KKA 15/00 Satakunta Auditv3

P. Almefelt, T. Kekäle, K. Malm, L. Miikkulainen & J. Kangasniemi

Audit of Quality Work

Satakunta Polytechnic

PUBLICATIONS OF THE FINNISH HIGHER EDUCATION EVALUATION COUNCIL 15:2000 2

Pikseri Julkaisupalvelut Helsinki 2000 3 Contents

1 Introduction ______5

2 Audit Procedure ______6 2.1 Aims and Objectives ______6 2.2 Audit Team Composition ______6 2.3 Preparation and the audit visit ______7 2.4 Feedback seminar ______7

3 Satakunta Polytechnic in short ______8 3.1 History ______8 3.2 Maintenance and Organisation ______8 3.3 Operational Philosophy ______9 3.4 Mission ______10 3.5 Vision ______10 3.6 Strategy ______10 3.7 Clients and Core Services ______11 3.8 The Pedagogical Framework______11 3.9 Quality Work in Satakunta Polytechnic ______12

4 Audit Findings ______13 4.1 Status of Development as a Polytechnic ______13 4.2 Strategic Conditions for the Quality Policy ______14 4.3 Leadership______16 4.4 External Service Units and Relations to External Stakeholders ______16 4.5 View to Higher Education ______17 4.6 Staff Development ______18 4.7 Student Participation ______18 4.8 Structures and Systems for continuous Improvement ______19

5 Conclusions and Recommendations ______22

APPENDIX 1: Polytechnic Education in Finland ______24 APPENDIX 2: Audit Interview Schedule at the Satakunta Polytechnic ______25 4 5 I Introduction

In 1998 the Higher Education Evaluation Council introduced a project to audit the internal evaluation and development procedures in the Finnish Polytech- nics. Satakunta Polytechnic is the tenth Finnish polytechnic participating in this audit project since the start of it. The Finnish Higher Education Evaluation Council has defined the objectives of the Audit project as follows:

1. to give useful feedback to the institutions on their quality work 2. to promote the dissemination of good practices among the higher education institutions 3. to learn about the method

Since 1992, the polytechnics, first operating under provisional licences, have developed evaluation mechanisms to produce information on their performance. Evaluation activities and quality improvements take different forms in the polytechnics. Each polytechnic has developed quality programme that they themselves consider as being important. Satakunta Polytechnic decided to participate in the audit project in 1999 and carried out the self-assessment in autumn 1999. The external review (audit visit) took place in the early spring 2000. The aim of the external review was to specify and deepen the assessment work done in the Polytechnic. The results of the external review are presented in this report. The report consists of three parts. In the first part, chapter two summarises the arrangements and organisation of the audit project. The second part, chapter three provides background information on the Satakunta Polytechnic and its self-assessment process and results. The text is mostly based on the Poly- technic’s own self-evaluation report. The findings and recommendations of the Audit Team are submitted in the third part in chapters four and five. The main recommendations are summarised at the end of the chapter five. A short over- view of the status of the system of polytechnic education in Finland is provided in Appendix 1. 6 2 Audit Procedure

2.1 Aims and Objectives

The aim of this audit project was to provide feedback for the Satakunta Poly- technic on its quality work and to promote the dissemination of good practices among the higher education institutions. Satakunta Polytechnic set the following objectives in their SPT-AUDIT project:

1. To carry out a holistic, yet targeted self-assessment of quality work/the quality management system by using themes based on the developmental needs of the Polytechnic. 2. To assess the functioning, comprehensiveness and appropriateness/use of the quality management system (documented in the quality manual) 3. To increase awareness of the core process of Satakunta Polytechnic 4. To improve self-assessment skills and skills in working/acting as a learning organisation 5. To acquire knowledge, which serves and benefits the improvement of the quality management system 6. To deploy the information acquired through the self-assessment by system- ising the results and by improving feedback, assessment and developmental systems according to the principle of client-centred operations.

2.2 Audit Team Composition

The Audit Team members represented expertise and experience of quality au- diting in higher education, quality management in private enterprises and the system of polytechnic education in Finland. The Chairman of the Audit Team provided also an international view on quality procedures in higher education.

Chairman of the Audit Team: Paul Almefelt Senior Advisor, Högskoleverket, Sweden

The Audit Team members: Tauno Kekäle Senior Assistant, University of Vaasa Kaj Malm General Secretary, ARENE – The Rectors’ Conference of Finnish Polytechnics. Leena Miikkulainen Student, Helsinki Polytechnic, SAMOK 7 2.3 Preparation and the audit visit

The Audit Team convened once prior to the site visit to discuss the self-evaluation report and preparation for the visit. The items to be covered and the questions for the audit interviews were identified. The issues on which the report did not provide information were listed and additional information requested from the Polytechnic before the visit. On August 16, 1999, Satakunta Polytechnic arranged a seminar for its personnel and representatives of the students to discuss on the audit of quality work in the Polytechnic. The preparatory process was started in September, 1999 when Satakunta Polytechnic started to prepare the self-evaluation report. The report was prepared by the end of the year and sent to the Audit Team members in January, 2000. The audit visit took place between 17.–18.2.2000 (Programme of the visit in Appendix 2). The auditors interviewed representatives of the management and the Board, degree programme coordinators, senior and principal lecturers, other members of staff, students and representatives of industry and commerce. During the external audit, the Audit Team members reviewed the practices and mechanisms against the self-evaluation report and other materials provided for the Audit Team members beforehand and during the site visit. At the end of the visit, oral feedback summarising the first-hand findings of the Audit Team was provided for the managers and persons in charge of the quality matters.

2.4 Feedback seminar

A feedback seminar was organised at Satakunta Polytechnic when this report was published on May 17, 2000 on the Internet. Also a printed publication was prepared. The aim of the seminar was to enable open discussion on the issues brought up during the audit visit and findings presented in this report. The management and other administrative staff, teachers, and students had an opportunity to openly discuss and comment on the findings and the recommendations with the auditors. 8 3 Satakunta Polytechnic in short

Satakunta Polytechnic is operating in five towns in the region of Satakunta in the western part of Finland. The Polytechnic consists of ten educational units in Harjavalta, Huittinen, Kankaanpää, Pori and Rauma. In addition, the Polytech- nic has two service units; Development and research Centre O´Sata and Centre for Adult and Continuing Education. They both operate in all five towns. Satakunta Polytechnic offers education in five fields of study. They are

• Business and Administration • Fine Art • Social Services and Health Care • Technology and Maritime Management • Tourism.

Today, the Satakunta Polytechnic has 5,229 students and a staff of 495 (as of 20.9.1999). The staff consists of 326 teachers and 169 members of other staff.

3.1 History

Satakunta Polytechnic (SPT) began its operations as a temporary, experimental polytechnic in August 1992. At first, it consisted of Business and Administra- tion Schools from Pori, Rauma, Kankaanpää and Huittinen, School of Hotel and Catering from Pori, Pori Health Care Institute and Pori School of Technology. In 1996 new schools joined to Satakunta temporary Polytechnic. Schools of Social Services and Health Care in Harjavalta and Rauma, Pori School of Social Services, Rauma Schools of Technology and Maritime Management and Kankaanpää School of Fine Art. At the same time Pori School of Social Services was merged with Pori Health Care Institute to form one unit. The Satakunta Polytechnic was granted a permanent operating licence as a polytechnic on August 1, 1997.

3.2 Maintenance and Organisation

The maintenance system of Satakunta Polytechnic is based on the model of one public maintainer. The City of Pori maintains all the units of the Polytech- nic in five different towns. The aim of the administrative model is to ensure and to make possible the long-term development of the Polytechnic as well as the Province of Satakunta. The agreement on maintenance (contract on Satakunta Polytechnic) was signed by the cities of Pori, Harjavalta, Huittinen, Rauma and Kankaanpää and North Satakunta coalition of municipalities. The agreement states the fields of 9 studies and the sites of education, financing, funds, investments, premises, in- come through own operations, common costs, rents, inspections, the position of the staff etc. The general administration of the Polytechnic is managed by the Council and the Board of the City of Pori. The Board of the Polytechnic and the Presi- dent of the Polytechnic are responsible for the daily management and administration work. The Board of the Polytechnic consists of eleven members and they are appointed for a council period (4 years). Six members are appointed by Pori and two by Rauma. Harjavalta, Huittinen, Kankaanpää and the North Satakun- ta federation of municipalities each appoint one member. The Polytechnic administration is divided in three administrative sectors. The sectors consist of ten education units. The sectors and the number of students are presented in the chart below.

Chart 1. The Organisation of Satakunta Polytechnic.

3.3 Operational Philosophy

Satakunta Polytechnic offers educational services and responds to the needs of the employment market by providing qualified workforce and by developing the region of Satakunta. It is a networking centre of learning and development, which accelerates the rate of the development of Satakunta and the whole region towards a competitive and international area. Education in Satakunta Polytechnic provides the students with top-expertise in the future employment market and an ability to develop professionally. 10 3.4 Mission

The Polytechnic mission is to provide studying places in higher education for the young, and flexible services in lifelong learning for the adults living in the Satakunta region. The Polytechnic educates professional and competent staff for the employment market. The qualified students from SPT are flexible in adapting to the changing society in process of internationalisation, and they are able to participate in different development processes in it. Satakunta Polytech- nic is committed to the development of the province and its employment market, and it supports especially local entrepreneurship. Therefore, an important task for SPT is to help the province to develop in a variety of ways and to raise the level of education by high-quality education, expertise and other services as well as by research and development.

3.5 Vision

In 2005 the Polytechnic aspires to be a multidisciplinary learning, expertise and development centre situated in the different parts of the province. It will provide various types of expertise for the needs of enterprises and society and have close networks with the employment market. The development of the province and the surrounding region is supported by the renewing, multidisciplinary, client-centred, international, collaborative and flexible functions of SPT. Satakunta Polytechnic will have established its position as a regional institution of higher education and will function as a leading polytechnic in its areas of strength. These strength areas involve top-expertise in 3–5 specific fields i.e. the quality of learning, applied research, transfer of expertise and internationalisation.

3.6 Strategy

The main characteristics of Satakunta Polytechnic’s strategy are expertise and regionally orientated services. The services comprise educational and different research and development services as well as transfer of expertise. The nature of the connections between SPT and its environment is summed up in two terms: networking and development. Close connections with the employment market are said to be a natural part of daily activities. These relations are characterised by openness and collaboration or companionship. Net- working takes place not only locally but also nationally and internationally. SPT strives for networking with professionals, whose expertise supports and strengthens the expertise areas of the Polytechnic. According to its foundation ideology, Satakunta Polytechnic has a regional service task. Therefore, it has regional commitments and the operations of the Polytechnic take place in different parts of the Province close to its clients. However, this does not exclude national top expertise in 3–5 specific fields. 11

The strategy involves awareness of quality, regular assessment of operations and their modification on the basis of feedback. Assessment comprises both self-assessment and evaluation given by external clients.

3.7 Clients and Core Services

According to the Satakunta Polytechnic’s self-evaluation report, the operations of the Polytechnis are client-centred. Internal clients consist of students and personnel and external clients comprise enterprises, communities and citizens using its services. The most important services are education in degree programmes and specialisation studies. Education is based on the basic and specific demands of commerce and industry, and internationalisation process. The library and information services are used not only by students, teachers and other staff members but also by the representatives of industry and commerce, researchers, other students in the area and national libraries. The specific service and development operations for the employment market are provided by Development and Research Centre O’Sata. The operations include transfer of expertise, consultation services, projects, applied research and R&D. Centre for Adult and Continuing Education organises both targeted and general continuing and re-education.

3.8 The Pedagogical Framework

The pedagogical philosophy, described in the self-evaluation report, is said to be focused on students and the employment market. By creating a meaningful learning environment, the Polytechnic supports learning and growth, and en- courages the acquisition of multidisciplinary skills. Pedagogy is based on the humanistic view of human nature, the concept of developing knowledge and constructivism. The main emphasis in teaching and learning is put on self-directed and reflective processing of one’s own learning. Learning is considered as interac- tion between an active learner and a dynamic environment. In teaching the learner’s and the group’s developmental phase is taken into account and a variety of teaching methods are applied. The Polytechnic provides a learning environment with multidisciplinary choices and flexible teaching arrangements, up- to-date and high-quality library and information services and the employment market as a natural learning environment. 12 3.9 Quality Work in Satakunta Polytechnic

In 1995, Ministry of Education identified the lack of a quality management system as an area to be developed in order to be granted a permanent licence for polytechnics. The result was that quality work was started with renewed objectives in 1995. The Quality Team was established and planning of quality policy and systems started. In 1998, the Quality Team was trained to perform self-assessments and internal audits to develop the organisation. The criteria for Finnish quality award served the basis for the process. The process of creating a quality manual took place in three phases. Firstly, the administrative part was prepared, secondly, the general part and last, the instructions on different operational procedures were created. The first version of the quality manual was prepared in August 1998 and feedback from the staff was asked. The process for revised version was started on the basis of this feedback. The writing of the second version of the quality manual was started in autumn 1999 together with the self-assessment project. The project included the preparation for the external audit, which took place in February 2000. This Audit report was released and a feedback seminar arranged at the Poly- technic in May 2000. 13 4 Audit Findings

4.1 Status of Development as a Polytechnic

Incorporation of the different study programmes into one Polytechnic and at the same time development of them into programmes of higher education is challenging. The process also gives new views to the activities and their development. This in turn demands a new view to quality. We have felt it worthwhile, to first try to create our own ’picture’ of the state of development in Satakunta Polytechnic as an institute of higher education before delving deeper into the question of the quality of Satakunta Polytechnic. We have assumed that the incorporation of the programmes into one Poly- technic has brought new requirements, prerequisites, possibilities and opportunities, at least, in three general areas:

1. developing the study programmes into programmes of higher education. This means that the programmes should prepare the students not only for the practical knowledge and skills of a profession but also for the critical and scientific way of thinking, which are required for life-long learning and for problem-solving. Skills to define and analyse problems are needed in a continuously changing (work) environment; 2. taking advantage of the synergies that a re-organisation into one unit may create. This ranges from the possibility of creating new multidisciplinary programmes to improved cost-effectiveness and creating new ways to or- ganise and manage different activities. 3. fulfilling a broader societal mission than before. This is done through continuing education and life-long learning activities based on basic studies as well as applied research and development projects. The aim is to improve the development of the business life, public and third sector in the region.

The task of “growing into a polytechnic” at Satakunta is a more delicate and difficult issue than in most other Polytechnics in Finland. This is due to the fact that the management in SPT attempts to unify not only different fields of study but also partly overlapping units in geographically distant locations. Today, Satakunta Polytechnic consists of 10 educational units operating in five towns. The most distant ones (units of Business and Administration in Rauma and Kankaanpää) are located 100 km from each other. It seems to us that the management has chosen to tackle this task with a “two-stage” process: the first task is to develop a common view and unified culture both locally between fields of study (also often historically in different units) and within the Polytechnic between the previously competing units. It is interesting to note that many members of the staff feel that the quality management work has acted as an impor- 14

tant and central tool in building a common culture for the ’new Polytechnic’. Then, after a sufficiently coherent culture is in place, it will be time for development of added value and explicit strategies for the Polytechnic as a whole. The respondents were already able to record some improvements that the development in the Polytechnic had had; the social studies had brought pedagogic discussion (that had later ground to a standstill) to the technical areas, the technical programmes had introduced the improvement projects that now covered all areas, and also considerable rationalisation synergies were also claimed, although we did not delve deeper into these. The most important project that had connected people from different units had been the development of the TQM study programme. It is, however, evident that more can be gained from improved co-operation between units and study programmes. We would like to encourage the management to go further in trying to build co-operation systems and opportunities within the Polytechnic. Naturally, creating one culture out of many is a time-consuming and tire- some process. Thus, we feel, it is a good idea to attempt to take one development step at a time, but will in this audit comment on the stage of development towards a Polytechnic entity as we saw it at the time of our site visit, as we would do in any audit. So far, the Satakunta Polytechnic has formed one organisation in a relatively short time. This means that many questions we feel are important in these audits of the quality work of Polytechnics have really had no time to be put on the agenda. The rector and the management openly admit this. To find more possible synergies between fields of study, to drive a central- ly-led development of a higher education pedagogic approach from teaching to learning and so on will be tasks for the years to come. Nevertheless, we are quite impressed by the responses of the representatives from the local companies. Many employers had noticed the change from a secondary level college to a unit of higher education. One representative of commerce said: “it seems that the Polytechnic has now a greater understanding of the requirements and conditions for co-operation with the surrounding business life”. The quality work seems to be acknowledged by the employers: “It is much clearer for us, more straight-forward to work with the students and their examiners now”.

4.2 Strategic Conditions for the Quality Policy

From the quality development work point of view, the organisational structure of the Satakunta Polytechnic is not necessarily easy to manage. The history of the Polytechnic is fairly standard in the Finnish context. In the early 1990s, seven colleges were unified under the experimental umbrella organisation. Af- ter a further expansion in 1996, the State Council granted a permanent operating licence as a polytechnic. There is one fact, however, which sets the Poly- technic apart from the other ones. The geographic dispersion of the original experimental units is considerable and, although the units are situated in different municipalities of the Satakunta region, the public maintainer of the poly- 15 technic is not a union of municipalities, but a single one, namely the City of Pori. This implies that the old cultures of the former colleges have been somewhat resistant to changes and the formal aspect of quality work, i.e. a quality system, has been a necessary prerequisite for the needed unification of procedures and, in consequence, the organisational philosophy. The development of the strategies and the management may also have been somewhat Pori-centred (we were told that the strategy of O’Sata was adjusted to fit the strategy of the City of Pori), although it seems that the other cities have a good insight in the management and strategic development. At the moment, the original, somewhat fragmented organisation model based on partition in two dimensions, namely educational sector and location, is in a process of change. The geographical dimension is down-graded as the Sector Directors get a stronger position and it is hoped that this change will be a new point of departure. Although the new system of Sector Directors seems to clarify the responsibility for economical matters once the Polytechnic budget has been approved on the political level, there are some interesting issues on the basic level of programmes. Here it seems that the responsibility for pedagogical questions does not go hand in hand with the budgetary responsibility. While the development of the organisation enhances the progress of quality work, there is a reverse relationship, too, as we have seen. Thus organisational reforms and quality work have been intertwined in a way, which has made quality improvement a gradual process in need of time to mature. The technical aspects of quality work seem to be in the firm grip of very competent hands. The quality system has, however, contributed to the possibility of administrative convolution. Some of the functions of leadership are, for instance, defined as mere procedures in the quality manual, while the real sig- nificance of them should merit a clear definition of division of power in statutes of higher hierarchical level. As a very concrete example we would like to emphasise the role of the management group, which is next to invisible in the formal documentation. Nevertheless, it seems to be of utmost importance in the day-to-day handling of co-operation between different units and also in the long-range planning of the whole Polytechnic. The de-emphasising of some of the aspects of leadership may or may not be a conscious choice. It is, however, clearly quite functional in view of the strong pressure on one hand from the egalitarian traditions of the teachers and on the other hand from the owner interest, which tends to be less egalitarian at least in terms of the division of authority between politicians and civil servants. From the point of view of higher education autonomy, it should nevertheless be of great importance to allocate the proper authority to the academic bodies responsible for the development of the Polytechnic. However, the Board seems to have accepted this division of labour and the question is one of theory or principle rather than practice. 16 4.3 Leadership

When it comes to the quality work at Satakunta Polytechnic, we can generally state that both the management and the majority of the personnel have an insight and understanding of why quality work must be an on-going task at any polytechnic. The thorough work done in writing the quality manual seems to have affected most of the staff. People from different levels and locations have gathered together in development and training sessions during the three years the manual has been in the works and they generally feel they have been able to give their own viewpoint to the development of the manual. This has led to a shared view of the quality work as a whole, even if there is natural discussion about the details. We also see this as a good first step towards a real polytechnic culture as we see it; the work with the quality manual brings people together, enables them to share their ideas and practices and, thus, helps weld the community together. It should be easier to continue to develop the Polytechnic to a common entity after this work. Based on our discussion with the Board, it seems that the Board has only limited involvement in strategy and vision forming processes, also in the quality matters; it would be useful to explicitly define the role of the Board in relation to the Rector and the management in these aspects.

4.4 External Service Units and Relations to External Stakeholders

The development and research organisation O’Sata seems to have a quite clear role in trying to raise research initiatives from the region and also attract funding from other sources, such as the structural funds of the EU. Representatives of O’Sata, as well as the Board members, both considered O’Sata to be an important spearhead unit in the development of the Polytechnic to a more scientifically-oriented one. O’Sata works in close co-operation especially with the Pori units; thus it is no wonder that it seems to have gone further in its strategic development than the Polytechnic in general. O’Sata works, as far as we understood, according to two guiding principles:

1. the larger projects are accepted if the technologies involved are promising for the region and are among the key competence of the Polytechnic, and involve personnel from several areas in order to create new spear-head knowledge; 2. the smaller projects should benefit the local businesses but can also be connected to student work.

These seem to be useful and simple-enough guidelines. The general opinion was indeed that this could act as enough of a guiding principle for O’Sata. It was also seen that O’Sata had succeeded in acting according to its principles; for example, some relatively big, but less-suitable, projects had been rejected in the last few years. 17

In the Centre of Adult and Continuing Education, the strategic approach was said to be to use its own teachers as much as possible in continuing education to bring more stakeholder views to the basic education. There seemed to exist no explicit strategy for the continuing education activities. Likewise, these external units are less figured in the quality manual. The role of external stakeholders is much less central in defining the lines of action of the programme development, evaluation and other parts of the Satakunta Polytechnic. There are a couple of working groups where external stakeholders are invited to participate in developing the direction of study programmes, but the information gathered through these groups is typically not shared throughout the organisation, rather it is used as background for the decisions of the individual Programme Managers. Again, what seems to be typ- ical for polytechnics, individual teachers have a contact network of varying scope and depth among industry and commerce and other organisations in the region, typically acquired through the student examination. It appears that there are practically no discussions or formal procedures that would disseminate the information from these contacts to other areas of the Polytechnic. Especially in the case of Satakunta Polytechnic, there are many different types of employers and different regional needs that a more systematic approach to sharing the external stakeholders’ views might benefit a broader group than just individu- als. The representatives of industry and commerce felt that there is a need for Satakunta Polytechnic to build more effective networks internationally with other similar institutions. The Board has, indeed, discussed international student and staff exchange, but there seems to be no strategy at the moment. Further- more, the support for students and the staff considering participation in staff exchange programmes varies quite a lot between different units and an internationalisation strategy might improve this. Generally, we feel that the Satakunta Polytechnic is not getting the full potential from its external stakeholder groups. It is recommended that the management systematises the procedures of stakeholder contacts in a suitable way.

4.5 View to Higher Education

The merger of individual colleges in a polytechnic has not yet led to a common set of values and a coherent view of the pedagogical approaches relevant to a higher education institution. In fact, it seems that the differences between various branches of professional education are seen as permanent. However, co- operation in creating the quality system has brought up questions of proper unified routines. As regards the scientifically based approach to teaching, the differences seem to be quite large and, for the most part dependent on the individual teachers. Here it seems imperative to emphasise the role of further education for the teachers. Although most teachers found no difficulty in obtaining the 18

means and resources for personal development, a systematic approach to improve this is strongly recommended. In connection with this, it is important to mention the attitudes of teachers, which seem to be based on individualistic approaches rather than on a conscious choice. The incorporation of the students as partners in the process of professional maturation is not yet a univer- sally accepted paradigm in the practice of the Polytechnic. The strategies of curricular development do not seem to transgress the boundaries of the disciplines. Some of the teachers are active in different degree programmes, but a clear effort to lift the planning processes to the Poly- technic level of discussion seems to be lacking. The most promising co-operation seems to be induced by external pressures from for example bodies of regional development.

4.6 Staff Development

The quality manual has only a brief personnel development policy statement. This policy builds on a system of development and feedback discussions that should be put in practice throughout the Polytechnic. However, only about one in five had participated in these discussions. The system is not used systematically. Instead, the personnel have been very actively involved in building the first version of the manual and also are relatively well involved in development of the studies. There is a system of development teams (such as the “KOO-tiimi” for teaching methods development), where teachers (but rarely other personnel) participate. Some people expressed the idea of broader participation in these teams. The members of staff feel that the possibilities to develop him/herself are good. They also share the view that it is rather easy to participate in training and staff exchange programmes. In some cases, for example, individual lan- guage courses had been partly funded by the Polytechnic for some members of the staff.

4.7 Student Participation

It is evident from the self-evaluation that the students and the staff think very differently in most of the issues evaluated. This evaluation group generally be- lieves that in most polytechnics and universities some of the critical mirroring that now is done by external evaluators could be conducted by involving the students in the development and evaluation of the procedures more thorough- ly. This does not mean that the students’ opinion should always win, just that without critical opinions there is no critical discussion. At least, we feel that it is impossible to know in advance that the students would not bring anything new to the discussion. We also see that students are considered to be the central customer group. The same is stated also in the Satakunta Polytechnic’s self- 19 evaluation report. Student opinions are, thus, considered by the evaluation team central for quality improvement. Student participation in most of the development and evaluation groups at Satakunta Polytechnic is solved by having one (1) representative of the student union SAMMAKKO. The development ideas and solutions seem not to be dis- seminated and only the SAMMAKKO representatives and other active union members know about the issues. A broader participation might improve knowledge and approval of new approaches among the staff and students. We also noticed that there is no student participation, for example, in the Subject Advi- sory Boards. There seems to be good reason to further improve the information flows. It was said that it is difficult to find the quality manual procedures and it is also suspected that the Intranet might not improve this matter too much, especially not before all the students are included in the system (which is supposed to happen during the summer of 2000). Even some of the teachers complained about the difficulties in finding the relevant manual pages on the Net. Likewise, the students (maybe with the exception of the SAMMAKKO representative) did not feel they have any knowledge about the vision or strategies of Satakunta Polytechnic. The INNOSTE feedback system seems to be disliked by students and teachers alike. Generally, the management and many teachers seemed to share the opinion that the students do not want to participate in matters that have to do with the quality system. According to the students, they would be interested to have a say in matters related to the quality of the teaching processes. Issues concerning the support processes were said to be less interesting. This claim is at least somewhat supported by the enthusiasm of the Quality Assistant students in Kankaanpää. Most of the teachers that actively encouraged student ideas also felt that they are mostly worthwhile and valuable.

4.8 Structures and Systems for continuous Improvement

When it comes to the quality work at Satakunta Polytechnic, we can generally state that both the management and the majority of the personnel have an insight and understanding into why quality work must be an ongoing task at any polytechnic. The work done with the very thorough quality manual seems to have affected most of the staff. People from different levels and locations have gathered together in development and training sessions during the three years the manual has been in the works and they generally feel they have been able to give their own viewpoint to the development of the manual. This has led to a shared view of the quality work as a whole, even if there is naturally discussion about the details. We see this also as a good first step towards a real polytechnic culture as we see it; the work with the quality manual brings people together, enables them to share their ideas and practices and thus helps 20

weld the community together. It should be easier to continue to develop the Polytechnic to a common entity after this work. There is a very thorough quality manual (so thorough that it could be called a Manual for Polytechnics rather than just a quality manual) written at the Satakunta Polytechnic, that has grown to its current scope during the last three years and is now undergoing its first review. Our general opinion of the manual is that even if the quality manual is very thorough and useful for the Polytech- nic, it contains surprisingly few hints or agreed-upon procedures for developing the key processes of the Polytechnic. On the plus side, the key processes are named and identified in the manual. The work with the manual has also created a wide understanding of the importance of the quality work among the staff. The self-evaluation is also one of the more ambitious we have seen in our audits. This evaluation is very thorough indeed, and the methodology used is sound according to us. It is also interesting to note that this evaluation has especially attempted to show whether there is agreement or disagreement between different key groups of the Polytechnic. The results are classified in different groups. Student’s opinions are also recorded separately, which makes it easy, even for an outsider, to compare them and pinpoint areas where improvements are the most urgent. We feel that this approach is very worthwhile as a starting point for further development. The analysis of the evaluation was, however, done with scientific objectivi- ty so that there were no explicit suggestions for further study or improvement in the evaluation report. In our discussion with the Rector, it became clear that a series of meetings for further analysis of the results and prioritising and im- plementing improvements is forthcoming. At the time of our visit, just a couple of weeks after the publication of the report, there had not been time for these sessions yet. The leader of the self-evaluation project pointed out that the evaluation work has coincided with the review of the quality manual so people have, in practice, evaluated the old version of the quality management system. The improvements that arise from the self-evaluation are put into action through annual action planning. Although not official yet, we were shown a draft for the action plan of the year 2000. Several of the areas that were criti- cised in the self-evaluation had indeed received attention and corrective action has been planned, including suggestions for a budget for it. As noted, our visit took place quite early in the life of Satakunta Polytechnic quality work so complete improvement circles have not been conducted. We are, anyway, delighted to see that the improvement circle is about to take its full turn when these activities are implemented. It is too early to evaluate their effects, though. The continuous improvement activities at Satakunta Polytechnic can be described by means of the improvement circle drawn as a guideline in the Quality Manual (which is also considered to be the central ingredient in the quality system – see Self-Evaluation report p. 12). Although not implemented in all areas, we think we were able to see at least planned activities that give us some confidence that the improvement indeed is or will become continuous: 21

Changes in quality Annual planning management system reviews, action and procedures plans and budgets

➦ ➦

Self-evaluations, Pilot projects, other evaluations development (by graduated students, teams employers)

Figure 1. Continuous improvement cycle at Satakunta Polytechnic.

A couple of interesting quality improvement approaches going on at the time of our visit are the customer satisfaction evaluation at the Polytechnic Libraries, that should pinpoint areas to be developed while connecting the unit libraries closer together, and a longitudinal study on learning styles and methods. We especially consider this later study concerning the students that have started their studies in 1999, to be a very interesting and central ingredient for the discussions of a higher education style pedagogic development. We were especially impressed by the approach used in Kankaanpää, where the local quality co-ordinator had appointed “quality assistants” to bring student views into the local implementation of the quality manual and also to disseminate quality information to students. Both the students and the co-ordinator felt this a very worthwhile activity. We feel this could be one good practice to be utilised throughout the Polytechnic. In general, we feel that the internal evaluations are very ambitious and possibly very valuable for the Polytechnic. However, as often is the case, systematically taking advantage of the opinions of the stakeholders would give added value to the evaluation. At present, the external evaluation of polytechnics is largely left to national authorities. Even if every higher education unit shares the responsibility of developing the nation as a whole, the regional role of polytechnics would demand special knowledge on the local conditions. No doubt, there are informal channels in existence to cover that kind of knowledge, but the bigger the organisation is, the more risky it is to only listen to the opinions of a small group of key-persons in the working life. 22 5 Conclusions and Recommendations

After our site visit, we feel confident in stating that the development to a Poly- technic and the continuous quality work that this development requires, has started off well. The difficulties in uniting such a multi-unit Polytechnic are considerable. The quality work has been used as a good tool to start the discussion between the units on different levels. We have, both among the management and staff, been able to register knowledge about, and understanding for, the importance of quality and continuous improvement. Likewise, the discussion has started about other requirements and challenges posed by the development to a Polytechnic. Naturally, there is quite a big variation concerning the practical implementation between the units, but generally there is a common set of rules and vocabulary available for all. Based on our discussions with the staff, students and other stakeholder groups, we feel that the base for good quality work exists at Satakunta Poly- technic and the main instruments for quality management seem to be sensibly planned and to some extent well implemented. The self-evaluation has been thorough and ambitious, the procedures described in the quality manual are becoming everyday practice and the rest of the improvement circle is at least in the planning phase. During our visit, we could not, however, see the function of the continuous improvement process connected to the evaluations in practice, due to the fact that the self-evaluation report had just been prepared. We have tried to illustrate earlier in this report some aspects of the quality work and its underlying considerations at Satakunta Polytechnic. We feel that we have touched upon some key questions which now need special attention. We have chosen to list some of our central thoughts as a list of recommendations for consideration. These recommendations include both strategic conditions for high-quality activities in various areas as well as co-operation with key shareholder groups and evaluation and improvement matters. Thus, we recommend that:

1. the strategies and visions for the Polytechnic as a whole as well as the different areas and fields of study, including the continuing education, should be developed and made concrete; 2. a discussion would be started to broaden the quality system to cover the core processes of teaching and as a first step in this connection as a funda- mental subject develop a coherent pedagogic approach suitable for the higher education task, mutual learning and improvement of quality of service; 3. the Polytechnic and its units consider what added value could be gained by joint programmes and other similar activities; 23

4. the planned improvements for areas where development needs have arised should be implemented as proposed in the action plan draft, and the self- evaluation report would be analysed in depth for further improvement needs; 5. the ways to co-operate systematically between units should further be rein- forced; 6. a strategy for the international activities should be refocused to cover the strategic needs of the Polytechnic as a whole; 7. the organisation should be reconsidered so that it is more transparent and the overlapping responsibilities and authorities would become clearer; 8. the participation mechanisms of students, the teachers and the external stakeholders in development of curricula and evaluation of the work should be reconsidered and formalised (these are eternal questions!) and the di- rect feedback system would be improved upon so that both the staff and the students would feel confident with using it; 9. the information flow between units and to and from students and teachers should be improved further, and the quality manual and quality work are made more transparent to all stakeholder groups including the Board; 10. the systems for self-evaluation are reconsidered, so that the self-evaluation survey is made systematic and a systematic connection to external stakeholders and students (including former students) in evaluating the quality work would be developed; 11. the development and feedback discussions should be made systematic throughout the Polytechnic and the resources (time, funding) for personnel development would be secured, even for personnel other that teachers. 24 APPENDIX 1: Polytechnic Education in Finland

The Finnish higher education system consists of two sectors: universities and polytechnics. The polytechnics are more practically oriented, training professionals for ex- pert and development posts. There are 29 polytechnics in Finland; most of them are multidisciplinary, regional institutions, which give particular weight to contacts with business and industry. Polytechnics are developed as part of the national and international higher education community, with special emphasis on their expertise in working life and its development. The polytechnics also carry out R&D relevant to their teaching and to the world of work. The polytechnics were created gradually over the 1990s. The standard of former higher vocational education was raised and incorporated into multidisciplinary polytechnics. Since the Polytechnics Act was passed in 1995, the Government has accredit- ed some polytechnics annually to operate on a permanent basis. The criteria used in accreditation include proven excellence in experimental and development work. The national polytechnics network will be complete by August 1, 2000, when all the polytechnics will operate on a permanent basis. The polytechnics award professionally oriented higher education degrees, which take 3.5 or 4 years. The entry requirements is either an upper secondary school certif- icate or a vocational diploma. At present about 70 % of all entrants are matriculated students and 30 % vocational graduates. The Ministry of Education confirms the degree programmes. There is no tuition fee for degree studies. The polytechnics have two categories of teachers: principal lecturers, for whom the requirement is a postgraduate (licentiate or doctorate) degree, and lecturers, who must have a Master’s degree. Both categories of teachers must have a minimum of three years of work experience. Polytechnic education is provided in the following fields: • Natural resources • Technology and transport • Administration and business • Hotel, catering and home economics • Health and social services • Culture • Humanities and education. In 1999 the total intake in polytechnics is nearly 24,000. The higher education system as a whole offers openings for 66 % of the relevant age group (universities 29 %, polytechnics 37 %). Polytechnics also arrange programmes for mature students. Finnish polytechnics, which are either municipal or private, are co-financed by the government and the local authorities. The Ministry of Education and each polytechnic conclude a three-year agreement on target outcome to determine the objectives, in- takes, and project and performance-based funding.

(More information on: http://www.minedu.fi/minedu/education/polytechnic.html) 25 APPENDIX 2: Audit Interview Schedule at the Satakunta Polytechnic 26 PUBLICATIONS OF THE FINNISH HIGHER EDUCATION EVALUATION COUNCIL POB 20, FIN-00501 HELSINKI Tel +358-9-7748 8410 Fax +358-9-7748 8414 http://www.minedu.fi/asiant/kka.html 1:1997 Virtanen, A. (toim.): Armottomat ammattikorkeakoulut – matkalla kehittyneisiin arviointijärjestelmiin. Helsinki: Edita. 2:1997 Liuhanen, A.-M. (toim.): Yliopistot arvioivat toimintaansa – mitä opitaan? Helsinki: Edita. 3:1997 Korkeakoulujen arviointineuvoston toimintasuunnitelma vuosille 1998–1999. Helsinki: Edita. 4:1997 Finska rådet för utvärdering av högskolorna: Verksamhetsplan 1998–1999. Helsingfors: Edita. 5:1997 Action Plan of the Finnish Higher Education Evaluation Council for 1998–1999. Helsinki: Edita. 1:1998 Virtanen, A. (toim.): Korkeakoulutettu poliisi. Poliisiammattikorkeakoulun ulkoinen arviointi. Helsinki: Edita. 2:1998 Kantola, I. & Panhelainen, M. (toim.): Kansainvälistyvät ammattikorkeakoulut. Jyväskylän, Tampereen ja Turun ammattikorkeakoulujen kansainvälistymisen asiantuntija-arviointi. Helsinki: Edita. 3:1998 Junge-Jensen, F., Lundin, R., Nyman, G. & Wahlroos, B.: Vart är Hanken på väg? Rapport av en extern utvärderingsgrupp. Helsingfors: Edita. 4:1998 167 syytä korkeakouluksi. Ammattikorkeakouluhakemusten arviointi 1998. Helsinki: Edita. 5:1998 Yliopistokoulutuksen laatuyksiköt. Arviointineuvoston esitys korkealaatuisen koulutuksen yksiköiksi vuosille 1999–2000. Helsinki: Edita. 6:1998 Hämäläinen, K. & Moitus, S. (toim.): Laatua korkeakoulutukseen – teoriaa ja käytäntöä. Helsinki: Edita. 7:1998 Pilot Audit of Quality Work in Kajaani, Turku, Lahti and Häme Polytechnics. Helsinki: Edita. 8:1998 Dahllöf, U., Goddard, J., Huttunen, J., O’Brien, C., Román, O. & Virtanen, I.: Towards the Responsive University: The Regional Role of Eastern Finland Universities. Helsinki: Edita. 9:1998 Programme Evaluation of Industrial Management and Engineering in Finnish Higher Education Institutions. Helsinki: Edita. 10:1998 Quality Label? EQUIS Evaluation Report. Helsinki School of Economics and Business Administration. Helsinki: Edita. 11:1998 Three Finnish Universities in the International Perspective. CRE Institutional Review of Helsinki University of Technology, Tampere University of Technology, and Åbo Akademi University. CRE Reviewers’ Reports. Helsinki: Edita. 1:1999 Virtanen, A. (toim.): Viittä vaille valmis? Ammattikorkeakouluhakemusten arviointi 1999. Helsinki: Edita. 2:1999 Vähäpassi, A. & Moitus, S. (toim.): Korkeakoulut alueidensa vetureina. Viisi näkökulmaa vaikuttavuuteen. Helsinki: Edita. 3:1999 Booth, J., Erlhoff, M., Jones, A. & Paasikivi, P.: Strategies for the Future. Evaluation of University of Art and Design Helsinki UIAH. Helsinki: Edita. 4:1999 Almefelt, P., Kekäle, T., Malm, K., Miikkulainen, L. & Pehu-Voima, S.: Audit of Quality Work. Swedish Polytechnic, Finland. Helsinki: Edita. 5:1999 Harlio, R., Harvey, L., Mansikkamäki. J., Miikkulainen, L. & Pehu-Voima, S.: Audit of Quality Work. Central Ostrobothnia Polytechnic. Helsinki: Edita. 6:1999 Moitus, S. (toim.): Yliopistokoulutuksen laatuyksiköt 2001–2003. Helsinki: Edita. 7:1999 Davies, J., Lindström, C.-G. & Schutte, F.: Five Years of Development. Follow-Up Evaluation of the University of Oulu. Helsinki: Edita. 27 8:1999 Perälä, M.-L. & Ponkala, O.: Tietoa ja taitoa terveysalalle. Terveydenhuoltoalan korkeakoulutuksen arviointi. Helsinki: Edita. 9:1999 Audit of Quality Work. North Karelia and Mikkeli Polytechnics. Helsinki: Edita. 10:1999 Audit of Quality Work. Seinäjoki Polytechnic. Helsinki: Edita. 11:1999 Jussila, J. & Saari, S. (toim.): Opettajankoulutus tulevaisuuden tekijänä. Yliopistoissa annettavan opettajankoulutuksen arviointi. Helsinki: Edita. 12:1999 Virtanen, A. & Mertano, S. (Eds.): Learning by Comparing. The Benchmarking of Administration at the University of Helsinki. Helsinki: Edita. 13:1999 Kuusinen, I. & Nurminen, M.: Korkeakoulukirjaston asiakaspalvelun arviointi. Kymenlaakson ammattikorkeakoulun, Helsingin kauppakorkeakoulun ja Leeds Metropolitan Universityn kirjastot. Helsinki: Edita. 14:1999 Kuusinen, I. & Nurminen, M.: Evaluation of Customer Service in the Academic Library. Libraries of Kymenlaakso Polytechnic, Helsinki School of Economics and Business Administration, and Leeds Metropolitan University. Helsinki: Edita. 15:1999 Kristensen, B., Lindfors, T., Otley, D. & Stenius, M.: TSEBA as a Learning Organisation. Evaluation of Turku School of Economics and Business Administration. Helsinki: Edita. 16:1999 Lyytinen, Heikki K.: Työelämäyhteistyön arviointi. Jyväskylän, Tampereen ja Turun ammattikorkeakoulujen työelämäyhteistyön ulkoinen arviointi. Helsinki: Edita. 17:1999 Pehu-Voima, S. & Hämäläinen, K. (toim.): Opetusta kehittävää arviointia. Helsinki: Edita. 1:2000 Lehtinen, E., Kess, P., Ståhle, P. & Urponen, K.: Tampereen yliopiston opetuksen arviointi. Helsinki: Edita. 2:2000 Cohen, B., Jung, K. & Valjakka, T.: From Academy of Fine Arts to University. Same name, wider ambitions. Helsinki: Edita. 3:2000 Goddard, J., Moses, I., Teichler, U., Virtanen, I. & West, P.: External Engagement and Institutional Adjustment: An Evaluation of the University of Turku. HelsinkiEdita. 4:2000 Almefelt, P., Kekäle, T., Malm, K., Miikkulainen, L. & Pehu-Voima, S.: Audit of Quality Work. Swedish Polytechnic, Finland. Helsinki: Edita. 5:2000 Harlio, R., Harvey, L., Mansikkamäki. J., Miikkulainen, L. & Pehu-Voima, S.: Audit of Quality Work. Central Ostrobothnia Polytechnic. Helsinki: Edita. 6:2000 Moitus, S. (toim.): Yliopistokoulutuksen laatuyksiköt 2001–2003. Helsinki: Edita. 7:2000 Liuhanen, A.-M. (toim.): Neljä aikuiskoulutuksen laatuyliopistoa 2001–2003. Helsinki: Edita. 8:2000 Hara, V. , Hyvönen, R. , Myers, D. & Kangasniemi, J. (Eds.): Evaluation of Education for the Information Industry. Helsinki: Edita. 9:2000 Jussila, J. & Saari, S. (Eds.): Teacher Education as a Future-moulding Factor. International Evaluation of Teacher Education in Finnish Universities. Helsinki: FINHEEC. http://www.minedu.fi/minedu/education/finheec/finheec.html 10:2000 Lämsä, A. & Saari, S. (toim.): Portfoliosta koulutuksen kehittämiseen. Ammatillisen opettajankoulutuksen arviointi. Helsinki: Edita. 11:2000 Korkeakoulujen arviointineuvoston toimintasuunnitelma 2000–2003. Helsinki: Edita. 12:2000 Finnish Higher Education Evaluation Council Action Plan for 2000–2003. Helsinki: Edita. 13:2000 Huttula, T. (toim.): Ammattikorkeakoulujen koulutuksen laatuyksiköt 2000. Helsinki: Edita. 14:2000 Gordon, C., Knodt, G., Lundin, R., Oger, O. & Shenton, G.: Hanken in European Comparison. EQUIS Evaluation Report. Helsinki: Edita. 15:2000 Almefelt, P., Kekäle, T., Malm, K., Miikkulainen, L., & Kangasniemi, J.: Audit of Quality Work. Satakunta Polytechnic. Helsinki: Edita.