call, as

follows:

of 158

- Internal call for the promotion or re-appointment of the academic staff employed by the University published

on the notice board of the University and Faculty/Academy/College, sent in writing to the relevant teaching staff

member;

- Open call for the appointment of academic staff establishing employment at the University for the first time,

due to the lack of the academic staff and

- Open call for the appointment without employment.

In order to prepare proposals for the appointment of candidates who apply for the vacancy, a committee from

among the professors is formed; the majority of the professors need to be engaged in the field of science, or a

course to which a candidate is being appointed. If a candidate is appointed as a (assistant/associate/full)

professor, committee members must be of the same or higher rank of the position to which the candidate is being

appointed. The University may award their retired professors with the title of Professor Emeritus. Professor

Emeritus may be involved in the teaching process at second and third cycle of studies, or be appointed as a

member of the committee for the appointment of the teaching members or master's thesis or doctoral dissertation

defense panels, and a mentor to candidates obtaining master's or doctoral degree. Exceptionally, Professor

Emeritus may participate in the teaching in the first cycle of studies, provided that no professor is appointed after

the previously published open call. On the other hand, the University engages a significant number of external

professors, assistants and experts in the teaching process. However, the workload of academic staff is above the

optimum and it is necessary to employ new academic staff, mostly from the ranks of assistants. In that sense,

Tuzla Canton Government, at the request of University Management, approved new employment. Based on

Decision (No: 03-2776-4.2/14 of 21 May 2014) approved by the Senate, The University published a call for new

full-time employment of 50 persons to assistant positions. In this way, the academic year 2014/15 will certainly

record a significant redistribution in academic staff workload and, consequently, an increase in the quality of the

teaching process. To ensure the quality of the teaching process and improve the staff capacity of the University

of Tuzla, under the ruling of the Senate and following the recommendation of the Faculty/Academy Councils, a

significant number of academic staff members were appointed by contract in 2013.

It is estimated that the University of Tuzla has such facilities and an environment that allow it to generate a

substantial income operating on the market and it is, therefore, necessary to build awareness that, regardless of

the fact that the University of Tuzla is a public institution, significant funds need to be earned on the market.

Regardless of the resources that the University has at its disposal, it is important that it thrives to earn more

money than it receives from the Budget. In 2012/2013 the University operated under the conditions that are

characterized by:

incomplete systematization of the workplaces, especially in terms of the academic staff (783 associates

employed by contract participated in the teaching process), as well as inconsistent advancement for the purposes

of promotion among the existing academic staff;

the number of students does not correspond to the available human resources staff members, material and

space requirements,

of 158

the responsibility of meeting the standards and norms (human resources, material requirements, and standards

in terms of the equipment) within the deadlines established by Higher Education Standards and Norms ("TC

Official Gazette" No. 8/06 and 9/08).

PI 6.Policies, procedures and guidelines on HR development are well established and integrated

into research Integradion and development processes.



2 Moderately established Moderately integrated

3 Widely established Fully integrated




This policy is expressed and incorporated into the general legal documents of the University:

- "The Statute of the University of Tuzla"

- "Rules on Procedures at the University of Tuzla",

- "Rules on Employee Training",

- "The Quality Assurance Policy at the University of Tuzla"

The "Rules on the Fund for scholarships and awards for undergraduate students and University of Tuzla

employees”.

The "Statute of the University of Tuzla", Articles 268 through 269, stipulates the right of the academic staff take

paid or unpaid leave from work for the purposes of research training, while Article 264 stipulates that the

University is entitled to employ professors and assistants by temporary contract to carry out teaching process and

research activity or other tasks – for as long as needed, as well as to employ people with university degrees as

researchers, interns or volunteers. Determining requirements in the workflow helps establish the necessary

competencies for all employees, such as the necessary level of education, training at work, the degree of practice,

skills and experience needed. In accordance with the normative acts of the University, based on the analysis and

assessment of the employees’ competences, the University organizes training programs and plans for the

employees in the fields of information technology, management, marketing, application of standards, laws,

regulations, procedures and guidelines relating to relevant operations.

Management with executive responsibility constantly raises awareness of the need for new staff appointment,

planning and monitoring career development among the staff and encourages the involvement of employees in

open communication, teamwork, application of modern information technologies and participation in the

evaluation of the effective and efficient quality management systems.

The "Rules on Procedures of the University of Tuzla", Chapter XI - Education, training and development,

stipulates that the University is required to provide all employees with education, training and career

of 158

development opportunities. In addition, the University is obligated to provide the employees with university

degree with career development opportunities through conferences and seminars and to enable the teaching staff

to be promoted. Chapter V, section 3 - Absence from work, in accordance with the Labor Law of FBH, stipulates

that all employees are entitled to unpaid leave of 90 days.

The “Rules on employees’ development” defines the following:

- Forms and methods of career development,

- The process of submitting a request for leave for the purposes of career development,

- Decision-making authorities,

- The method of financing career development,

- Other issues of importance to the career development.

The same document stipulates that the University will tend to arrange the working hours to allow:

- Teaching assistants and senior teaching assistants to acquire the MA or PhD degrees,

- Professors to acquire the prerequisites for re-appointment or promotion to higher position,

- Other employees to acquire education, training or development in accordance with their work duties.

Career development of employees includes:

- Attending postgraduate and doctoral studies in the country and abroad,

- Attending postdoctoral studies at home and abroad,

- Professional and research specialization in the country and abroad,

- Visits and study visits to universities in the country and abroad as part of approved projects or inter-university

cooperation

- Participation in specialized conferences in the country and abroad,

- Participation in seminars, conferences, etc.

- Other forms of career development in accordance with the Regulations.

In order to create conditions for the planned career development of the staff, the University provides funds for

professional development of the employees allocated through the "Fund for scholarships and awards for

undergraduate students and development of the academic staff at the University of Tuzla." The funds may be

awarded as special honors and scholarships or be allocated for covering costs for acquiring the master’s or

doctoral degree to the employees of the University of Tuzla, which is closely regulated by the "Rules on the

Fund for scholarships and awards for undergraduate students and development of the academic staff at the

University of Tuzla".

In accordance with the financial plan, the Steering Board of the Fund announces the Call for scholarships at least

twice a year, in line with the resources available, and then issues a decision to grant the scholarship within 15

days from the deadline for submission of applications. The Board also makes decisions on granting special

honors and scholarships for the success achieved during the course of studies.

of 158

Mentioned procedures are sometimes nonflexible and they are not integrated into research and development

processes. They required more specific guidelines on some levels.

PI 7.The institution has memorandums on HR development that promote involvement of staff and

development according to standard requirements and institutional strategy.



2 Covering only some areas and incomplete

3 Covering variety of staff development areas, but not in effective use

4 Well distributed but need improvement





Institutional memorandums.

Analysis of memorandums.

University of Tuzla established numerous links with businesses, organizations and institutions in the area of

Tuzla Canton, Bosnia and Herzegovina and beyond. Majority of faculties have established relationships with

specific business partners so that the teaching process regularly includes field visits to companies. On the other

hand, some faculties such as the Faculty of Medicine and the Faculty of Pharmacy, conduct some of their classes

at the premises of University Clinical Center Tuzla. In the field of research, numerous projects are being

implemented as a result of joint efforts of the employees of the University and research institutions, institutes or

other organizations, or as a result of the cooperation established by the experts from the University and relevant

economy sectors. In this respect, the cooperation with the public administration sector at all levels of government

(municipal, cantonal, entity and state government) is certainly significant, since it aims at designing numerous

expert and research projects.

These memorandums are not obligatory for all institution staff members, they are sporadic and depends by

projects, they are not part of systematic plan of HR development.

PI 8.Institution is involved in staff development programs for academic, administration and

technical staff.

Involvement in development Range of involvement

1 None, or inactive No involvement at all

of 158

2 Some involvement Insufficient institutional capacity,

unbalanced and not monitored

3 Moderate involvement in HR

development

Sufficient institutional capacity, but


4 Good capacity for HR, but incidental Well balanced but incidental

5

Fully involvement in staff development

related to standards and

requirements

Well balanced regular institutional HR

development




The staff requirements are not equally met at the University level. The faculties/study programs with longer

tradition have largely met the academic staff requirements, while the recently established faculties still struggle

with meeting staff requirements. Under these conditions, the University of Tuzla has been forced to engage a

number of associates employed by contract for the purposes of engaging the academic staff in the teaching

process at certain faculties/Academy. In the recent years the number of students has doubled. In academic

2004/2005 there was 8685 students, while in 2010/2011 the number of students increased to 17 885. Within the

existing study programs, around 73.300 hours of lectures and 165.000 hours of practice classes are conducted per

year. It is essential to provide an adequate number of academic staff members who would cover the teaching

process.

2.5 Implement benchmarking process

The team made an action plan for implementing benchmarking methodology at University of Tuzla.

Project methodology includes:

- the analysis of documents for benchmarking approaches in EU and B&H;

- introducing principles of good practise and good conduct at UNBI( through information package, e-mails, ect.)

- dissemination of project (through UNTZ web site, local media, meetings);

- several trainings and workshops for UNTZ staff

- UNTZ BIHTEK members participated in study visits to EU universities and learned exact application of

benchmarking methodologies in EU countries, ect.

„The process of measuring and comparing the performaces of a business with similar processes extend within

the main organizations in order to obtain information which will help the organization to identify and implement

improvements”.

of 158

2.7 Comunicate results and recommendations

Our results clearly indicate that is necessary to upgrade and to improve a strategy plan of the University and to

realy follow the fullfill of the results.

-An insufficient number of employees, administrative and technical staff and associates

-No possibility of employing new staff due to the ban imposed by the government

-Very large numbers of students a small number of teachers

-Not adequate interconnection of research with commercial entities INDUSTRIAL

-Not the ability to access international databases

-Not adequate financial support for research on untz

2.8 Implement improvement

- In the preparation of the strategy include more external stakeholders

-hook education and scientific research

- Harmonize enrollment policies with the labor market

-System Monitor the implementation of strategic goals

- To determine the penalties in case of delay implementation of the strategy

- To make the standards and norms

II Conclusion

-Insight in EU good practice

-study visits in Vigo, Paderborn and Gent gave as new look on benchmarking proces

-we realised that benchmarking proces is commen proces in developt EU Universities

-internal structure among partner universities is well known after all procedures are done

-this is first benchamarking in our country on university

of 158

Annex 7

Report on site visit to University of Banja Luka

I. Introduction/ Brief summary

This report presents the implemented activities and achivements on the implementation of the BIHTEK project for benchmarking at the University of Banja Luka.

The document has a double role. The first is to briefly summarize the activities that have been implemented Uniuverziteta in Banja Luka within BIHTEK project. The second is to assist in the preparation of monitoring which will realize staff of CEENQA in March 2016.

Content refers to the activities carried out after the first monitoring visit (QA) conducted by Mila Zarkh and Nora Skaburskiene on behalf of CEENQA in November 2014. It is therefore references on interim report about that monitoring.

In the first part (1. Improvements) are listed improvements and activities since the last report. Starting from the above-mentioned report here are presented only additional activities and changes that have occurred in the period after the first QA visits.

In the paragraph 2 have been presented very detailed Pilot project activities and achivemets at the University of Banja Luka. It covers all the basic activities as defined in the Handbook for

benchmarking universities in BiH.

1. Improvements

The translation, printing and distribution of the “Benchmarking handbook for the universities of BiH” into Serbian language is not completed until now. Technical details on the translation of the “Benchmarking handbook for the universities of BiH” into Serbian language provided few days ago. For the next few days will be completed translation handbook on Serbian language. Thereafter handbook will be printed and distributed.

There have been delays in the implementation of capacity building trainings, meetings and conferences, as compared to the initial plan (see report on the first monitoring visit). However, thanks to the extension of the project duration the crucial activities are successfully completed.

As regards the purchase of equipment (hardware and software) there were many problems before the first report on monitoring visit. In the meantime, problems solved. The complete hardware was purchased and put into operation, in accordance with the project application. Development and installation of the software are in the final stage. For several days testing the developed software will be completed and immediately thereafter putting into operation.

Finally, during the meeting at the University of Paderborn a final agreement on areas and topics for pilot project benchmarking were reached. The basis for the agreement was the attitude of University of Banja Luka top management and initial benchmarking team of UBL that the most suitable type of benchmarking of the Internationalization and Scientific research by strategic sharing through external benchmarking process.

Representatives of the KU Leuven and University of Banja Luka have agreed that for benchmarking of the Internationalisation, KU Leuven will be taken as a good practice organization.

Similarly, representatives of the University of Paderborn and the University of Banja Luka have agreed that for benchmarking of the Scientific and research work University of Paderborn will be taken as a good practice organization.

of 158

The teams for the benchmarking at the University of Banja Luka in May 2016 sent the prepared materials for internationalization and scientific research to KU Leuven and the University of Paderborn, respectively. In the materials were contained drafts of benchmarks and indicators prepared in accordance with the recommendations of the handbook. We asked from the partners suggestions to these proposals.

After that, representatives of the KU Leuven visited University of Banja Luka. During the visit are clarified ambiguities and documents improved.

From the University of Paderborn, we get the answer that they have no suggestions to modify or supplement to materials we sent.

According to the defined forms, in the summer and autumn of 2015. we carried out collecting of necessary data and information at the University of Banja Luka.

In the second half of January 2016, teams at the University of Banja Luka visited the UK Leuven and the University of Paderborn. The main aim of the visit was to present the good practices of the EU partners in the field being evaluated. Also, was discussed about the differences with the aim of comparing where possible. Furthermore, it was pointed out on potentially weaker field on the University of Banja Luka and recommended improvements.

Dissemination activities were carried out continuously through various forms. The project

outcomes were presented to universities leadership. Even the more, as the vice-rectors and vice-

deans were directly involved in the implementation of the pilot project for benchmarking (as leaders

or team members), they presented information on the activities of the project in their everyday

activities.

At the workshop in Mostar, held in October 2015, it was agreed that each university from BiH

should form a team for the sustainable quality assurance.

At the University of Banja Luka formed the following sustainable quality assurance team:

1. Prof. Dr. Simo Jokanović, vics-rector, head of the Comity for QA

Prof. Dr. Zdravko Todorović, member of the Comity for QA

Prof. Dr. Petar Marić, member of the Comity for QA

Prof. Dr. Mirjana Žabić, member of the Comity for QA

5. Ozren Trišić, administrative staff at office for QA.

Task of the team is to prepare the Plan of quality assurance sustainability at the University of

Banja Luka. The team has not started with work because has not been adopted Guidelines national

QA strategy. At the workshop in Mostar was agreed that this document should be adopted till the end

of 2015, and be the basis for the plans of quality assurance sustainability.

Very long-lasting procedures for reimbursement: equipment, travel, staff costs have been

shortened compared to the previous period. However, still hampered effective implementation of the

project and the wider involvement of staff of the University in the implementation of activities.

2. Pilot project activities and achivemets

2.1. Determine which areas to benchmark

With the aim to ensure commitment by University senior managers to high-level strategic thinking and performance improvement formed the initial team / group to coordinate Pilot project for benchmarking at the University of Banja Luka (initial benchmarking team).

In accordance with Act. 4.2.2 (Action plan for implementing of benchmarking at UBL – Draft) was estblished the initial benchmarking team (in the following text IB team):

of 158

1. Prof. Dr. Petar Maric, coordinator of BIHTEK project, Representative of Bosnia and

Herzegovina at General Assembli of EQAR, President of the Republic of Serbian

Accreditation Forum, the member of the Committee for quality qssurance at University of

Banja Luka, BH Bologna expert.

2. Prof. Dr. Simo Jokanovic, Vice rector for education and student affairs at University of

Banja Luka, President of the Committee for quality assurance at University of Banja Luka.

3. Prof. Dr. Valerija Saula, , Vice rector for international affairs at University of Banja Luka.

4. Prof. Dr. Milan Mataruga, Vice rector for science, research and development at UBL.

5. Jelena Rozic (officer at the Office of International Cooperation at University of Banja Luka)

IB team had few meetings and consultations with the aim to prepare a plan for the implementation of the Project. Based on these activities IB team has established an initial proposal to benchmark areas, types and level of benchmarking.

In the first phase, broad list of areas to benchmark was established (the themes and topics addressed by the benchmarking) in accordance with areas propossed in the Project application: „governance, quality assurance, curriculum reform, external impact reputation, competitiveness“:

1. Internationalization;

2. The increase in interest for admission to the study programs;

3. Organization and concept of managing of study programs;

4. Scientific and research work;

5. Human resources;

The areas to benchmark are listed in order of prioritis for University of Banja Luka. When defining the priorities the key factors were: the strategy of the University, possibility of implementing and the objectives of the project BIHTEK.

Internationalization of the UBL is one of the strategic priorities for the next period. The area of benchmarking Internationalization is planned to be external benchmarking process. The aim is the comparison of the organizations functions and key processes against good practice organizations,

virtual or even better, a real one.

The area of benchmarking for increasing of interest for admission to the engineering study programs is planned to be internal benchmarking process. At the University of Banja Luka, there is a big difference in the interest of young people for entry to particular study programs. Very often the level of interest is opposite to the need for appropriate employment profile.

In the past, more than five years at the University of Banja Luka have made significant organizational changes. Their main characteristic is the integration of the University. In this process, the departments of study had been just declared as study programs. Transformation was just formaly proclaimed. Improving the organization and management concept of study programs is very important for the further development of the University. In this area, there is considerable room for improvement based on the good experiences of other universities. Therefore, the suggestion that this area of benchmarking to be implemented as an external activity. We assumed that it is of interest to most of the BH University. It would be highly desirable to be included as a benchmark one university participant BIHTEK project from the EU.

IB team believed that for the last two proposed areas, Scientific and research work and Human Resources, there are not enough own potentials for significant improvement. The fields of these make sense only as external benchmarking process. For this reason, it was proposed as a reserve with the lower level of priority. However, if during the implementation of Act. 4.4 (Action plan for implementing of benchmarking at UBL - Draft) other partners in the project BIHTEK choose similar field, then UBL consider the justification of the realization of one of these themes

of 158

At the workshop entitled "Methodology for realization of pilot project" held on January, 19 – 23, 2015. at the University of Paderborn, partners agreed on a common methodology for the

implementation of pilot projects on the BH universities.

On a basis of the reflections of methodology presented by BH participants, discussion and

suggestion for improvement, at the workshop in Paderborn, IB University of Banja Luka team adopted the final list of areas for the implementation of benchmarking pilot project at the University of

Banja Luka. These areas are: Internationalization, Scientific and research work and The

increase in interest for admission to the study programs.

2.2. Types and level of benchmarking

The aim for benchmarking of the Internationalisation was comparison of the organizations functions and key processes against good practice organizations. University of Banja Luka has no

long experience in the field of internationalization. For this reason, the impruvement of the

international segment of the University of Banja Luka is of strategic importance. The most suitable type of benchmarking from that reason is by strategic sharing through external benchmarking

process. Bearing in consideration the above mentioned representatives of the KU Leuven and

University of Banja Luka have agreed that for benchmarking in this area, as a good practice

organizations, to be KU Leuven. We had in mind that the KU Leuven (consortium member) has a very well-developed area of international cooperation, with extensive experience in international

projects. In coordinating of the University Management Board and the IB team the following team for

benchmarking in the field of internationalization was formed.

1. Prof. Dr. Valerija Saula, Vice-Rector for International Relations at UBL

2. Jelena Rozic, International Relations Officer at UBL

3. Dr. Nevena Novakovic, Faculty of Architecture and Civil Engineering

4. Dr. Sinisa Lakic, Faculty of Philosophy

IB team concluded that for the area Scientific and research work, there are not enough own

potentials for significant improvement. On the other hand, is not possible significant progress of University of Banja Luka, with no improvement in this area. The conclusion is that only makes sense external benchmarking in this area. For this reason, representatives of the University of Paderborn and University of Banja Luka have agreed that for benchmarking in this area, as a good practice organizations, to be university of Paderbor. Through the cooperation of the University of Paderborn and University of Banja Luka it will be an external benchmarking process.

It was agreed that the team for realization of the pilot project has the following composition:

1. Prof. Dr. Milan Mataruga, Vice-Rector for Scientific-Research Work and Development at UBL

2. Prof. Dr. Goran Trbic, Dean at the Faculty of Natural Sciences and Mathematics

3. Prof. Dr. Slobodan Simovic, Vice-Dean for Scientific-Research Work at the Faculty of Physical

Education and Sport

It is well known the huge problem of youth unemployment in Bosnia and Herzegodina. For this reason is very important for universities to take into account the different needs of the society for profile of graduates. It is necessary to direct the students to study programs that educate students for deficit occupations. This is why one of the priorities of the University of Banja Luka is the increasing

interest for enrollment in some study programs. In coordinating of the University Management Board and the IB team it was decided to launch an internal benchmarking in the area of increasing

interest for some study programs. The aim of the benchmarking process is to find mechanisms to increase interest in occupations that are needed on the labor market. The subjects of benchmarking activities will be particular study programs at UBL. The following team for benchmarking in that field

was formed.

of 158

1. Prof. Dr. Simo Jokanovic, Vice-Rector for Teaching and Student Issues at UBL

2. Prof. Dr. Branko Blanusa, Vice-Dean for Teaching at the Faculty of Electrical Engineering

3. Prof. Dr. Zdravko Todorovic, Faculty of Economics

4. Ozren Trisic, Quality Assurance Officer at UBL

2.3. Preparation benchmarking documents and templates including the purpose, scope

of project, performance indicators, performance measures and performance data.

The established teams, for three areas, have prepared all the necessary documents.

The team for internationalization has defined four benchmarks.

Benchmark No 1. Internationalization policies

Scoping Statement: This applies to institution level planning, policy development, institutional capacity and implementation in relation to the internationalization. It includes the delegation of authority and responsibility for developing and implementing policy, and strategic and operational plans.

Good Practice Statement and 13 performance indicators (with performance

measures) are defined.

Benchmark No 2. Mobility

Scoping Statement: Mobility is conditioned by institutional internal human, material and financial capacities, organization and policies. It includes exchange of incoming and outgoing student and staff enabled through memorandums on cooperation and mobility programmes, monitored through the database, with recognized results by the institution.



Benchmark No 3. International projects

Scoping Statement: This applies to institutional strategy, rules, regulations that are regulating the area and to human, material and financial capacities and organizational structure of the institution supporting participation in the international projects. It includes data on concrete involvement of the institution and staff in the international educational and research projects and data on partnership quality, as well as institutional mechanism of monitoring, recognition and improvement of the area.



Benchmark No 4. International reputation and visibility

Scoping Statement: Institutional reputation and visibility includes wide range of strategic policies and activities, as well as organizational structure and funding mechanisms fitted to support internationalization of the institution and staff involved. Reputation of the institution is enhanced through higher staff involvement in internationalization through international conference participation and organization, publications in reviewed international journals, recognition of the curriculum international dimension and offer of the joint/double/multiple degree programmes and through participation in local, national, regional or international networks supporting internationalization.

of 158

Visibility of the institution is strengthened through providing all important information of study/teaching/researching conditions at the institution in at least one foreign language and at least the institution’s web page, the international student fairs and recruitment events and other internationally oriented promotion and marketing activities.



The team for Scientific and research work has defined three benchmarks.

Benchmark No 1. Institutional policy for research, development and innovation

Scoping Statement: This applies to institution level planning, policy development, institutional capacity and implementation in relation to the research and development. It includes the delegation of authority and responsibility for developing and implementing policy, and strategic and operational plans.



Benchmark No 2. Institutional involvement in the process of research, development and innovation

Scoping Statement: This applies to institution level capacity and implementation in relation to the research, development and innovation. It includes actual quantitative indicators and measures, which enable the institution to realistically evaluate own RDI capacities at local, regional and global level and to establish policies for improvement.



Benchmark No 3. Knowledge and technology transfer

Scoping Statement: The university gathering new ideas from staff and students, and boosting knowledge transfer and commercialization of R&D results to benefit of society.



The team for benchmarking in the area of increasing interest for some study programs has

defined three benchmarks.

Benchmark No 1. Institutional commitment to the increase in interest for admission to the

study programs

Scoping Statement: This benchmark is about existence and effectiveness of institutional activities on attracting more interest of candidates for its study programs. It includes a set of indicators which enable institution to estimate and improve its performance in making its study programs more attractive for future candidates. It is also a tool for assessing and promote the role and importance of a particular study program in the sociaty.

5 performance indicators (with performance measures) are defined.

Benchmark No 2. Atractivness of study programs


of 158

Benchmark No 3. relevance and marketability of study program


2.4. Design benchmarking process

As noted in section 2.1. IB team had few meetings and consultations with the aim to design

the benchmarking process. The team has determined the benchmark areas, types and level of

benchmarking..

After the previous, for three selected areas have been formed particular teams (sub-teams). To coordinate activities, members of IB team agreed that at least one member of sub-team will be simultaneously a member of the IB team.

Sub-temas will have responsibility for the running a project in the respective area, gathering and interpreting data and periodically reporting back to the IB team. Also, in order to successfully

accomplish these activities, it was agreed that the team leaders are the Vice Rectors from the area

for which benchmarking carried out as follows:

a) Prof. Dr. Valerija Saula, Vice-Rector for International Relations at UBL is the team leader for

the internationalization.

b) Prof. Dr. Milan Mataruga, Vice-Rector for Scientific-Research Work and Development at

UBL is the team leader for the Scientific and research work

c) Prof. Dr. Simo Jokanovic, Vice-Rector for Teaching and Student Issues at UBL is the team

leader for the increasing interest for some study programs.

In parallel with the above-described activities team and subteam for realization of the pilot project at UBL will within the Act. 5.2. develope the methodology for realization of Pilot Project at UBL.

2.5. Implement benchmarking process

Based on activities 2.3. and 2.4. launched the implementation of the benchmarking process. For each area the primary responsibility for implementation was to the appropriate team. Continuous exchange of information is carried out between top management, IB team and sub-teams, on the implementation of activities. In this way the top management and IB team constantly monitor the process of implementation with the aim of quality assurance.

Because there is a lack of data needed to evaluate according to respective indicators, sub-teams collected data in different ways, mainly through: questionnaires, interviews or meetings.

Design benchmarking processes, the creation of performance indicators, performance measures, and others, were carried out in coordination with the external benchmarking partners.

At the regular workshops and the meetings of the Project consortium members regularly exchanged information on the progress in the implementation of pilot projects.

2.6. Review results

With the objective to the review process carried out at multiple levels representatives of KU Leuven visited the University of Banja Luka. With the same objective the members of sub-teams visited the KU Leuven and the University of Paderborn. Through this activity was initiated review process which is still ongoing.

of 158

Based on the above will be agreed definitive recommendations for improvement and assigned responsibilities for implementation of the recommended improvements.

II. Conclusion including further action plan

It can be concluded that the delay in some stages of the project successfully

compensated by extending the life of the project. Moreover, all basic objectives of the

project have been achieved. It is realistic to expect that the remaining time until the

official end of the project will be enough to complete the remaining activities. This

primarily refers on activity of the pilot projects that are underway. For this reason it is

necessary to focus on the efficient completion of the activities: review results and recommendations for improvement strategies of Pilot project.

From the aspect of the Banja Luka the project progress was deemed to be

all in all rather positive.

of 158

Annex 8

Higher Education Accreditation Agency of Republika Srpska (HEARS)

Sustainability Plan

BENCHMARKING AS A TOOL FOR IMPROVEMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION PERFORMANCE

Higher Education Accreditation Agency of Republika Srpska is planning following activities

as part of sustainability of project results:

Incorporating benchmarking as a method for quality assurance into the system of

higher education of Republika Srpska – the goal will be achieved through the changes

of Agency’s documents and procedures as well as other documents regulating this

area:

The new Rulebook of accreditation process was adopted by Steering

Committee 4th of March 2016. Within it benchmarking is defined

within the article 15 and considers benchmarking as one of the

methods of external quality assurance which can be understand as

external audit.

The new Strategy of the RS HEAA 2016-2020 sets benchmarking as

one of the models of quality assurance (Strategy is to be adopt at

next Steering Committee meeting)

The Agency will propose incorporating benchmarking into the

criteria for accreditation of higher education study programs

Dissemination of the project results – this goal will be achieved through the seminars,

workshops, trainings and media:

Benchmarking is set as one of the modules of training plan for HEI’s

representatives RS HEAA has developed (Training plan with five modules was

adopted in 2015)

Workshops on subject of results of the benchmarking practice based on

experience of the institutions included in the project will be provided for other

HEI’s which weren’t part of the project (workshops are planned in 2016)

The Agency is preparing the web site information on subject of benchmarking

based on BIHTEK documents (Benchmarking Manuel and Guidelines for QA

strategies) – the information will be at section ‘’Trainings’’ www.heaars.com

(deadline April 2016)

The Agency will cooperate with media in order to assure better promotion of

the importance of quality assurance in hole and benchmarking as one of its

mechanisms (one of the episodes in educational program at RTRS (public

broadcast service) will be devoted to the results of BIHTEK project – deadline

before June 2016)

http://www.heaars.com/

of 158

Annex 9

Report on site visit to University of Bihac

2. Introduction/Brief summary

University of Bihać did not implement any official benchmarking procedure. However, many EU projects

implemented at the UNBI included methods of comparison that could be considered as a sort of benchmarking

(comparison of study programs, qualification frameworks, QA, policies, etc.)

University of Bihac has recognized the importance of benchmarking as a tool for improvement, and as an

efficient means of theory and practice transfer through cooperation with other countries.

Important characteristics of benchmarking are:

- easy access to information on working process

- experience exchange

- increasing the level of knowledge

The main objective concerns the introduction of benchmarking methodology at University of Bihać as a modern

management tool as well as the most effective quality enhancement method;

Benchmarking as a tool for improvement of higher education eill enable UNBi to improve own capacities

through already established good practices and achieve the level necessary for an efficient academic and

financial operation.

UNBI is still in the process of transformation and improvement and can achieve even more by learning from

those who already achieved that objective.

- The team consists of five members creating the next four groups:

1. Representative of management - prof. Refik Šahinović, PhD

2. Representative of academic staff – Nermin Pračić, PhD, Jasmina Ibrahimpašić,PhD

3. Representative of non-academic staff – Nermina Badić

4. QA coordinator- Mirzet Grozdanić

3. „Anex 1 Tables with individual interview results“ in report 2015; „“ Delta of change to last report“

Activities CEENQA’s

assessment

and comments

Delta of change to last

report

Workpackages 1 + 2: Benchmarking

handbook and methodology:

‐ The Benchmarking handbook is useful

for the university providing both

theoretical

information and practical examples;

‐ The handbook should however be

translated – that is very important

for the

internal use in the university, but also

for dissemination purposes, since

not

every interested party speaks English

The translation of the

handbook into local

languages is needed

for wider distribution

of the outcomes of the

project

The University of Bihac has

begun with the translation

of Handbook in Bosnian

language and as it will be

used for BIHTEK

partners.

Capacity building trainings, meetings

and conferences (workpackages 3

+ 4):

of 158

‐ The training in Tuzla was most useful

workshop as it gave opportunity to

be

involved in benchmarking exercise;

‐ We have a very good experience with

Bonn training;

‐ We did not participate in the Vigo*

study visit for financial reasons

‐ We think, however, that the aims of the

trainings and workshops must be

clearly communicated in advance

The aims of the

meetings must be

clear in advance,

otherwise,

they can only be

semiefficient

We have some repeated

exercises but was very

helpful to gain more clear

understanding

Benchmarking process at

all.

*Members of UNBI BIHTEK

team were participated in

Vigo study visit.


To what extent has the equipment

been purchased?

‐ Before the Bonn meeting, we prepared

the specification for equipment, but

agreement was made in Bonn to have a

joint list of software;

‐ We would like to have a software

which can be used at the whole

university,

not only for BIHTEK activities

‐ We participated in the SHEQA project

and purchased the software;

however,

we were experiencing major technical

problems with running operational

system;

‐ We do not have one general IT system

– the faculties have installed

different

systems. Although there are intentions to

have united system for the whole

university.

‐ The university has sent specification

on equipment one year ago to the

Granholder.

‐ University has software purchased

through SHEQA project, but do not

use it at the moment.

Risk of major delay

during the

implementation

phase due to

lacking equipment at

the university

We purchased all the

equipment envisaged by

the BIHTEK project and

is installed at the

University. In the

meantime we install

general IT system for the

whole University and now

the University is

integrated in one IT

system.

Implementation phase (workpackage

5):

‐ We have no final version of the

implementation plan yet.

‐ The draft implementation plan was

sent to Grantholder;

‐ There is a need to clarify the question

of the partners in the benchmarking

process;

‐ We are going to agree on indicators

A major delay could

occur in the

implementation

phase if the

implementation plan

won’t be elaborated in

the next time

The members of the BIHTEK

project from the

University of Bihac

participate in all project

activities.

The University of Tuzla was a

fully partner in the

implementation phase of

of 158

with the university of Mostar

Džemal

Bijedić and to send the list of indicators

to the EU experts;

‐ We would like to do international

benchmarking with KU Leaven in

the field of research.

‐ We thought also about cooperating

with Zenica and East Sarajevo, but

we

had technical problems /both Zenica and

East Sarajevo still use the SHEQA

software/

the project.

Dissemination activities (Del. 3.3 +

workpackage 6):

‐ We access the project webpage very

rarely;

‐ We would appreciate more examples

of good practice of benchmarking

(could be from EU partners, could be

from BH partners);

‐ The final results/reports of

benchmarking processes could be

published on

the webpage (what EU universities did

in benchmarking, what were the

useful outcomes etc.);

‐ We think that more reports and insights

gained about internal and external

benchmarking could be shared via

website;

‐ The benchmarking handbook should be

published online.

‐ We report regularly on the project

activities on the university’s

website;

also university internal meetings were

organized after each training.The

core group has 5 people, next year the

group will grow, for implementation

purposes. Members of all faculties

would like to be involved and show

great interest towards project contents;

positive feedback is received.

‐ The dissemination workshop took

place in May 2014

‐ The next dissemination activity will

take place in the faculties before

starting

the implementation at the end of the

The webpage of the

project has to be

enhanced

The benchmarking handbook

is published online via

BIHTEK webpage.

Due the financial issues the

number of members

BIHTEK group staid the

same.

Even thought and positive

feedback is received we

could not expend our

group for implementation

of project contents

because of the lack of

financing.

We have introduced slowly

BIHTEK project activities

by new IT system which

has been developed

during the project.

of 158

year 2014.


‐ A prolongation of the project would be

very helpful

Due to the major delay

in the implementation

phase, it would be

recommendable to

prolong the project

The University of Bihac has

been fully integrated all

project activities, and this

extension of 6 months of

project was good because

we were able to finish

equipment instalment.

This equipment will

ensure the sustainability

of the BIHTEK project

activities.

Comments for quality monitoring and

enhancement (workpackage 8):

‐ The aims of the trainings should be set

in advance

Besides the

recommendation

(to PM),

the partners are

satisfied with the

work of

workpackage 8

Last few trainings were

clearly defined.

Suggestions for the project

management (workpackage 9):

‐ We are rather disappointed by the

communication flow & travel costs

reimbursement

process;

‐ also the staff costs reimbursement

seems to be a very bureaucratic

procedure;

therefore, involving more staff into the

benchmarking will be very difficult

as reimbursement of costs is

unpredictable.

The reimbursement

procedures should

speed up so that

the smooth run of

the project

implementation is

not impeded

Even though a Grant holder

transferred the finance for

two years of the project to

our Government bank

account (in the June 2015)

our Ministry of Finances

still did not distributed to

our individual bank

accounts. The

reimbursement procedures

should speed up so that

the smooth run of the

project implementation is

not impeded.

2.1 Determine which areas to benchmark

University of Bihać choose three area for benchmarking:

4. Institutional Internationalization

5. Research (Institutional policy for research, development and innovation)

6. Human Resourses

2.2 Determine types and level of benchmarking

By definition of the Consortioum for excelence in Higher Education (2003) identifies 7 main approaches to

benchmarking and according to those definitions we performed competitive benchmarking that is a process

of 158

whereby organizations use performance measures to compare themselves against similar organizations.

Banchmarking has been done at the national level except the human resources area which will be conducted at

international level at Kaho St Lieven Hoge School.

2.3; 2.4 & 2.6 Prepare benchmarking documents and templates including the purpose, scope of project,

perfomance indicators, perfomance measures and perfomance data, design benchmarking process and

review results.

SELF ASSESMENT Template

Benchmark No 1

Name: Institutional internationalization

Scoping Statement This applies to institution level planning, policy development, institutional capacity and implementation in

relation to the internationalization. It includes the delegation of authority and responsibility for developing and

implementing policy, and strategic and operational plans.

Good Practice Statement The institution has established, well understood strategy, governance mechanisms, policies and capacities that

enable involvement in the international networks/programs, international mobility of students and staff, with the

aim of international recognition and good reputation/ranking.




2 Strategic or operational plan but no recognition of internationalization

3 Strategic or operational plan includes some elements of internationalization

4 Strategic and operational plans both have some elements of internationalization

5 Strategic and operational plans both have clear recognition of internationalization

Overall rating 1 2 3 4 5 Indicate where you believe you rate above.


The University of Bihać defined its commitment to the field of international cooperation in the

“Strategic Development Plan for the University of Bihać for the period 2011 - 2015"under the

sections as follows: "European dimension of the University of Bihać ","Internationalization of the

University" and "Joint doctoral studies".

PI 2. Specific plans relating to internationalization are aligned with the institution’s strategic

directions and operational plans.



plans


operational plans


operational plans

of 158

4 x Numerous specific plans x Aligned with either institution strategic or

operational plans


operational plans



Operational plan of the International Relations Office at the University of Bihać has well included all the

internationalization specifications in line with the “Strategic Development Plan for the University of

Bihać for the period 2011 - 2015" and "Strategic Development Trends in Higer Education in

Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina for the period 2012-2022".

All the specific plans for each and every activity are carefully discussed and time scheduled.

PI 3.Institutional capacity for international cooperation and responsibility for the operational

management of internationalization are clearly articulated.






5 x Well established and mature x Comprehensively articulated



Two full time employees at the International Relations Office (Expert Adviser for International Relations and

Senior Project Officer) engaged in project management, academic exchange, interuniversity cooperation, etc.

fully liable and highly motivated and with many years of working experience in this field.

PI 4. Planning for the ongoing process of internationalization is aligned with the institutions

budget process.

1 No alignment

2 x Limited alignment



5 Complete alignment Indicate where you believe you rate above.


There are many financial problems University of Bihać is faced with, having repercussions onto all spheres

including internationalization process, as well. Thus, there is no foreseen fund for assisting the academic

exchange, research. The University provides the paid leave for its teachers and researchers. All these activities

are mostly covered by the projects' funds.

PI 5.Institution policies and procedures provide a framework for internationalization at both a

course and program level.

Course level Program level

1 No policies and procedures applied at the

course level

No policies and procedures applied at the

program level

2 Some alignment with policies and x Some alignment with policies and

of 158

procedures procedures

3 x Comprehensive alignment with policies

and procedures

Comprehensive alignment with policies

and procedures

Overall rating 1 2 3 Indicate where you believe you rate above.


In December 2014, the Senate of the University of Bihać adopted the Rules on Mobility stating that recognition

of the acquired qualifications will be treated according to Lisbon convention. In terms of recognition of the

qualifications, there were no difficulties so far.

We do not provide study programs in foreign language, except for the English Language Department and

German Language Department.

PI 6.Policies, procedures and guidelines on internationalization are well established and integrated

into research and development processes.



2 x Moderately established x Moderately integrated




The University has recognized the need for a special organizational sub-units at the University level

which coordinate the activities in the domain of international cooperation. The Statute of the University, Article

41, establishes the Office for Scientific Research and Office for International Relations which is run by the Vice-

rector for Research and International Relations. Scientific research is conducted in accordance with the

"Strategic Development Plan of the University of Bihac for the period 2011/20151“, Scientific research plans of

organizational units, and the Regulations of the scientific-research activities. The University promotes

participation of its teachers in scientific-research projects, national and international scientific conferences, and

encourages the involvement of students in an independent research. University of Bihac is organizing seminars

and scientific conferences, as is the case with the 8th and 9th International Conference "RIM 2011" and "RIM

2013", as well as 1st and 2nd

Conference “Bosnia and Herzegovina and Euro-Atlantic Integrations – Current

Challenges and Perspectives”, then “2nd Symposium of Sport, Tourism and Health - 2011", all with international

participation, which resulted in over a hundred of published papers. University employees also participated in the

work of 1st and 2nd Scientific Conferences “5 June, World Environment Day”, organized by the University.

PI 7.The institution has memorandums on cooperation that enable international mobility.



2 Covering only one region, or only one mobility scheme, or less than minimum

3 x Covering variety of institutions and programs, but not in effective use

4 Well distributed but maturing



of 158



There are over 40 Agreements that UNBI has signed with many Universities, Institutes, etc in Bosnia

and Herzegovina, Balkan region, Europe, Asia, South America. All the employees are encouraged to initiate and

widen the cooperation within these agreements but also to create new contacts and cooperation initiatives in line

with Rules for International Relations activities support. IRO strives to find ways to improve the cooperation

with partners especially in terms of research projects and academic exchange.

PI 8.Institution is involved in mobility programs for both students and staff.

Involvement in Programs Mobility

1 None, or inactive No mobility

2 Only regional cooperation

Up to 0,1% for students and 1% for staff

in-coming or out-going (eligible

students)

3 Moderate international cooperation x Sufficient but unbalanced

4 x Well distributed but incidental Well balanced but incidental

5 Well distributed and regular Well balanced regular mobility



The basic form of cooperation between the University of Bihać and other universities

from BiH and the Region is generally implemented through academic exchange. The number of

visiting professors at the University of Bihać is currently higher compared to the number of the

UNBI professors visiting other universities. The cooperation with the universities from the

Western European countries and other countries, is mainly carried out through Tempus projects

and grants of various kinds.

Our students and teachers participate in international cooperation through a number of

exchange programs (ERASMUS-MUNDUS, CEEPUS, MEVLANA). However the total number

of students who participate in the exchange programs is not satisfactory and it is necessary to

work on improving the conditions at the University to increase this number. The existing

procedures at the University verify and recognize student mobility in line with the Rules on

Mobility adopted by the University Senate. The aforementioned programs also allow academic

staff mobility, which is mainly implemented in cooperation with the universities in European

Union and Turkey.

The „Rules on Mobility“ was created and adopted by the University Senate in December 2014.

The main document used for student mobility is Learning Agreement signed by the host

institution, home institution and student participating in the exchange program. The purpose of the

Learning Agreement is to record student performance at the host institution and have it approved

and signed by the authorities at home university. The Learning Agreement is the tool for the

students’ academic recognition at the home institution. Furthermore, there are additional

documents necessary for student mobility, and those are mainly defined by each exchange

program. Student is obliged to provide the home institution with a transcript of records confirming

that the agreed program has been completed, specifying the results achieved at the host institutions.

Sigma – The project is being implemented since 2010 and includes 19 universities, 9 of which are from EU and

10 from Western Balkan Countries. UNBI has been a partner at this Project since 2014.

UNET - Exchange Network 11 partner universites from 7 ex-Yugoslavia coutries

of 158

CEEPUS (Central European Exchange Program for University Studies) is a multilateral exchange program for

Central and Eastern Europe.

The University of Bihać has signed cooperation agreements with 13 universities from the Republic of Turkey

within the Mevlana exchange program, with an aim of student and academic staff exchange.

Within the Mevlana program, students spend up to two semesters at a host university, while academic staff

members spend from one week to one month at a host university.

In addition to these programs, Office of International Relations is responsible for implementation of numerous

scholarship schemes for students and academic staff offered by international programs implemented by DAAD,

embassies and governments of other countries (USA, Japan, Italy, Greece, France, etc).

Benchmark No 2

Name: Institutional policy for research, development and innovation Benchmark No 1

Name: Institutional policy for research, development and innovation


relation to the research and development. It includes the delegation of authority and responsibility for developing

and implementing policy, and strategic and operational plans.

Good Practice Statement The institution has established, well understood strategy, governance mechanisms, policies and capacities that

enable involvement in the international networks/programs, visible successful outcomes of students and staff

research, with the aim of nurturing academic excellence, and earning international recognition and good

reputation/ranking.




2 Strategic or operational plan but no recognition of research excellence

3 Strategic or operational plan includes some elements of research excellence

4 Strategic and operational plans both have some elements of research excellence

5 x Strategic and operational plans both have clear recognition of research excellence



Articles 22, 34, 35 and 38 and 37 of the University Statute define forms of scientific/artistic and research activity

conducted by University of Bihać and its organizational units.

For the purposes of commercialization of research and artistic work at the University and its organizational units,

Article 29 through 33 of University Statute are defining the organization of organizational and sub-

organizational units.

of 158

Office of Research, interuniversity cooperation in State and abroad posts all research related information on the

website www.unbi.ba (http://unbi.ba/index.php/medusaradnja ).

Such information include activities from the field of research, notices and open calls for projects, information for

students, academic staff and University research capacity. Furthermore, each faculty has its own webpage and

publishes all relevant information about ongoing or completed research projects on their websites.

The University of Bihac presents publications of its teaching staff at the web page of the University.

Additionally, the University has Ordinance of publishing at the University of Bihac, which defines the basic

elements of publishing activities of the University. Selfevaluation forms serve as a means of data collection

regarding these publications being submitted each year. This method enables keeping records of scientific and

professionalpapers, projects, and published books. These data are updated at the level of organizationalunits, in

the Centre for Quality Assurance and Internal Evaluation at the University of Bihac. In addition, the

organizational units practice periodically review annunciation of published papers.

PI 2.Specific plans relating to R&D are aligned with the institution’s strategic directions and

operational plans.



plans


operational plans


operational plans


operational plans

5 x Comprehensive suite of plans x Aligned with both institution strategic and

operational plans



The jurisdiction for the development of Higher Education Development Strategy in

USC has been given by law to the Cantonal Assembly, Government and Ministry of

Education, Science, Culture and Sports. Although in the given legal framework, the

University is not directly or institutionally involved in the process of strategy development,

the University is the initiator and an active proponent of the official strategy adoption. At the

time of the creation of this report, the Ministry is drafting the Strategy that is supposed to be

officially adopted soon.

Bearing in mind the above-mentioned legal restrictions, the University of Bihac created the

document "Strategic Plan of the University of Bihac 2011-2015“, enforced by the Decision of

Senate on its 22nd regular session held on May 26, 2011, and containing all the necessary

elements of the strategy. This document fulfils the statutory obligation and jurisdiction of the

Rector to propose basic development and action plans of the University to the Founder, the

Steering Committee and the Senate. All the stakeholders of higher education at the USC were

consulted during the process of strategic plan: Teaching staff, non-teaching staff, students, the

Founder, the government, the NGO-s, local community, significant business entities,

employers, other relevant partners (parents, associations, societies, graduate students).

The Senate of the University has authorized the team to prepare this document, which

conducted all the planned activities within the defined deadline. In addition to the University

representatives, the Proposal of this document was drafted in consultation with the

http://www.unbi.ba/

http://unbi.ba/index.php/medusaradnja

of 158

representatives of relevant business entities, who traditionally express their contentment with

the personnel educated at the University.

The Proposal was discussed and adopted at 24th session of the Senate, held on July 14, 2011,

when it was formally adopted and forwarded to the relevant Ministry under the Rector´s

authority. This document has been published on the University website5, and is accessible to

all interested parties.

This document introduces the University of Bihac, the educational activities, development

strategies of Research and Scientific Activities for the period 2011-2015, the possible models

of funding at the University of Bihac, institutional development plan and development action

plan at the University of Bihac. The focus is directed primarily to the following:

1. Modernization of the curricula for three cycles of education;

2. Procurement of modern infrastructure and equipment;

3. Cohesion between educational and Research and Scientific Activities;

4. Constant renewal and rejuvenation of the teaching and scientific staff;

5. Encouraging students to graduate on time;

6. Harmonization of enrolment policy with labour market needs.

This document defines the Initial strategic moral and political principles of the University

operation:

- Equal and fair treatment of all organizational units of the University;

- Protection and assurance of all varieties of individual rights and professional freedoms, for

the staff and students, regardless of their differences in social status, gender, religion,

ethnicity, race, etc.;

- Effort and willingness to strengthen all aspects of the University;

- Similar affirmation of all organizational units and all operating structures of the University;

- Commitment to further reformation of the University in all aspects and forms of operation;

- Regional and wider importance of the University;

- Strengthening the integration of the University and social environment;

- Prevention of all forms of discrimination and privileges;

- Energetic and uncompromising struggle against all forms of corruption and crime;

- Modern pedagogical theory and academic practice of American and Western European

Universities;

- Operation and communication based on transparency, teamwork, responsibility, the law and

professional ethics.

In terms of implementation and improvement of the strategy and strategic

development plan of the University of Bihac, in December 2013 the University started a

project “Modernization of the University of Bihac” initiated and financed by the Government

of the Federation of BiH and the Government of USC.

PI 3. Institutional capacity and responsibility for the operational management of R&D are clearly

articulated and transparent.

Capacity and responsibility Clearly articulatedand transparent


2 Established but only partially defined Moderately

3 x Well established and mature x Comprehensively

of 158



Research activity at the University has a wide regional recognition. The University covers a wide range

of fields of science, which is a good precondition for multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary fields of study. The

University Statute, Internal organization of University, in defines research and experimental development in the

fields of applied, formal, natural, and social sciences and humanities for the educational and teaching purposes as

one of the core activities of the University. Article 36 of the Statute stipulates that organizational units -

faculties/academy, are entitled to have their sub-organizational units for organizing research activities, such as:

institutes, clinics, centres, stage, film, a radio and TV station and audio studios, laboratories, workshops,

information centres, clubs, etc., connecting the science, that is, the arts and practice to the higher education, and

may involve students, experts and artists who are not engaged in the teaching process. Articles 22, 34, 35, 35 and

38 of the University Statute define forms of scientific/artistic and research activity conducted by the

organizational units of the University. Organizational units within the University have competencies to perform

legal transactions with third parties in the field of research, with the corresponding codes from 2010 Official

Activity Classification, as defined in individual Court Registration Certificates.

In order to support the teaching process and foster research activity, the University established the Office of

Research, interuniversity cooperation in State and abroad (Article 27 University Statute), run by Vice-rector for

Research and international affairs (Article 94 of the Statute), while faculties appoint their respective Vice Deans

for research (Article 122 of the Statute).

During the reporting period, the University and faculties/academy implemented relevant research activities and

projects, provided the units with relevant information, coordinated, monitored, and supported research activities,

undertook improvement measures, provided opinions and recommendations in the field of research at the

University level. In the field of research activity, the University had been: - Implementing research projects; -

Monitoring, initiating, coordinating and preparing applications for the calls published by the economy sector,

non-economy sector and the public sector; - Monitoring, informing, preparing and providing assistance in calls

for research projects and scholarships published by the Federal Ministry of Education and Science (hereinafter

FMOES), Ministry of Education, Science, Culture and Sports of Una-Sana Canton (hereinafter: MONKS USK),

the Ministry of Civil Affairs and joint research projects co-financed by the Republic of Slovenia and Bosnia and

Herzegovina, and the Monitoring, informing and educating the employees of the University about open calls for

research proposals financed by the European Union (FP7, COST, EUREKA), and bilateral or multilateral

research projects supported by individual countries Switzerland (Scopus), Norway (HERD) Turkey (TIKA), the

EU (FUNGITECT - FP7) - Tracking research-related revenue regardless of sources of financing. The University

is incorporated and has good cooperation with the Bosnian-Herzegovinian national network of contact points

(NCP BiH) for FP7 project support.


1 No alignment

2 Limited alignment






Funds collected through the implementation of research (applicative) projects with industry are

allocated in accordance with the Rules on the type, manner and deadlines for the allocation of revenues derived

from research and artistic activity and professional services provided by the Faculties of the University of Bihać ,

while the funds allocated through international research projects (EU, FMOES, MONKS USK) are distributed in

of 158

accordance to the rules of financiers.

The University was recognized by the relevant Federal Ministry of Education and Science which constantly

supports its activities resulting in promotion of human resources in scientific and professional terms. In line with

this, the University spent a total of 55.426,00 KM in academic year 2013/2014 provided by the Ministry, for the

following purpose:

- organization of an international scientific conference “RIM 2013” where a

significant number of teachers and associates published and presented their

scientific papers,

- printing and publishing of two proceedings at two organizational units, - support for printing and publishing of eight university course books,

- support to professional improvement and education of total of 23 teaching staff,

- support to participation of three employees at the international conferences,

- support to two libraries of the University’s organizational units

PI 5.Institution policies, procedures and guidelines provide a framework for R&D at program level.

Program level


2 Some alignment with policies, procedures and guidelines




External requirements for designing "Development Strategy of the University of Bihać" emerged from the

application of laws and strategic documents adopted at various levels in Bosnia and Herzegovina, some of which

are as follows: "The Framework Law on Higher Education in Bosnia and Herzegovina", "Framework Law on

Research Activity and Coordination of National and International Research Cooperation and Herzegovina“,

„Strategic Directions for the Development of Education in Bosnia and Herzegovina within Implementing Period

2010-2015","Development Strategy in the Field of Science in Bosnia and Herzegovina for the period 2010 –

2015” “Research Strategy for the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina" (2010).

The University of Bihac has adopted Ordinance on education and professional improvement of employees,

which regulates the area of academic staff improvement and development. Previously, relevant legislation

regulated this area, defining the possibilities of professional development of employees and grant funds

available for these purposes. The current Ordinance provides funding for the professional and scientific

development of academic employees. Moreover, it defines that the Senate of the University, on the instruction of

the Rector, establishes an annual Plan of education and professional improvement ofemployees, which contains a

form of its implementation, time and place of theimplementation, as well as the financial resources necessary to

implement the education and professional improvement of employees, and the pace by which those resources are

acquired.

The University has also defined the possibility of paid and unpaid leave, according to clear criteria and clearly

defined limits. Although the Ordinance regulates the rights and opportunities of development of the entire staff,

particular articles indicate that this Ordinance regulates development and further training of academic staff. The

University of Bihac organizes scientific and professional events, which are displayed regularly at the website of

the University and other media. These events enable employees of the University to publish their works and

researches in a relatively simple and amenable way. University of Bihac by all means supports the publication of

works of its employees in the relevant publications by providing technical assistance and recommendations.

PI 6.The institution has active partnerships in RDI that are well recognized regionally and

internationally.

Regionally Internationally

1 No relevant partners No relevant partners

2 Several relevant partnerships At least 1 partner per unit

of 158

3 x Well established relevant regular

partnerships x

Well established relevant regular

partnerships



The strategy for the development of scientific research is raising the quantity and quality of scientific

research, as well as to set proposals of instruments necessary for their achievement with measurable indicators of

goals realizationand achievement. The main objective of this strategy is to strengthen the role of the University

of Bihac on the national and international level by raising the quality of researchprocess, and participation in

significant scientific and R&D projects.

The implementation of scientific-research projects at the University of Bihac enables teachers to publish

scientific and artistic works in referential journals, which contributes to the elimination of international isolation

and passive position of our scholars in the international scientific community.

Results of recent evaluations show that the University has strengthened its research activities through the

utilization of international donations and grants. Participation of permanent teaching staff and teaching assistants

in projects varies and depends on the study program discipline. During the evaluated period, the University

submitted more than 200project proposals related to the development of higher education and scientific-research

activities in all the areas. The rate of implementation of research and scientific-research projects is growing in

comparison to the previous years.

Funding for these activities arise from various sources such as the Federal Ministry of Education and Science

and international funds and programs. During the evaluation period, the University has been involved in 12

international projects.

Traditionally, University of Bihac has the leading role in and outside Una-Sana Canton,with many innovative

and unique examples from practice, resulting in well developed relationships with the industry, access to EU

projects, special programs for students, etc. The University is developing good relationships with all the

stakeholders, having the reputation of respectable and amenable institution in this region. There are many private

companies and enterprises, institutions and facilities in the area of USC and the entire Federation, without whose

help and cooperation it would be impossible to organize already mentioned international scientific conferences.

Moreover, the University of Bihac has good cooperation with many organizations in the field of agriculture and

food production, and quality analysis of food and water, as well as of the environment protection. Examples of

good business cooperation with the industry are the Technical and Biotechnical Faculty, through its laboratories

and institutes. The most obvious example of that cooperation is the implementation of ISO 9001:2008 standards

into 30 companies.

From the academic year 2013/14, the University participates in the Erasmus Lifelong Learning program as a

partner on a project "University teachers for sustainable development" involving 55 universities from 34

countries. Since 2013, the University participates in a joint project of the European Union and the Council of

Europe "Strategic development of higher education and qualification standards".

Our students participate in international cooperation through a number of exchange programs (ERASMUS-

MUNDUS, CEEPUS, MEVLANA).

The University of Bihac has implemented several student mobility activities, not only for study purposes, but in

order to exchange and gain experience in establishment of students´ representative bodies (ESABIH, etc.).

There are many foreign visiting professors at the University of Bihac, who are involved in teaching processes on

different basis. For example, the Faculty of Law organizes legal clinics which include teachers from the region.

This sort of lectures intended for students, is open for public and promoted on time. This provides a better

relationship with the local community and greater influence on it. The most common ways of cooperation are

daily guest lectures/workshops on certain topics of their expertise.

The University of Bihac regularly publishes information on its international projects and activities on the web

site of the University, and by informing its staff through organizational units and mailing lists.

Benchmark No 3

of 158

Name: Human Resources at University of Bihać


relation to the human resources. It includes the delegation of authority and responsibility for developing and

implementing policy, and strategic and operational plans for academic staff.

Good Practice Statement The institution has sufficient KPI in HR formal authority for staff development, adequate and sufficient human

resources for academic programs, established, well understood strategy, governance mechanisms, policies and

capacities that enable active role of University in staff engagements and development, related to the strategic

plan and standards.


PI 1. Institution performance indicators related to HR.

1 Institutional indicators in HR are above standards in most areas and institutional capacity

to engage external HR or other kind of staff development is not sufficient.

2 Institutional indicators in HR are above standards in some areas, and institutional

capacity to engage external HR or other kind of staff development is not sufficient.

3

Institutional indicators in HR are according to the standards in most areas, and

institutional capacity for engagement of external staff and staff development is

limited

4 Institutional indicators in HR adequate in terms of standards, but institutional capacity for

engagement of external staff and staff development process is not sufficient

5

Institutional indicators in HR are adequate in terms of standards and requirements for

education process and institution is capable to develop in HR according to standards

and strategic plan.



Management of the University and respective organizational units regularly review the quality management

system in order to check its efficiency, in accordance with the adopted policies and quality objectives.

The foundations for the quality management system revision are:

• Reports on regular and extraordinary, internal and external quality management system reviews,

• Customer satisfaction surveys,

• Comments, recommendations and suggestions by the interested parties and operations efficiency reports,

• Results of the users’ complaints surveys,

• Organizational changes,

• Changes in laws and regulations,

• Analysis of the financial effects.

Management with executive authority takes measures to improve quality management system, increase users'

satisfaction and eliminate reasons for users' dissatisfaction, increase work efficiency, adjust and comply the

system with the existing laws and regulations, but in more occasions there is no increasing development of

capacities of HR as institutional goal. There are also established standards and procedures which provides

systematic development of HR. The University has implemented a quality assurance system, which along with the institutionalized quality

assessment program of study and teaching process, continuously monitors and improves the quality. European dimensions in higher education are promoted through the international cooperation (study visits, student exchanges, thesis development, joint projects, etc.).

of 158

PI 2.Plan for staff development.



plans


operational plans


operational plans


operational plans


operational plans



The University of Bihać has developed but just particularly implemented policies relating to continuous training

of the academic staff and other employees, enabling them to develop their research, technical, artistic and

pedagogical skills.

There are Rules of employee training but no strategic and operational plan for staff development.

Even though we have adopted all Rules, we have no clear Plan for HR development which takes into

consideration all policies and facilitates employees to acquire new knowledge, skills and vocations. Such a plan

must be followed by:

- The Professional Development Office/Institute/Centre, as a centre dedicated to providing professional

development training programs and resources for staff that supports identified staffing needs across

University. The body which needs to provide long-term training programs with a tailored curriculum

designed to develop skills and capabilities needed to fill identified job opportunities across University.

- New Projects with which Staff members could obtain opportunities to develop new skills such as web

design, academic writing, project management and ect.

- Workshops & Seminars – which could assist staff members to develop their work and computer

technology skills?

- Recording and analyzing the staff member's progress, by collecting feedback from the staff

member, about their development progress to assist in identifying what the staff member is doing well,

build on their skills, correct any problems that may arise, and help them develop new abilities that will

improve personal performance as well as organizational outcomes.

PI 3.Institutional capacity for HR and responsibility for the operational management of HR are

clearly articulated.








http://www.hr.duke.edu/training/workshops/index.php

of 158



The objectives are defined, quantitatively expressed, clear and focused on the fulfilment of the University

mission.

The University management, which carries the main responsibility for meeting the set objectives, constantly

reviews and alters the objectives in accordance with the users’ demands and changing conditions under which it

operates. University management, as executive authority, defines its commitment to establishing, implementing

and continuously improving the quality management system including HR development, through clearly defined

policies and strategic objectives in line with the mission and vision of the organization, defined key processes,

measurable objectives and continuous, periodical review of the quality management system in order to increase

its effectiveness and efficiency.

Supporting to these theses is also a document Rules for employees training Of University of Bihać, which is one

of the main documents for staff development and training followed by institutional capacities for

implementation, which could provide articulation of management of HR.

The adopted document "Strategic Plan of the University of Bihac 2011-2015“ contains an established mission

and vision, strategic objectives and plans for their realization.This document introduces the University of Bihac,

the educational activities, development strategies of Research and Scientific Activities for the given period, the

possible models of funding at the University of Bihac, institutional development plan and development action

plan at the University of Bihac. The focus is directed primarily to the following:

1.Modernization of the curricula for three cycles of education;

2.Procurement of modern infrastructure and equipment;

3.Cohesion between educational and Research and Scientific Activities;

4.Constant renewal and rejuvenation of the teaching and scientific staff;

5.Encouraging students to graduate on time;

6.Harmonization of enrollment policy with labor market needs.

It is planned to employ young academic staff at all organizational units, but there is no structural plan with

procedure. Also for each employment consent must be given to University by the Government and Ministry

which are also our financiers.

PI 4. Planning for the ongoing process of HR is aligned with the institutions budget process.

1 No alignment

2 Limited alignment



5 Complete alignment Indicate where you believe you rate above.


The University of Bihać is a public institution founded by the Una-Sana Canton Assembly on 28th

of

July, 1997 year, with all the rights and responsibilities of the founder of the University. Pursuant to the

aforementioned law the founder assumes responsibilities of funding the University. University of Bihac is

generally financed from three different sources of funds: - the Una-Sana Canton budget,

- the resources of its own activities (the University's own incomes), and

of 158

- Donations and grants.

According to the Treasury Legislation, all previously mentioned funds are part of the public revenues of the Una-Sana Canton, and therefore must be paid to the Deposit Account and can be realized only through the Treasury, with prior planning in the Budget in accordance with the Budget Execution Law (by the amount and purpose of funds ). Donations and grants not planned in the budget, but obtained during the year, are allocated by the decision of the USC Government, leading to an increase in the budget. Unspent funds donations and grants may be transferred into the next fiscal year, provided that the same must be spent by the June 30 of the following year, or even after that deadline, if the approval of the donor is provided. Budget funds and funds of its own activities (custom funds) that are planned by the Budget, unspent during the fiscal year, i.e. from 01 Jan. to 31 Dec. are considered as public revenues. Funds obtained by the University, are determined and allocated by the financial plan or budget of the Una-Sana Canton. The financial plan is adopted by the Governing Board of the University, to which the financial reports on the execution of the adopted plan are submitted at the end of a fiscal year. The Financial Report follows the Report on the University operation.

The expenses of the University divisions include: meeting the conditions for implementation of teaching and

training processes, procurement of all the necessary equipment for teaching and training, equipping laboratories,

conducting research that is instrumental in increasing the quality of teaching, scientific and professional

development of teachers, assistants and other employees, study trips, fieldwork and practical work of students,

enlargement of the library fund, modernization of computer classrooms, an international collaboration,

publishing, costs of operation and development of information systems used in the teaching process, the

operation of the Student Union, operating costs, salaries paid in accordance with the Law on budget execution

and acquired Financial plan, as well as with the Regulations on the acquisition and distribution of proper

resources at the University, the Decision on teaching loads of professors, assistants, laboratory technicians and

lectors, investments and other costs that are in compliance with the Law.

PI 5.Institution policies and procedures provide a framework for HR development (academic,

administrative and technical).

Academic staff Administrative staff Technical staff

1 Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient

2

HR KPI are not


major effect to

procedures

HR KPI are not


major effect to

administration

HR KPI are not sufficient,

but it no major effect to

support of processes

3

HR KPI are in

accordance to

standards

HR KPI are in

accordance to

standards

HR KPI are in accordance to

standards

Overall

rating

1 2 3



University of Bihać’s Statute (Chapter Academic staff members, Articles 191 through 216) defines the teaching

process and research activity conducted by the University academic staff. The Statute defines the academic titles

as follows: full professor, associate professor, assistant professor, college professor, college lecturer (professor)

and language specialist, senior teaching assistant and teaching assistant (assistants).

Higher Education Law at Una-Sana Canton, Statute of The University of Bihać, Low of the University of Bihać

define the requirements for the appointment of the academic staff. Periods of appointment of the academic staff

members by ranks are as follows (Statute of the University, Article 200):

1) Teaching Assistant - a period of 4 (four) years, without possibility of re-election;

2) Senior Teaching Assistant - for a period of 5 (five) years, with possibility of re-election only if they acquire a

third cycle degree;

3) Language Specialist - a period of 5 (five) years, without possibility of re-election;

4) College Lecturer - for a period of 5 (five) years, with possibility of re-election;

of 158

5) Assistant Professor - for a period of 5 (five) years, with possibility of re-election;

6) Associate Professor - a period of 6 (six) years, with possibility of re-election and

7) Full Professor and College Professor – permanent appointment. A full professor and college professor sign

permanent employment contracts. The appointment of the academic staff members is conducted by the Senate.

The Faculty Dean initiates the call for the election and appointment of the academic staff for a course or a

specific field of science matching the faculty academic profile, and forwards it to the Faculty Council, which

then adopts the call proposal.

Based on the submitted proposals, and by the power given in the Statute, the Senate publishes the call, as follows

(Article 204.):

- Internal call for the promotion or re-appointment of the academic staff employed by the University published

on the notice board of the University and Faculty/Academy/College, sent in writing to the relevant teaching staff

member;

- Open call for the appointment of academic staff establishing employment at the University for the first time,

due to the lack of the academic staff and

- Open call for the appointment without employment.

In order to prepare proposals for the appointment of candidates who apply for the vacancy, a committee from

among the professors is formed; the majority of the professors need to be engaged in the field of science, or a

course to which a candidate is being appointed. If a candidate is appointed as a (assistant/associate/full)

professor, committee members must be of the same or higher rank of the position to which the candidate is being

appointed.

By the Statute, (Article 216.) University may award their retired professors with the title of Professor Emeritus.

Professor Emeritus may be involved in the teaching process at second and third cycle of studies, or be appointed

as a member of the committee for the appointment of the teaching members or master's thesis or doctoral

dissertation defence panels, and a mentor to candidates obtaining master's or doctoral degree. Exceptionally,

Professor Emeritus may participate in the teaching in the first cycle of studies, provided that no professor is

appointed after the previously published open call.

On the other hand, the University engages a significant number of external professors, assistants and experts in

the teaching process. However, the workload of academic staff is above the optimum and it is necessary to

employ new academic staff, mostly from the ranks of assistants. University of Bihac implemented 40 study programs in seven organizational units in the evaluated period,

totalling 4.391 students. Postgraduate studies, organized according to the previous education system dating since 1998 and involving the master or doctoral thesis are still present.

In that sense, University of Bihać management through Senate and Steering board is trying to maximize a number of employed academic staff of University of Bihać

To ensure the quality of the teaching process and improve the staff capacity of the University of Tuzla, under the

ruling of the Senate and following the recommendation of the Faculty Councils, a significant number of

academic staff members were appointed by Contract in 2013.

PI 6.Policies, procedures and guidelines on HR development are well established and integrated

into research Integration and development processes.



2 Moderately established Moderately integrated




This policy is expressed and incorporated into the general legal documents of the University:

- “The Statute of the University of Bihać”

- “Rulebook on Employee Training and Development of Employee at University of Bihać”,

- “The Quality Assurance Policy at the University of Bihać”

- “Rulebook on Internal Organization and Systematization of Working Position at University of Bihać”

of 158

- “Rules of mobility at University of Bihać”

All of the above mentioned document are carrying and supporting documents for staff development,

institutional and individual as well.

Besides that they: stipulates the right of the academic staff to take paid or unpaid leave from work for the

purposes of research training, to employ professors and assistants by temporary contract to carry out teaching

process and research activity or other tasks – for as long as needed, as well as to employ people with university

degrees as researchers, interns or volunteers. Determining requirements in the workflow helps establish the

necessary competencies for all employees, such as the necessary level of education, training at work, the degree

of practice, skills and experience needed.

Management with executive responsibility constantly raises awareness of the need for new staff appointment,

planning and monitoring career development among the staff and encourages the involvement of employees in

open communication, teamwork, application of modern information technologies and participation in the

evaluation of the effective and efficient quality management systems. University is required to provide, support

and organize education, training and development opportunities. Furthermore, those documents are saying that

University must tend to arrange the working hours to all employees to acquire education, training and

development in accordance with their work duties.

In order to create conditions for the planned career development of the staff, the University d provides funds for

professional development of the employees allocated through Budget as funds for education and training of

employee. These funds are not sufficient for all submitted requirements for financial support.

Mentioned procedures are sometimes nonflexible and they are not integrated into research and development

processes. They required more specific guidelines on some levels.

PI 7.The institution has memorandums on HR development that promote involvement of staff and

development according to standard requirements and institutional strategy.



2 Covering only some areas and incomplete

3 Covering variety of staff development areas, but not in effective use

4 Well distributed but need improvement




Institutional memorandums.

Analysis of memorandums.

University of Bihać established numerous links with businesses, organizations and institutions in the area

of Una-Sana Canton and region. Majority of faculties have established relationships with specific business

partners so that the teaching process regularly includes field visits to companies. On the other hand, School of

Health conduct some of their classes at the premises of Cantonal Hospital “Dr. Irfan Ljubijankić” in Bihać. The University promotes participation of its teachers in scientific-research projects, national and

international scientific conferences, and encourages the involvement of students in an independent research. The implementation of scientific-research projects at the University of Bihac enables teachers to publish

scientific and artistic works in referential journals, which contributes to the elimination of international isolation and passive position of our scholars in the international scientific community.

Moreover, the University of Bihac has good cooperation with many organizations in the field of agriculture and food production, and quality analysis of food and water, as well as of the environment protection. Examples of good business cooperation with the industry are the Technical and Biotechnical Faculty, through its laboratories and institutes. The most obvious example of that cooperation is the implementation of ISO 9001:2008 standards into 30 companies.

PI 8. Institution is involved in staff development programs for academic, administration and

technical staff.

of 158

Involvement in development Range of involvement

1 None, or inactive No involvement at all

2 Some involvement Insufficient institutional capacity,


3 Moderate involvement in HR

development

Sufficient institutional capacity, but


4 Good capacity for HR, but incidental Well balanced but incidental

5

Fully involvement in staff development

related to standards and

requirements

Well balanced regular institutional HR

development



Rationale and Evidence: University of Bihać has not met the academic staff requirements yet. The University of Bihac

implemented 40 study programs in seven organizational units in 2013/2014 academic year, totalling 4.391 students. In this period 19 master theses have been defended, 12 doctoral dissertations were defended, with 61 in

process. There are 335 students in 2nd

cycle aligned with Bologna Process and majority of them have already

applied their master theses. These are the facts that are going to help to satisfy our academic staff requirements but still University of Bihać has been forced to engage a number of associates employed by contract for the purposes of engaging the academic staff in the teaching process at certain Faculties/School.

It is essential to provide an adequate number of academic staff members who would cover the teaching process.

2.5 Implement benchmarking process

The team made an action plan for implementing benchmarking methodology at University of Bihać.

Project methodology includes:

- the analysis of documents for benchmarking approaches in EU and B&H;

- introducing principles of good practise and good conduct at UNBI( through information package, e-mails, ect.)

- dissemination of project (through UNBI web site, local media, meetings);

- several trainings and workshops for UNBI staff

- UNBI BIHTEK members participated in study visits to EU universities and learned exact way of application

of benchmarking methodologies in EU countries, ect.

„The process of measuring and comparing the performaces of a business with similar processes extend within

the main organizations in order to obtain information which will help the organization to identify and implement

improvements”.

Source data and service for internal benchmarking used during this process are as following:

- statistical data (half-year and annual),

- existing data basis as well (QA office, International Relations Office),

- student surway and

- Information System.

All of them provided systemic comperison and evaluation by which performances can be measured and assessed.

2.7 Comunicate results and recommendations

Our results clearly indicate that is necessary to upgrade and to improve a strategic plan of the University and to

realy follow the fullfill of the results.

The first recommendation is to establish International Relations Offices at every organizational unit. This would

highly increase the participation of our University in even more national and International projects and set a

ground for application of projects that would be fully coordinated by our University.

of 158

The Strategy for Internationalization has to be developed as soon as possible which would steer our University

towards European Area of Higher Education and European Research Area which is our major and ultimate goal

according to our Institution’s mission and vision.

Regarding the Human resourses, this benchmark process clearly shoved that we still have inuficint number of

employee (academci staff and also administrative staff as well). University itself does not have a full autonomy

to employ new members (administrative, reserach or academic staff). For each new employment we need to ask

a permision from our Government (which is our main financier).

At University of Bihać research is still selfrelated. In our yearly Budget (adopted by Una-Sana canton

Gavernment ) at the code for RDI is still „0 KM“. Each year University of Bihać's management plans some

funds to be reserved on the code for Reserach, but when the final document for yearly Budget is adoptet, each

year is the same. So, for this reason, all of our teaching staff all reaserch is implementing by themselves.

University is not even able to ensure access to data bases.

a. Implement improvement

- In the preparation of the new Development strategy include more external stakeholders;

-Make a link between higher education and scientific research;

- Harmonize enrollment policies with the labour market;

-System Monitor the implementation of strategic goals;

- To determine the penalties in case of delay implementation of the strategy;

- To adopt a new form of standards and norms for higher education.

II Conclusion

By this project University of Bihać got an insight in EU good practice. The study visits in Vigo, Paderborn and

Gent gave us a new look on benchmarking process. It become clear to us that benchmarking process is common

process at EU Universities.

Since this is the first benchmarking in our country we are introduced with its procedures and we will be able to

conduct the benchmarking process in the future.

This project helped us to get familiar with internal structure of our own University and also partner universities

are well known after all procedures are done.

Action plan and work plan of the International Relations Office have to be adopted by the Senate (have been

created and submitted), we are waiting for their approval. Recommendations of the Accreditation Commission

have been highly considered while creating these two documents and the fulfilment of the listed tasks will meet

the recommendations to the fullest.

Some of these problems we will be able to solve when we fully integrate a third cycle of study to our University.

With these new perspectives we will give a chance to our young teaching study to have their doctoral thesis at

our University, by which it will be much cheaper for them and we would be able to get exact profile of one

academic staff.

To conclude, Research work at our University is done individuly with no strategic plan by the help of some fund

from state calls or international calls.

The University is dedicated to further improve and utilize strengths mentioned above, as well as improve

integration of the university, improve the Statue, strengthen motivation of employees, improve the quality of

study programs, and continue with student involvement in a greater range of activities at the University.

Some noticeable weaknesses at the University of Bihac are:

- insufficient number of full-time teaching staff at the University;

- insufficient education of employees responsible for quality assurance;

- insufficient level of modern teaching equipment; vast majority of researchers (especially younger) is

overloaded by teaching and professional responsibilities (teaching load);

- teaching overload which negatively reflects on the ability to provide for research and development;

- insufficient size of teaching and laboratory area and equipment;

- insufficiency of teaching staff´s professional development abroad, during and immediately after doctoral

studies;

- insufficient support of the Founder for the development and research work.

Many of the above mentioned weaknesses are being addressed already. The Austrian

of 158

loan provided us with the necessary funds for research and development, as well as for the

cooperation with outside stakeholders, and many young researchers are getting involved in

international R&D projects trough already established infrastructure.

The quality of research work, along with the level of achieved research results of teachers and

associates should be improved. This could be conducted through a number of projects increasing the external

financing of scientific researches. One of the most significant problems at the University is related to human

resources. This problem will partly be addressed once 28 PhD candidates defend their thesis by October of 2015.

The number and quality of non-teaching staff, technical resources and other conditions of quality

performance are evaluated as satisfying. Moreover, the financing resources, planning and management of

financing match the standards set by the Law. The University is still lacking sufficient and adequate space for the

teaching process to be conducted at one place.

This could be the only serious and unsolvable issue, if the government or the Founder continues to withhold its

support and complete financial aids to the University.

of 158

Annex 10

Benchmarking List

U Zenica

BM – Topic:

BM – Partner:

BM – Partner:

RDI

U East Sarajevo

KU Leuven

Financing

U East Sarajevo

KU Leuven

QMS Organization

U East Sarajevo

KU Leuven

Education

(Learning)

U East Sarajevo

KU Leuven

Internationalization

U East Sarajevo

KU Leuven

HR Management

U East Sarajevo

KU Leuven

Web-pages

U East Sarajevo

KU Leuven

U East

Sarajevo

BM – Topic:

BM – Partner:

BM – Partner:


Financing

QMS Organization

UNZE

KU Leuven

University/

Institutional Level

Library

Research

UNZE

KU Leuven

Faculty Level

HR Assessment

Study Programs

/Education

UNZE KU Leuven Study Program

Level

U Mostar

Dzemal

of 158

Bijedic BM – Topic:

BM – Partner:

BM – Partner:


U Tuzla

U Bihac


KU Leuven/intern

(?)

Research and

development

U Tuzla

U Bihac

Research and

development

U Paderborn

Finance

internal

U Banja

Luka

BM – Topic:

BM – Partner:


KU Leuven

Scientific and

research work

(KU Leuven)

U Paderborn

The increase in

interest for

admission to the

study programs

(KU Leuven)

Internal

U Bihac

BM – Topic:

BM – Partner: BM – Partner:


U Tuzla

U Mostar Dzemal

Bijedic

of 158

Human Resources

U Tuzla U Mostar Dzemal

Bijedic

Research

U Tuzla

U Mostar Dzemal

Bijedic

U Mostar

BM – Topic:

BM – Partner:

Learning and

teaching

University of Paderborn

International

Relations

KU Leuven

Management KU Leuven

Internal

benchmarking

Department of Mechanical

Engineering and Department of

Computing

U Tuzla

BM – Topic: BM – Partner:

BM – Partner:

BM – Partner:


U Tuzla

U Bihac

U Mostar

Human Resources

U Tuzla

U Bihac

U Mostar

Research

U Tuzla

U Bihac

U Mostar

U Sarajevo

BM – Topic: BM – Partner:

Governance of

Financial Resources

University of

Paderborn

Social Impact and

visibility

Internal