1. education

Audit of LAppeenrAntA
university of
technoLogy 2015
Rowena Pelik
Ismo Kantola
Eeva Myller
Monika Simaškaitė
John Taylor
Touko Apajalahti
Publications 2015:15
Audit of
Lappeenranta
University of
Technology 2015
Rowena Pelik
Ismo Kantola
Eeva Myller
Monika Simaškaitė
John Taylor
Touko Apajalahti
Finnish Education Evaluation Centre
Publications 2015:15
PUBLISHER Finnish Education Evaluation Centre
BOOK DESIGN Juha Juvonen
LAYOUT Juvenes Print – Suomen Yliopistopaino Oy, Tampere
ISBN 978-952-206-297-0 (pb)
ISBN 978-952-206-298-7 (pdf)
ISSN-L 2342-4176
ISSN 2342-4176 (paperback)
ISSN 2342-4184 (pdf)
PRINTED BY Juvenes Print – Suomen Yliopistopaino Oy, Tampere 2015
© Finnish Education Evaluation Centre
ABSTRACT
Published by
The Finnish Education Evaluation Centre FINEEC
Name of publication
Audit of Lappeenranta University of Technology 2015
Authors
Rowena Pelik, Ismo Kantola, Eeva Myller, Monika Simaškaitė, John Taylor
and Touko Apajalahti
Abstract
The Finnish Education Evaluation Centre has conducted an audit of Lappeenranta
University of Technology and awarded the University with a quality label that will be
valid for six years from 9 April 2015. The quality system of the University fulfils the
national criteria set for quality management of higher education institutions and the
system corresponds to the European quality assurance principles and recommendations
for higher education institutions.
The object of the audit was the quality system that Lappeenranta University of
Technology has developed based on its own needs and goals. The freely selected
audit target chosen by the University was early undergraduate study guidance. The
following elements were regarded as key strengths of the quality system:
͘͘ The comprehensive and accessible documentation, which has clearly identified
responsibilities and covers the major functions pertaining to the quality
management of education, research and societal impact;
͘͘ The commitment of staff at all levels to the continuous improvement of their
teaching and to high quality research output encouraged by a link to the pay and
reward system;
͘͘ Commitment to active involvement with and synergy between industry, the
region and the University, which is reflected back in the commitment of the
business and industry leaders to the University
1
Among others, the following recommendations were given to Lappeenranta University
of Technology:
͘͘ The University should reflect further on how to achieve whole institutional change
and widespread ownership of planned changes; and what would be required of
its quality system in the future in order for it to achieve the ambitions in its new
strategy.
͘͘ The University should consider how the quality system could better enable the
University systematically to identify examples of good and innovative practice
and to disseminate and embed them across the institution.
͘͘ The audit team advises that a stricter code of practice for supervision of doctoral
candidates and a set of minimum standards or minimum expectations for doctoral
study be prepared.
Keywords
Evaluation, audit, quality system, quality management, quality, higher education
institutions, university
2
TIIVISTELMÄ
Julkaisija
Kansallinen koulutuksen arviointikeskus
Julkaisun nimi
Lappeenrannan teknillisen yliopiston auditointi 2015
Tekijät
Rowena Pelik, Ismo Kantola, Eeva Myller, Monika Simaškaitė, John Taylor
ja Touko Apajalahti
Tiivistelmä
Kansallinen koulutuksen arviointikeskus on toteuttanut Lappeenrannan teknillisen
yliopiston auditoinnin ja antanut yliopistolle laatuleiman, joka on voimassa kuusi
vuotta 9.4.2015 alkaen. Lappeenrannan teknillisen yliopiston laatujärjestelmä täyttää
korkeakoulujen laadunhallinnalle asetetut kansalliset kriteerit ja vastaa eurooppalaisia
korkeakoulujen laadunhallinnan periaatteita ja suosituksia.
Auditoinnin kohteena oli Lappeenrannan teknillisen korkeakoulun laatujärjestelmä,
jonka yliopisto on kehittänyt omista lähtökohdistaan ja tavoitteidensa mukaisesti.
Yliopiston valitsema vapaavalintainen auditointikohde oli opintojen alkuvaiheen
ohjaus. Laatujärjestelmän keskeiset vahvuudet ovat:
͘͘ Kattava ja helposti käytettävissä oleva dokumentaatio, joka määrittelee vastuut
selkeästi ja käsittää laadunhallinnan päätehtävät koulutuksessa, tutkimuksessa
ja yhteiskunnallisessa vuorovaikutuksessa.
͘͘ Henkilökunnan sitoutuminen opetuksensa kehittämiseen ja korkealaatuiseen
tutkimukseen kaikilla organisaation tasoilla, jota palkkausjärjestelmä tukee.
͘͘ Sitoutuneisuus aktiiviseen kanssakäymiseen ja yhteisten etujen löytämiseen
teollisuuden, alueen ja yliopiston kesken, joka heijastuu takaisin elinkeinoelämän
ja teollisuuden johtajien sitoutuneisuudessa yliopistoon.
3
Lappeenrannan teknilliselle yliopistolle esitetään muun muassa seuraavat suositukset
laatujärjestelmän kehittämiseksi:
͘͘ Yliopiston tulisi miettiä syvällisemmin, miten yliopistotason muutoksia
saavutetaan, miten muutoksille saadaan laajalle levinnyt omistajuus ja mitä
laatujärjestelmältä edellytetään tulevaisuudessa, jotta yliopisto kykenee
saavuttamaan uuden strategiansa tavoitteet.
͘͘ Yliopiston tulisi pohtia, miten laatujärjestelmä voisi paremmin edesauttaa
järjestelmällisesti tunnistamaan hyviä ja innovatiivisia käytänteitä sekä levittämään
ja juurruttamaan niitä halki organisaation.
͘͘ Arviointiryhmä kehottaa yliopistoa laatimaan täsmällisemmät menettelyohjeet
tohtoriopiskelijoiden ohjaukseen ja kuvaamaan tohtoriopintojen minimi­
vaatimustason.
Avainsanat
Arviointi, auditointi, laatujärjestelmä, laadunhallinta, laatu, korkeakoulut, yliopisto
4
SAMMANDRAG
Utgivare
Nationella centret för utbildningsutvärdering
Publikation
Auditering av Villmanstrands tekniska universitet 2015
Författare
Rowena Pelik, Ismo Kantola, Eeva Myller, Monika Simaškaitė, John Taylor och Touko
Apajalahti
Sammandrag
Nationella centret för utbildningsutvärdering har genomfört en auditering av Vill­
manstrands tekniska universitets kvalitetssystem och har beviljat universitetet en
kvalitetsstämpel som gäller i sex år från och med den 9 april 2015. Villmanstrands
tekniska universitets kvalitetssystem uppfyller de nationella kriterier för kvalitets­
hantering som fastställts för högskolor och motsvarar de europeiska principerna för
och rekommendationerna om högskolornas kvalitetshantering.
Föremål för auditeringen var Villmanstrands tekniska universitets kvalitetssystem
som universitetet tagit fram utifrån sina egna utgångspunkter och mål. Auditerings­
objektet som universitetet kunde fritt välja var ”handledning i det inledande skedet
av studierna”. Kvalitetssystemets viktigaste styrkor är:
͘͘ Den omfattande och lätt tillgängliga dokumentationen definierar tydligt
ansvarsfördelningen och omfattar kvalitetshanteringens grundläggande uppgifter
i utbildning, forskning och genomslagskraft i samhället.
͘͘ Personalen på alla nivåer i organisationen är engagerade i att kontinuerligt utveckla
sin undervisning samt i att bedriva högklassig forskning. Lönesystemet utgör
ett stöd för detta.
͘͘ Universitetet samverkar aktivt och söker synergier med industrin och regionen.
Detta återspeglas som näringslivs- och industriledningens engagemang i
universitetet.
5
Villmanstrands tekniska universitet ges bland annat följande rekommendationer för
vidareutveckling:
͘͘ För att uppnå sina nya strategiska mål borde universitetet djupare reflektera över
hur det åstadkommer förändringar på institutionsnivå och omfattande delaktighet
i förändringsprocesser samt vad förväntas av kvalitetssystemet i framtiden.
͘͘ Universitetet borde reflektera över hur kvalitetssystemet kunde bättre främja en
systematisk identifiering, spridning och förankring av god och innovativ praxis
vid institutionen.
͘͘ Auditeringsgruppen uppmanar universitetet att utarbeta noggrannare anvisningar
för handledning av doktorandstuderande och beskrivning av doktorandstudiernas
minimikravnivå.
Nyckelord
Utvärdering, auditering, kvalitetssystem, kvalitetshantering, kvalitet, högskolor,
universitet
6
CONTENTS
Abstract..................................................................................................................................................1
Tiivistelmä............................................................................................................................................ 3
Sammandrag........................................................................................................................................ 5
1 Description of the audit process.................................................................................................. 9
1.1 Audit targets...........................................................................................................................................9
1.2 Implementation of the audit............................................................................................................10
2 The organisation and the quality system of the HEI............................................................ 12
3 The quality policy of the higher education institution ....................................................... 15
3.1 Objectives of the quality system..................................................................................................... 15
3.2 Division of responsibility related to the quality system.......................................................... 16
3.3 Documentation and communicativeness of the quality system............................................ 17
4 Strategic and operations management ................................................................................... 19
4.1 Linkage of the quality system with strategic and operations management...................... 19
4.2 Functioning of the quality system at different organisational levels................................... 21
5 Development of the quality system ......................................................................................... 24
5.1 Procedures for developing the quality system............................................................................24
5.2 Development stages of the quality system.................................................................................25
6 Quality management of the HEI’s basic duties ..................................................................... 27
6.1 Degree education ...............................................................................................................................27
6.1.1 The objectives for degree education...........................................................................................27
6.1.2 Functioning of the quality management procedures.............................................................28
6.1.3 The information produced by the quality system................................................................... 31
6.1.4 The involvement of different parties in the quality work.....................................................32
6.1.5 Support services key to degree education................................................................................32
6.2 Samples of degree education..........................................................................................................34
6.2.1 Bachelor’s and Master’s Programmes in Business Administration .....................................34
6.2.2 Master’s programme in Industrial Engineering and Management
for Bachelor of Engineering (UAS) graduates ...................................................................................38
6.2.3 Doctoral Programme in Electrical Energy Engineering..........................................................41
6.3 Research, development and innovation activities......................................................................45
6.3.1 The objectives for research, development and innovation activities................................45
6.3.2 Functioning of the quality management procedures............................................................45
7
6.3.3 The information produced by the quality system..................................................................46
6.3.4 Involvement of different parties in the quality work.............................................................47
6.3.5 Support services key to research, development and innovation activities......................47
6.4 Societal impact and regional development work.......................................................................49
6.4.1 The objectives for societal impact and regional development work.................................49
6.4.2 The functioning of the quality management procedures.....................................................49
6.4.3 The information produced by the quality system..................................................................50
6.4.4 The involvement of different parties in the quality work.................................................... 51
7 Early undergraduate study guidance......................................................................................... 53
7.1 The objectives for early undergraduate study guidance...........................................................53
7.2 The functioning of the quality management procedures........................................................53
7.3 The information produced by the quality system......................................................................55
7.4 The involvement of different parties in the quality work........................................................55
7.5 Support services key to early undergraduate study guidance.................................................56
8 The quality system as a whole................................................................................................... 57
8.1 Present strategic context..................................................................................................................57
8.2 Overview of the quality system.......................................................................................................58
8.3 Quality system: degree education..................................................................................................59
8.4 Quality system: research and doctoral education...................................................................... 61
8.5 Quality system: societal interaction............................................................................................... 61
8.6 Conclusions on the quality system................................................................................................62
9 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................... 63
9.1 Strengths and good practices of the quality system................................................................63
9.2 Recommendations..............................................................................................................................64
9.3 The audit team’s overall assessment.............................................................................................65
10 Higher Education Evaluation Committee’s decision............................................................ 66
Appendices......................................................................................................................................... 67
Appendix 1: Table of the audit targets and criteria..........................................................................67
Appendix 2: The stages and timetable of the audit process..........................................................73
Appendix 3: Programme of the audit visit..........................................................................................74
8
1
Description of
the audit process
1.1 Audit targets
The target of the audit is the quality system that Lappeenranta University of Technology
(LUT) has developed on the basis of its own needs and goals. The focus of the audit
is on the procedures and processes that the institution uses to maintain, develop and
enhance the quality of its operations. In accordance with the principle of enhancementled evaluation, the higher education institution’s (HEI) objectives and the content
of its activities or results are not evaluated in the audit. The aim is to help the HEI
to identify strengths, good practices and areas in need of development in its own
operations.
The Finnish Education Evaluation Centre (FINEEC) audits evaluate whether the
institution’s quality system meets the national criteria (Appendix 1) and whether it
corresponds to the Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European
Higher Education Area (also known as ESG). In addition, the audit evaluates how
well the quality system meets strategic and operations management needs, as well
as the quality management of the HEI’s basic duties and the extent to which it
is comprehensive and effective. In this way, the audit focuses on evaluating the
institution’s quality policy and the development of the quality system, as well as how
effective and dynamic an entity the system forms.
Lappeenranta University of Technology chose “early undergraduate study guidance” as
its optional audit target. As samples of its degree level education, it chose the Bachelor’s
and Master’s programmes in Business Administration and the Doctoral Programme in
Electrical Energy Engineering. The audit team chose the Master’s programme in Industrial
Engineering and Management for Bachelor of Engineering (UAS) graduates as the third
sample of degree education.
9
The audit targets for Lappeenranta University of Technology were:
1.
2.
3.
4.
The quality policy of the higher education institution
Strategic and operations management
Development of the quality system
Quality management of the higher education institution’s basic duties:
a. Degree education
b. Research, development and innovation activities (RDI), as well as artistic activities
c. Societal impact and regional development work1
d. Optional audit target: Early undergraduate study guidance
5. Samples of degree education: degree programmes:
a. Bachelor’s and Master’s programmes in Business Administration
b. Master’s programme in Industrial Engineering and Management for Bachelor
of Engineering (UAS) graduates
c. Doctoral Programme in Electrical Energy Engineering
6. The quality system as a whole
1.2 Implementation of the audit
The audit is based on the basic material and self-assessment report submitted by
Lappeenranta University of Technology, together with an audit visit to the University
on 25–27 November 2014. The audit team also had access to electronic materials that
were important for quality management. The main phases and time frame of the
audit process are shown in Appendix 2.
An international audit team carried out the audit in English. LUT was given the
opportunity to comment on the team’s composition, especially from the perspective
of potential disqualification prior to the appointment of the audit team.
The audit team:
Director QAA Scotland, Master of Arts Rowena Pelik, United Kingdom (Chair)
Professor of Higher Education Management, PhD John Taylor, University of
Liverpool, United Kingdom (Vice-Chair)
Head of Student Affairs, Master of Education Ismo Kantola, Turku University of
Applied Sciences, Finland
Master of Science in Electrical Engineering Eeva Myller, formerly the project
planner of the Study Ability project of the National Union of University Students
in Finland (SYL), Finland.
Master’s student in Industrial Engineering Monika Simaškaitė, Kaunas University
of Technology, Lithuania.
1
Including social responsibility, continuing education and open university education, as well as
paid-services education.
10
FINEEC staff members: Senior Advisor Touko Apajalahti acted as the project manager
of the audit.
As indicated, the audit team conducted a three-day audit visit to the University. The
purpose of the visit was to verify and supplement the observations made on the
quality system based on the audit material. The programme of the visit is shown in
Appendix 3.
The audit team drew up this report based on the material accumulated during the
evaluation and on the analysis of that material. The audit team members produced
the report jointly by drawing on the expertise of each team member. LUT was given
the opportunity to check the report for factual information prior to FINEEC’s
decision-making.
11
2
The organisation and the
quality system of the HEI
The Finnish higher education system consists of two complementary sectors:
universities and universities of applied sciences. Universities conduct scientific research
and offer education based on this research, while the universities of applied sciences
offer more work-related education as well as conducting research and development
that support education and regional development. Institutions in both sectors receive
most of their funding from the Ministry of Education and Culture, based on their
performance. The activities of higher education institutions are governed by fouryear performance agreements with the Ministry.
Universities offer Bachelor’s degrees (180 ECTS) as first-cycle degrees and Master’s
degrees (120 ECTS) in the second cycle. After having obtained a relevant Master’s
degree, students can apply for a Doctoral degree. A pre-doctoral Licentiate’s degree
may be taken before a Doctoral degree.
Lappeenranta University of Technology is a university falling under the Finnish
Universities Act. The University employs slightly under 1,000 staff members and
has around 4,700 students. Approximately 15 % of the employees and 10 % of the
students are foreign nationals.
At the time of the audit, LUT was organised into three academic faculties with
departments under them and into other units as described in Figure 1. The faculties
at the time of the audit were:
͘͘ The School of Technology
͘͘ The School of Industrial Engineering and Management
͘͘ The School of Business
12
!#
!%!+
%!#-
.#%!#$
!!! !!+
#+
%
# %&$ +$$
$# %$
--
!!! ($%#
# %
!)&! %
(%*!#
%
!*# # !#&! %
&!!! !)&! !()!
!!!($ $$
! !$ ($ $$*
% %# &! ($ $$
!#%# $! $# %#/0- !!+($ $$$# %#/0-
!(%# $&%(%/0- %#!## )!" %/0-"" # %##+-
! %$/&-!()!-)!0
)#$%+#)$
Figure 1: Organisation of LUT in November 2014.
LUT was preparing an organisational change over the autumn 2014. A draft version
of the new organisation structure was presented to the audit team during the audit
visit and is described in Figure 2. The renewed structure removes the faculty level
and merges the academic departments into three schools, and, at the same time,
introduces horizontal cross-school solution-oriented research platforms. The new
organisation took effect from January 2015.
13
DRAFT FOR NEW
ORGANISATIONAL STRUCTURE
BOARD
COLLEGIATE BODY
PRESIDENT
PROVOST
VICE PRESIDENT
VICE PRESIDENT
DIRECTOR
DIRECTOR
DIRECTOR
”TECHNOLOGY”
”NATURAL
SCIENCES”
”BUSINESS”
Jarmo Partanen
Heikki Haario
Anne Jalkala
PROGRAMME DIRECTOR
SOLUTION ORIENTED RESEARCH PLATFORM A
PROGRAMME DIRECTOR
SOLUTION ORIENTED RESEARCH PLATFORM B
PROGRAMME DIRECTOR
SOLUTION ORIENTED RESEARCH PLATFORM N
SUPPORT SERVICES
Figure 2: Draft for the new organisational structure as presented during the audit.
The LUT quality management system is based on the Plan-Do-Check-Act cycle as
depicted in Figure 3.
&& ) !%
%#%$
$ 0
& #$! $&$
#$ (#$
(%,! ,"(%,
%#%$
$%#%,
& !$
!#& $!$(%
) !%!# #$
*0(! "(&%&)
"(%&)% #$
& ,$$ +%#%#
$$$$%$
#%
!%& %# (!# $$$.//
%(#%#.! $%#(%(& .
$%(%##(%%.(##((* #.
(#& $. &(!# $$ (& .$(!! #%$#)$
Figure 3: Plan-Do-Check-Act cycle of the LUT quality management system.
According to LUT, the purpose of the quality management system is to:
͘͘ ensure the continuous development of the University towards a collaboratively
defined vision
͘͘ ensure the high quality of operations and results
͘͘ support the achievement of strategic targets.
14
3
The quality policy of the
higher education institution
The quality system’s objectives and responsibilities are clearly defined and an inclusive
approach to the goal-setting process is in place. The key people responsible for operations
are highly committed and have the necessary skills. At the same, time the audit team
recognised that responsibilities would change within the new management structure. The
quality system produces a large quantity of information that is well documented, clear and
timely. The information is widely available and meets the needs of different user groups,
but could be communicated in a more systematic and targeted manner. The University
has developed a Quality Manual as a unitary source of information and is implementing
a new intranet, which will further strengthen the process of quality management.
The quality policy of the higher education institution is at a developing stage.
3.1 Objectives of the quality system
The objectives of the University’s quality management system are presented in three
levels:
a. The quality policy outlines the principles of quality management and the
quality management system
b. The quality targets of core operations outline the directions in which the
core operations of the University are developed
c. The quality targets of processes define how processes are monitored
systematically with specific indicators in order to determine how they are
completed
The quality policy includes the following principles that guide the University’s
performance:
͘͘ The University’s activities and administration are based on continuous assessment
and development
15
͘͘ The University fulfils its mission in accordance with its strategy in ways that
promote the well-being of the staff and students and sustainable development
͘͘ The University maintains a quality assurance system which ensures that the
University is able to operate in a reliable, efficient and quality-oriented way,
taking the needs of customers and other stakeholders and ethical principles into
consideration.
These objectives and operating principles provide a clear framework for the quality
system. Precise targets are reviewed annually in connection with the evaluation of
the quality management system. The quality manager is responsible for amendments
and for collecting and documenting amendment proposals, in collaboration with
experts and persons in charge. University community members may comment on
the open amendment proposals. Given that specific targets refer to different levels
and perspectives, their understanding and clarity are addressed at different levels of
performance guidance.
The audit team recognised that the overall objectives and principles were appropriate
and offered a strong underpinning for the quality system. However, it was less clear
to what extent these ideas had permeated the entire institution. Staff throughout
the University were aware of the importance of effective quality management, but
it was less clear to what extent such awareness represented a comprehensive and
integrated approach. The University is aware of these issues and is taking action to
enhance present working arrangements (see 3.3 below).
3.2 Division of responsibility related to the quality system
The Rector has overall responsibility for the development and operation of the quality
management system. In practice, a Quality Management Committee oversees the
quality management system as an entity and considers quality management procedures,
evaluation results and new internal quality audits. The audit team was content with
the distribution of responsibilities at this level.
Currently, the University relies heavily on middle administration/management
(Deans and Heads of Department) for the strategic management, performance,
quality management and quality system descriptions in their particular unit. The
division of responsibility functions well and key people are committed to their duties.
However, the audit team found examples where overall University policy was not
being disseminated or implemented at middle/lower organisational levels. This did not
mean that quality matters were over-looked. On the contrary, it appeared that many
staff were collecting information and developing new practices intended to enhance
quality, but were doing so in a well-intentioned, but un-coordinated way. Whilst such
local initiative is often to be commended, it can create difficulties for the University
in the exercise of its overall responsibilities, in the transmission of information and
in the monitoring of performance. Moreover, without clear oversight by senior and
16
middle management, the risks of issues or individuals “falling between the cracks” are
increased. The University has had some difficulties in the exercise of responsibilities
within the quality system at middle management level, but it is important to stress
that these issues have been recognised by the University.
A new management structure is currently being implemented based around three
schools. One of the intentions of the new arrangements is to clarify lines of responsibility
and communications, whilst at the same time providing for improved transparency
and reduced administrative overheads. The audit team supports these objectives and
welcomes the changes as far as they are understood at the time of writing. At the
same time, however, it is certain that organisational structures and an allocation of
responsibilities for quality management will still be required within the new schools,
and need to be agreed and implemented as soon as possible.
The University emphasises that every member of the University community has a
responsibility to fulfil within the quality management process because everyone’s
work involves dealing with the University’s strategy and targets, describing activities,
reporting, evaluation, giving feedback and handling results and feedback. The audit
team was impressed by the commitment demonstrated by staff at all levels and the
desire to enhance quality. This is not in question, but, in some areas, it is suggested
that such efforts need to be channelled more effectively; hence, the importance of
strengthening the role of middle management in the quality process.
3.3 Documentation and communicativeness of the quality system
The University’s entire quality system is described in the University’s Quality Manual.
This sets out the University’s quality policies and goals, key resources, management
and performance guidance practices, core aspirations and related responsibilities,
quality targets and processes, and practices involving the assessment and development
of activities. The Manual aims to provide internal and external stakeholders with
a comprehensive picture of the University and its operations, administration and
quality management practices.
The audit team wishes to commend the University for the development of a
comprehensive, unitary source of information on the operation of the quality
system. This document forms a very effective basis for the whole quality system. The
information needs of staff, students and external stakeholders are taken into account
in the documentation. Moreover, there was broad awareness of the existence of the
Manual across the University. This will be strengthened further as the University’s
new intranet, which integrates the Quality Manual, is established. The audit team
commends the University for the use of the intranet in this way to ensure that the
quality documentation is easily accessible for the whole University community.
The intranet is an effective way to ensure that information is communicated in a
systematic and targeted manner.
17
The University also relies on the development of action plans intended for the
achievement of strategic targets. These action plans are also available on the intranet.
There is no common practice for implementing or communicating matters relating to
action plans. As a result, as recognised by the University, progress is not always clear
to all members of the University. The audit team shares this view and found examples
where the existence of plans was unknown or where staff were unaware of targets.
It will be important for these difficulties to be addressed as the University’s new
organisational structure is developed. Again, the importance of middle management
as a means of communication both upwards and downwards in the organisation is
very clear.
18
4
Strategic and
operations management
LUT’s vision is to be an agile, international university combining technology and business,
representing the top European level in its key areas of expertise. LUT’s quality system,
applying the PDCA-principle, is reasonably well linked to strategic planning, management
and operations management. The quality system relies heavily on the use of strategic
performance indicators and quantitative targets to effect change. Strategic performance
management is connected to performance evaluation of the academic staff. The quality
system generates a substantial amount of information, which serves strategic and operations
management. Quality information is utilised at different organisation levels. The Board
reviews the results systematically and steers the development work. The top management,
middle management and staff are committed to joint quality work. However, LUT should
consider how to transform the current action plan procedures in order to make plans
more effective and communicative. In addition, responsibilities, timetables and follow-up
activities for strategic measures should be defined more carefully. LUT should continue its
good work on business intelligence and combine all the data produced for strategic and
operations management.
The link between the quality system and strategic and operations management is at a
developing stage.
4.1 Linkage of the quality system with
strategic and operations management
Since the previous audit, LUT has given up specialised sub-strategies (e.g. for regional
development) and has only one institutional strategy. In Together, the strategy to
2015, an ambitious set of strategic goals are identified. The University previously
claimed inter alia to ‘create solutions and produce problem solvers’ to help address
contemporary ecological and energy challenges. Together sets out a vision for 2015
of LUT as ‘an agile, international university combining technology with business’,
representing ‘the top European level’ in ‘its key areas of expertise’.
19
The audit team found during the site visit that strategic ambitions, as well as the
organisational structure of the University, are undergoing revision. The strategy
work was started during the summer of 2014 when the management and members of
staff were invited to join facilitated group sessions. Later, a web survey for the whole
staff was opened. The audit team acknowledges that the University management has
chosen an inclusive, interactive and iterative approach to the development of the new
University strategy that involves staff, students and stakeholders.
The University emphasises the view that strategic management, operations management
and quality management have the same objective: the success of the University and
the realisation of a shared vision. The targets of the strategy Together are specified
in action plans for research, education and societal interaction. Action plans define
targets, development measures and indicators to be used. The monitoring of the plans
is the Provost’s responsibility. Target values are set in the annual operations plans of
the University and (at the time of the audit visit) of the faculties.
Currently, the University-wide action plans are comprehensive documents, which
contain numerous development measures. For example, the action plan for education
lists altogether 15 measures grouped into three focus areas and the responsible actor
for each measure is clearly defined. However, there is no information on timetables,
monitoring or resources. Moreover, the action plan for societal interaction does
not name any responsible actors for some of the measures. The audit team suggests
defining responsibilities and timetables as well as follow-up activities for strategic
measures more carefully.
The interviews revealed that members of staff were often unaware of the action plans
and their key points. The University has already recognised the role and follow-up
responsibilities for action plans as areas to be developed. The audit team shares this
view and recommends the management to consider carefully what kinds of detailed
strategic development plans are actually needed and how they could be made more
communicative for the University community.
The quality system relies heavily on the use of strategic performance indicators and
quantitative targets to bring about change. When the University Board gives its
approval to the annual budget and operations plan, it sets quantitative targets for
scientific research, academic education, societal interaction and internationalisation.
The University-level operations plan for 2015 includes 20 performance indicators.
Most indicators are common with the national universities’ funding model or with
the University’s performance agreement with the Ministry.
The audit team welcomes the compact framework of LUT’s strategic indicators, which
were well understood and familiar to the staff. On the other hand, some strategic
measures were not as well defined within quality processes in the Quality Manual.
For instance, LUT has not defined the quality processes to support it in raising the
proportion of students achieving a minimum of 55 ECTS credits per academic year;
20
given that at the time of the audit LUT was some way off reaching its own targets
and the higher Ministry target the audit team considered that it was important that
quality processes were developed to help the University achieve its goals. As an example
of a strategic measure, LUT could make more visible the actions it is taking and set
up a University-wide project to develop good practice to raise the share of students
who achieve the annual target.
Results-orientation has been strengthened in the system. Discussions revealed that
budgeting and forecasting the economic situation have improved remarkably. The
units employ the TTS planning system for budgeting and forecasting according to
the annual planning cycle. LUT has built business intelligence reporting systems and
has improved internal communications about the results of operations. Preparations
to widen the use of the data warehouse LUT-DW to produce follow-up data on the
education process are in progress. The interviews confirmed that LUT-DW is used by
the management and their financial support staff as well as by the project managers
for research activities.
The new intranet contains performance indicator reports at the University level and
at the level of faculties. The senior management saw the development of effective
tools for financial management of the research portfolio as their biggest challenge.
The Deans expressed the need for more detailed reports about students’ progress at
the level of specialisations. For example, the Faculty of Technology has implemented
a database tool which enables monitoring each doctoral student individually.
Although initiatives for local reporting solutions are well-intentioned and based on
the real needs of units, the audit team recommends combining all the data produced
for strategic and operations management. In addition, in the self-assessment report
the University has recognised the development of follow-up information systems
and more efficient utilisation of follow-up data and feedback as a development target.
Based on the audit visit, the audit team shares this view and encourages LUT to explore
the possibilities of the chosen intranet technology to improve business intelligence
reporting e.g. to produce dashboards.
4.2 Functioning of the quality system at
different organisational levels
The operations management and quality management are seen as a top-down process.
At the top, the University Board holds four meetings per year. In every meeting, the
Rector reports about the financial situation and performance results. In addition,
the Board receives statistical comparisons with other universities and benchmarking
reports. Moreover, the Board makes formal decisions about development issues and
has a logbook for monitoring the progress of measures. The audit team considers the
role of the Board as well balanced; although the emphasis is on strategic oversight,
the Board also reviews results systematically and steers development.
21
The Rector is responsible for the quality management system, strategic management
and operations management. The Rector chairs the University Steering Committee,
which is composed of the faculty Deans. The Steering Committee regularly reviews
the realisation of operational targets at the University and the faculty levels. On
the basis of memoranda seen by the audit team, it was not apparent if development
measures were actually defined at meetings. The Quality Management Committee
controls the development of the quality management system and the execution of
internal audits.
Based on the audit visit, the commitment of the top management to quality and
to the culture of continuous improvement is strong. The Rector is personally very
involved in the strategy process and has clear insight into the need to develop
research evaluation. The top management stressed the importance of international
benchmarking in assessing how well the institution performs.
The University management conducts performance and development discussions
with the various organisational units annually. In preparation for the discussion,
the unit prepares its operations plan, risk analysis and budget. The Deans and Heads
of Department considered the annual discussions as useful. From the viewpoint of
the top management, the performance discussions provide a forum where units can
present what they would like to accomplish and this makes a good starting point for
the discussion on the relationship between faculty plans and the overall University
strategy. However, it was evident that “ordinary” staff members were not familiar
with the annual operations plans of the faculties.
At the faculty level, the Dean is responsible for performance guidance, budget and
quality management. The Deans receive reports prepared for the Board on the financial
situation, the realisation of targets and the feedback collected through the year, which
is an example of a practical use of information. The responsibilities for producing
reporting information are clearly defined: the Chief Financial Officer is responsible for
financial monitoring information and the Provost is responsible for risk reports and
information used to monitor the operations. The audit team acknowledges that quality
management system produces a wide range of information for the top management
and the Deans and is reasonably well linked to strategic planning, management and
operations management. Both the Board and the Steering Committee follow and discuss
the information in a regular manner. The role of the Board is strong in steering any
necessary corrective action. However, the role of the Steering Committee in defining
new approaches to improve performance regarding strategic targets is less clear.
In the context of the organisational structure in 2014, the Dean chaired the faculty
Steering Group, which had Heads of Department as members. The Heads of Department
were responsible for communicating issues to the department staff. During discussions,
the audit team found examples where staff were unaware of University-wide policy,
including, for instance, the action plans that complement the University strategy.
Despite this, it is evident that middle management and members of the staff are
committed to the operation of the quality system and to joint quality work.
22
The performance guidance for academic staff members comes from instructions
given at joint meetings of their department or from instructions given by the Faculty
Council. Meetings and discussions within the department were seen as being important
in order to share opinions and to keep a record of issues to be improved.
23
5
Development of the
quality system
LUT has systematic and well-functioning procedures for evaluating and developing its
quality system. The central method is the annual amendment of the Quality Manual.
In addition, internal audits and external evaluations are employed as tools for system
development. On the basis of established evaluation procedures, LUT has been able to
identify the quality system’s strengths and those areas which need further development.
Development of the quality system has been very systematic since the 2009 audit. Clear
progress has been made in relation to most development areas raised in the previous audit.
The University has a compact set of strategic performance indicators and relevant reporting
and monitoring procedures. LUT has concentrated its system descriptions into one Quality
Manual, which can be accessed via the staff intranet. As a result of its strategic ambition,
LUT has strengthened the international dimension of external evaluations. In summary,
the quality system works better than before.
Development of the quality system is at a developing stage.
5.1 Procedures for developing the quality system
Annual amendment of the Quality Manual forms a systematic procedure for the
maintenance of the quality management system.
Different bodies and individuals address development needs as part of their duties. The
Quality System Manager is responsible for collecting and documenting amendment
proposals, which are handled by the Vice-Rector and Provost and discussed at a Quality
Management Committee meeting. The audit team recognises that the process is
well-defined and participatory.
During the interviews, the senior management saw keeping the documentation of
practices up to date as a challenge in the course of change. Nevertheless, the Quality
Manual has been amended eight times during 2007-2014. Discussions revealed that
the Quality Manual will be updated again after the new organisation has taken effect.
24
The audit team acknowledges that the maintenance of the Quality Manual as the
system description and point of authority has been very systematic. However, it
was not apparent if changes to processes and instructions were handled only once a
year as part of the Manual amendment or whether the University was able to react
more quickly when new instructions were needed. The LUT procedure for giving and
officially approving instructions and guidelines could be defined in the Quality Manual.
The University emphasises the importance of internal and external evaluations as
tools for system development, in addition to the annual amendment of the Quality
Manual. Internal quality audit procedures aim to assess quality management practices in
different units and from different actors’ perspectives. The results of audits are handled
in the Quality Management Committee meetings and in the meetings of the units
subject to an audit. The audit team recognised that internal audit reports have often
produced a comprehensive picture about the quality management of basic duties in the
units. The audit team found examples of how the audits have produced information
for identifying development targets or renewals. For example, as a consequence of the
internal audit of the University’s management system in 2012, the practice regarding
University Steering Committee memoranda was improved. However, as LUT has
identified a need to strengthen the effectiveness of internal quality audits, it should
consider introducing a formal follow-up procedure for internal audits.
LUT’s self-assessment report for the audit reflected the University’s significant ability
to identify strengths and weaknesses in quality management. However, the audit
team was surprised that the members of the Quality Management Committee who
were interviewed did not raise the possible effects of the ongoing organisational
restructuring and the new strategy on the quality system. On the other hand, the
development needs of the quality system seemed relatively clear for the Rector.
From her viewpoint, the Quality Manual will have to undergo a revision because the
future organisation will also include new processes and functions. For example, an
evaluation mechanism and selection criteria for the new solution-oriented research
platforms will have to be developed and included in the quality system. The audit team
encourages LUT to consider carefully how to take into account the requirements set
by the new strategy within the quality system and how the system might be changed
to support new strategic ambitions.
5.2 Development stages of the quality system
Quality management at LUT has a long tradition. Before the establishment of the
quality management system, performance guidance processes guided the development
of the University’s operations. The first official version of the Quality Manual was
approved by the Board in 2007. In addition, faculties and other units compiled quality
management descriptions for inclusion within their own manuals. The internal quality
audit procedure was launched in 2008. After that, LUT participated in a FINHEEC
quality system audit, which it passed in 2009.
25
In order to provide a sustainable basis for performance guidance and quality
management, LUT has kept the universal principles of quality management as they
were defined in 2007. The quality targets of core University operations have been
updated due to revised strategic policies, new indicators and other performance
guidance practices. The audit team was impressed by the systematic development
work which has been carried out and also by the commitment to the given audit
recommendations. Clear progress was identified by the audit team in relation to most
issues raised in the previous audit.
First, the University has built a compact set of performance indicators which are linked
to strategic goals. The University and its units have adopted the same indicators for
performance management. Moreover, LUT has developed a systematic monitoring
procedure, which works especially well in the context of the Board’s operation.
The previous audit recommended that LUT should consider combining several quality
manuals of small University units into one institution-wide Quality Manual. This
task has been completed. LUT has also aimed to harmonise postgraduate education
procedures, which are now coordinated by the LUT Graduate School (discussed in
Chapters 6.1 and 6.2.3). In addition, LUT has launched the new intranet for staff, which
includes information from the Quality Manual. Moreover, LUT has been successful in
employing the SolePro project and time management system. The audit discussions
revealed that the system is widely used among staff and managers.
In the previous audit, several recommendations concerned feedback culture and
practice. The University has managed to raise the response rates of electronic course
feedback, but, as the University acknowledges, there is still room for improvement.
The University has introduced new feedback practices such as the University-wide
support service survey and a postgraduate survey. There is also a survey for employers
and other stakeholders. The quality management of societal interaction, discussed in
detail in chapter 6.4, has been improved by defining roles and responsibilities and by
appointing persons in charge of coordination for societal relations. Also, a Societal
Interaction Committee was appointed in 2012 to evaluate and develop cooperation
with stakeholders.
A remarkable new dimension in the development of LUT’s quality management since
the previous audit has been in the field of internationalisation, especially in relation
to the use of external evaluations and benchmarking activities. This development
has happened as a result of the University’s own strategic ambition. The University
has recognised that accreditations have brought international visibility and partners
in cooperation. The audit team was impressed by the number of international
accreditations of degree programmes and international benchmarking projects. The
audit team encourages LUT to consider how benchmarking could be made an integral
part of the quality management system as a tool for enhancement.
26
6
Quality management of
the HEI’s basic duties
6.1 Degree education
The quality system produces qualitative and quantitative information that is used to develop
degree education. The objectives for degree education are closely linked to the University
strategy. Feedback is an integral part of quality management and is used both on the degree
programme and course levels to develop education at the University. The system is heavily
dependent on student feedback; further use of additional sources of information should be
considered. Strong commitment to producing high quality education is evident and staff,
students and external stakeholders participate in the development work in a meaningful
manner. However, the present system does not sufficiently encourage innovation and
diversity in teaching methods and therefore the audit team recommends adopting a more
systematic approach to the development of the pedagogic competence of the teaching staff.
Systematic feedback collection and utilisation procedures advance the functioning and
enhancement of key support services.
Quality management of degree education is at a developing stage.
6.1.1 The objectives for degree education
The University strategy sets out the framework for degree provision under the
Universities Act. Objectives and targets for degree programmes form part of the
University’s annual operations plan and are integrated with the targets agreed with
the Ministry of Education and Culture.
In the strategy 2015 Together, LUT sets a clear and ambitious target for attracting
the most gifted students from both Finland and abroad; and for LUT graduates
gaining employment in the most demanding and highly paid jobs of their field as
well in international labour markets. Key objectives for degree education cover:
competitiveness, measured by numbers of applicants and graduate employability;
internationalisation as indicated by student mobility, international recognition and
27
accreditation; quality as seen through degree content, in research and in the skills
developed in students; satisfaction, including student feedback; and performance,
measured by students’ progress in their studies and by graduation rates.
The objectives, quality targets and indicators are derived from the University strategy
and are defined for each process of degree education in the Quality Manual. The tasks
and responsibilities are also defined. Both quantitative and qualitative in nature, the
quality targets are effectively aligned with the strategy. The Board sets and monitors
annual objectives for education. If the University is falling behind on some of the
objectives, the Board requires a plan with corrective actions to be presented.
6.1.2 Functioning of the quality management procedures
Within LUT as a whole, undergraduate education is headed by the Vice-Rector for
education who has University-wide responsibility for the curriculum.
Degree education is based on defined learning outcomes with those at course level
relating to overall programme learning outcomes. In addition, individual students will
agree their personal study plans within a degree programme. Curriculum work, where
the Head of Degree Programme and teaching staff evaluate the quality, professional
relevance and development needs of a degree programme, is seen as a key process for
ensuring high quality at the programme level.
The Quality Manual outlines the annual cycle (Figure 4) for the review and development
of the curriculum. The outcome of the curriculum cycle are the descriptions of degree
programmes and courses, which are published annually on the University portal. The
cycle is well-established and it was clear that staff were familiar with the cycle and
its stages, and that it was widely used by the staff.
LUT states that it is giving more responsibility to the heads of degree programmes,
expecting programmes to be continuously developed in terms of quality and
performance. The established curriculum cycle supports this ambition. However, it
was unclear whether all degree programmes have procedures to ensure a variety of
teaching and learning methods. The analysis of the contents and learning methods of
a degree programme as a whole, which was conducted in the undergraduate sample
programmes (Chapters 6.2.1 and 6.2.2), are good examples of such procedures, and
should be implemented in all programmes.
28
December
November
January
#!
# #'#
)$'
*)
!% , # #%-
February
#$'
# '#
)
! #'
#)
##
October
# #
$' # '#
%
#!
September
###
###%
+ & +$ +
! +#
')%###
*
& *
August
LUT
Curriculum
year
March
&#
April
#!#)
##
& %
') ,+. ' )**-
July
May
June
###
Figure 4: Curriculum work at LUT.
International accreditation of degree programmes was set as a target in 2009. In
the interviews, it was seen as a good tool for the development of education and has
led to developing new teaching methods and curricula as well as more systematic
benchmarking. However, not all individual programmes where accreditation is
available are accredited and, if the University wants to extend the number of individual
programme accreditations, the process would benefit from clearer support at a strategic
level for programmes across the University. Thus, LUT could consider developing
more formal procedures to prioritise and support individual degree programmes in
achieving the agreed accreditations.
At the course level, quality management relies heavily on course feedback. Students have
the opportunity to give feedback on the courses they study using an electronic feedback
system. In addition, feedback scores form an important part of the performance
management of individual teachers. Student feedback results are available to Deans
and Heads of Department, and are used in management and reward processes, such as
annual performance and development discussions between individual staff members
and their Heads of Department. The heads of degree programmes and the Vice-Rector
address instances where the feedback is poor. Action is agreed where average feedback
from a given course is below three, where the maximum is five. Student feedback is
29
also used by the teaching staff in the continuous review and development of courses.
During the audit interviews, both teachers and students were able to provide examples
of course development based on the feedback.
Another key element of the quality management of teaching is the support provided
to develop the pedagogic competence of the teaching staff. Pedagogic training (25
ECTS) has been organised since 2002, and it is popular, especially among younger staff
members. The Teacher’s Quality Manual provides a useful outline of learner-centred
approaches and the principles of constructive alignment to learning and teaching,
but has not been updated for some time. The so-called afternoon coffee meetings
on educational issues organised once a month provide a venue for discussing current
pedagogical issues, sharing good practice and meeting people across the University. This
practice is well-known and was well regarded by the staff interviewed. Dedicated time
for developing instruction can also be included in the annual work plans of teachers.
Teaching methods are described as clear and well-established in the self-assessment
report. However, the audit team was concerned that the present system does not
sufficiently encourage innovation and diversity in teaching methods throughout the
institution. Furthermore, the team recommends LUT to adopt a more systematic
approach to the enhancement of pedagogic competence of experienced, as well as new,
teaching staff. This could include setting targets for the percentage of teachers who
have attended pedagogic training; providing training throughout a teaching career,
including long-term teachers who have earlier participated in pedagogic training; and
arranging opportunities for co-learning of teachers e.g. in the form of peer-review of
teaching (for which the practice in the MIMM programme, Chapter 6.2.1, serves as
one model) and co-operation in the planning and implementation of courses. The
University should also consider how pedagogy could be externally benchmarked and
the benchmarking practice integrated within the quality system.
All doctoral programmes function under the coordination of LUT Graduate School,
which provides services for all postgraduate students. Examples of these services
include organising training on scientific writing and arranging a Graduate School
Conference where students can present their own research and meet other doctoral
students from LUT. The Graduate School steering group is seen as a forum for
harmonising processes, preparing recommendations and sharing good practice.
However, it was unclear how effectively its recommendations were adopted at the level
of individual doctoral programmes, and what, if any, sanctions it had to this effect.
For example, based on the interviews, there was a lack of common understanding
of student entitlements and variety in practice among the teaching staff leading to
variable experience for doctoral students. The University should further develop the
quality management of postgraduate education and consider strengthening the role
of the Graduate School in the oversight of the quality of postgraduate education in
order to further develop, clarify and embed common guidelines regarding matters
including the appointment and training of supervisors, the regularity of supervision
and what can be approved as doctoral courses.
30
The postgraduate study plan is an example of functional study guidance practice. The
plan is prepared at the application stage and covers studies, research and funding.
Aiming to ensure graduation on a target schedule, the plan guides studying and is easy
to update when necessary. The number of available postgraduate courses is limited
but the students did not find it problematic given that courses taken outside LUT
can also be included in the degree.
Support for internationalisation is a strength in postgraduate education. All interviewed
students had had an international experience, either research co-operation or courses
taken abroad. LUT Graduate School provides information about opportunities and
financial support.
In undergraduate education, the separation of Finnish and international students on
some courses at Master’s level reduces the benefits of an internationalised experience.
The University is encouraged to extend and develop its approach to, and definition
of, internationalisation in the context of teaching and learning (widely referred to as
“internationalisation at home”). This should be understood more broadly than the
switching of languages or mixing of students, and supported accordingly.
6.1.3 The information produced by the quality system
Quantitative targets, such as students’ study progress, number of graduates or number
of students undertaking exchanges are set annually and the achievement of targets
is assessed three times a year. The role of feedback is highlighted in the quality
system, and, in addition to course feedback, it is collected from graduating students,
postgraduate students, international students and employers.
Teachers readily develop their instruction based on the course feedback. Examples
given in the interviews included development of the course examination, balancing
the number of credits with the workload and adding Matlab instruction based on
gathered feedback. At the programme level, feedback has for instance led to designing
a more even distribution of course workload over the first year.
The University has recognised efficiency in the use of feedback as a development
target. The interviewees mentioned that feedback from different sources can be
conflicting and that the feedback is not always sufficiently targeted. Compilation of
feedback from different sources into one report has eased this problem and suggested
programme specific compilations could further increase feedback usability. Low course
feedback response rates posed a further problem. Considering the importance of
feedback and its place within performance management and the reward scheme, the
University is recommended to take action to ensure higher participation rates in the
end of course questionnaires in order to provide a robust evidence basis for actions
taken. Also, other feedback mechanisms, such as having feedback discussions with
students, should be considered.
31
To avoid over-reliance on feedback, LUT should utilise its other quality management
procedures more effectively. The School of Business provides a good example where
information produced by the accreditation of a degree programme is used to develop
other programmes. Also, as discussed in chapter 7, the data held by the University on
the progress of studies could be analysed and utilised more efficiently.
6.1.4 The involvement of different parties in the quality work
In the interviews, teaching staff showed their strong commitment to the development
of education. Their main responsibility is course development, but they can also
influence the curriculum by providing ideas on new courses or themes. The University
has seen that, in its current form, the collection of course feedback burdens the
personnel involved too much and is thus planning to automate certain elements of
the process.
Students are active members in the committees dealing with the development of
education and play an active role in the gathering and handling of course feedback.
In addition to formal feedback procedures, the students interviewed by the audit
team found it easy to talk directly with teachers and professors, and, if necessary,
anonymous feedback could be given through the student union and guilds. The student
organisations collect their own feedback on education, which the degree programmes
also utilise in developing their operations. Postgraduate students can influence the
development of doctoral education through feedback and through student members
of the steering group of LUT Graduate School.
External stakeholders can express their views on development needs and other ideas in
the alumni and industry advisory boards of degree programmes, and also informally,
through their personal contacts. They were very positive in the interview with the
audit team about the possibilities they had to influence education. For example, they
are presented with plans on which they can provide feedback, or they can discuss
specific courses, which are then modified in response. It was clear that their views
are valued and that the advisory board model provides a meaningful form for the
participation of external stakeholders.
6.1.5 Support services key to degree education
The interviewees were content with both the support services and with their ability
to influence them. To enhance the provision of information on support services, the
Uni portal for students was adopted in 2012 and the staff intranet was being renewed
at the time of the audit.
The quality management procedures for support services are well-established and
advance the development of services. The development is based on feedback collected
from staff in the annual customer satisfaction survey and from students in a graduate
survey. For example, the demand for more flexibility and multi-modality in teaching
32
has been addressed by providing teachers with technical support for using Moodle
and recording lectures. The interviewees also found it easy to give feedback directly;
for example, on service or material needs for the library. Faculties can bring forward
development needs in performance negotiations.
Other quality management procedures provide additional information on development
needs. An accreditation of a degree programme, for example, revealed a need to
develop careers guidance; instead of programme specific development, the services
were developed for the whole University. The students interviewed were not, however,
familiar with the concept of careers guidance. Careers guidance was also recognised
by the University as a development target in the self-assessment report. The audit
team advises LUT to further develop its approach and provision of careers education,
information and guidance, and encourages the University to consider how its established
interactions with industry could also be used to benefit careers guidance for the
students.
33
6.2 Samples of degree education
6.2.1 Bachelor’s and Master’s Programmes in Business Administration
The planning and delivery of education in the degree programmes follows well established
and well understood quality procedures. Curricula are systematically designed, evaluated
and updated following an established cycle. The curriculum is informed by scientific research
and is designed to develop subject-specific knowledge and skills and wider transferable
skills. The relevance of the curriculum content to the needs of industry and society, and
the preparedness of graduates for careers in industry are further ensured by the systematic
use of advisory boards and the consideration of graduate destinations.
The quality management of the Bachelor’s and Master’s programmes in Business
Administration is at an advanced stage.
The Bachelor’s programme comprises a minimum of 180 ECTS credits. There are two
specialisations within the Bachelor’s programme: international business and financial
management. Both aim to provide students with a comprehensive understanding of
the field of study which is outlined in greater detail for the specialisms. Students from
the Bachelor’s programme have the right to continue their studies to Master’s level
and they can choose from a number of options. The sample Master’s programme
in this audit was the Master’s programme in International Marketing Management
(MIMM).
The MIMM programme integrates marketing, international business and technology
management disciplines to address the needs of global firms operating in turbulent
environments and facing growing challenges in their marketing management. It
focuses particularly on what is described as the ‘management of global knowledgeintensive innovation activities’ and is tailored for future marketing managers operating
in international environments. The Bachelor students intending to progress on to the
MIMM programme must undertake a student exchange as part of their Bachelor’s
studies.
Over the last three years, student numbers in the Bachelor’s programme have remained
reasonably consistent:
2012
2013
678
2014
654
672
The MIMM programme has relatively low student numbers:
2012
2013
29
2014
30
34
39
Planning of education
Within the School of Business (LSB), responsibilities are clearly set out for the planning
of education; they are well understood and effective, and involve academic managers
and academic staff at a range of levels. The Dean is responsible for the strategic
management of the academic portfolio, for resources and for overall programme
and staff performance. Degree education in the faculty is led by the Head of Degree
Programme, who is responsible for pedagogy and approves programme learning
outcomes. The Head of Degree Programme is also responsible for monitoring
internal and external performance indicators. The Faculty Council approves faculty
curriculum and degree requirements. The responsibilities of different actors are clear
and are clearly understood; they work effectively to ensure coherent programmes
for students.
The Academic Director of a degree programme has responsibility for the quality of
the programme and heads the programme team, approving the learning outcomes for
individual courses. The programme team ensures that courses operate together as a
coherent whole for students. It was clear from the interviews during the audit that
teaching staff and students have a productive relationship and work in partnership in
contributing to the continuing development of the quality of courses and teaching,
and in the development of the curriculum. Both staff and students are part of a
shared quality culture.
Both first and second cycle programmes have defined learning outcomes which
relate to the Dublin descriptors as well as to the mission and strategy of the Business
School. The degree programmes in Business Administration have identified learning
goals and more detailed intended learning outcomes for both levels of award. It
was clear that students understand the academic expectations of the courses they
undertake and are supported to learn effectively. The programmes make full use of
the curriculum development cycle of LUT and it was clear that the programmes are
kept under active review as part of the on-going commitment to quality improvement
in LSB. The curriculum development work in the programmes was further supported
by a thorough analysis of the contents and learning methods used and it was evident
that the programmes were characterised by a beneficial variety and range of teaching
learning and assessment methods.
Both programmes have a fairly complex structure consisting of a number of elements,
such as programme specific general studies, language and communication studies,
specialisation studies, minor studies and elective studies. The structure and the
choices within the programmes were understood by students. Students are able
to plan their progress through personal study plans and to personalise their study
path through course choices. Flexibility and personalisation are further enabled
in the MIMM programme with the possibility of students including credits from
MOOCs (massive open online course) or from an international internship as part
of the award. This flexibility is an example of good and innovative practice, placing,
35
as it does, the individual interests, approaches to study and career aspirations of the
student before adherence to established course structures. Careful guidance in the
creation, review and modification of individual study plans is therefore important
and students were satisfied with support available to them in agreeing their route
through the programme.
Most degree programmes at LUT have some kind of a development committee or an
advisory board to provide a route for stakeholders to advise on the development of
programmes and the portfolio. The MIMM programme has a dedicated suite of advisory
committees. A corporate advisory board, made up of alumni and representatives of the
corporate world, supports development and evaluation from a corporate perspective,
while an academic advisory board, comprising internationally renowned professors,
takes an international perspective on evaluation and development. The open student
advisory board looks at the programme, its evaluation and development from the
perspective of the student or learner. Based on the interviews, this structure of advisory
committees makes a valuable contribution to the development of the curriculum and
is to be commended.
Implementation of education
The teaching methods in the programmes show a great variety; for example, real-life
case studies, practical exercises, consulting projects and oral examinations are often
used. Emphasis is on the know-how principle, which was confirmed by the students
who felt that the teaching methods prepared them for the working life and also helped
them to develop as learners. The real-life cases also have a guidance-function as they
help the students in choosing relevant minor studies to complement their degree.
Overall, the variety in the methods used supports the achievement of set learning
outcomes and helps to develop a wider range of skills, and thus enhances the quality
of the programme’s implementation.
Students are involved in both curriculum development work at the course level and
helped to shape the learning, teaching and assessment approaches used. The business
students’ organisation collects the course feedback. The feedback is analysed every
semester by the students and the results of the analysis are presented to the Head
of Degree Programme.
Development decisions are made effectively, based on the feedback results, and do
not rely only on an individual teacher; the feedback is discussed in the programme
and at faculty level, and is also monitored by the programme team. Where actions are
decided upon and implemented depends on the importance of the issue. If it affects
the programme outcomes, then the discussion is undertaken with the programme
director; smaller changes can be made by teaching staff which ensures a meaningful
handling of the feedback. Overall, effective use is made of this range of feedback
methods which are considered holistically.
36
The MIMM programme employs a number of specific quality management procedures
which are outlined in the Quality Manual. These include the peer assessment of
teachers (which involves both peer assessment and a summary for the Academic
Director) and the moderation of assessment (involving a minimum of 20% of
assignments), both of which were positively regarded by staff from the School.
The peer assessment method could also be used in other programmes at LUT as one
way of sharing good practice among teachers and encouraging the development of
reflective practice.
Internationalisation is a distinctive feature of the sample programmes in line with
the University strategy, and was much appreciated by the students met by the
audit team. As almost half the BSc students travel abroad during their studies and
as exchange study is an entry requirement for those who want to continue to the
MIMM Programme, support for the international experience is an important aspect
for enhancing students’ well-being in these particular programmes. The international
experience is discussed in annual information sessions, on the BSc introductory
course and during the personal study plan discussions, and can be included in the
plan. Studies abroad can be easily included in the degree. However, taking into
account the international aspirations of the University and of the department, the
BSc programme is encouraged to develop alternative ways for internationalisation
for those students who are not going abroad for foreign studies. This could include
taking advantage of the incoming Bachelor-level exchange students and of the
experience of the returning students.
Methods to enhance teacher competence are mainly LUT-wide. However, specific
to the international programme is that staff development is provided for teaching in
multicultural environments. This is a topic included within the pedagogical courses
and there are also short courses organised for teaching in multicultural environments.
The good practice in developing the international competences of the teachers could
be applied more systematically across LUT and could make use of the good experiences
of the staff members in the School of Business.
Effectiveness of quality work
Students’ feedback has a major influence on changes made to the programme and
to teaching practice. The feedback, especially the open feedback given in addition to
the numerical feedback, does influence the following year’s teaching performance,
which was confirmed by examples given by both students and teachers. Furthermore,
the programme level discussions can lead to concrete action; for example, if a certain
course repeatedly receives poor feedback, common measures are taken to develop the
course. In general in this programme, even when feedback is good, the staff are still
striving for excellence, which is a commendable example of a strong quality culture.
An example of this ambition is that the programme has set a higher target for student
satisfaction than the overall target of the University.
37
The MIMM programme uses benchmarking with similar programmes nationally
and internationally as a tool for development; this could also be further extended to
include process benchmarking.
6.2.2 Master’s programme in Industrial Engineering and
Management for Bachelor of Engineering (UAS) graduates
The planning and delivery of education in industrial engineering and management follows
well established and well understood quality procedures. Curricula are systematically
designed, evaluated and updated following an established cycle. The curriculum is designed
to develop subject-specific knowledge and skills, as well as wider transferable skills in order
to meet the needs of both continuing students and those entering from UAS. The relevance
of the curriculum content to the needs of industry and society, and the preparedness of
graduates for careers in industry, are ensured by the use of real industry set problems.
The quality management of the Master’s programme in Industrial Engineering and
Management is at an advanced stage.
The MSc in Industrial Engineering programme, 120 ECTS, is provided by the School
of Industrial Engineering and Management. The specific programme selected by
the audit team as its sample programme was the Master’s degree for graduates of
universities of applied science (UAS).
A Master’s programme with the same curriculum is offered for those students
progressing from the internal bachelor’s programme. The principal differences are
that students from UAS have to apply for entry to the programme and individual
study plans will be devised in the light of the prior studies of the entrants.
Student numbers in the programme are slightly decreasing during the last three years:
2012
2013
116
2014
108
105
Planning of education
Within the School of Industrial Engineering and Management, responsibilities in the
Quality Manual are in line with those set out in the main body of the manual so are
not separately detailed. However, particular fora are listed in terms of the planning
and management of degree education. These are an undergraduate education steering
group and the curriculum working group. The School also has an annual ‘development
day’ which may deal with current issues in connection with education.
In the School, the curriculum working group/curriculum committee is specific to
the degree programme in industrial engineering and management, and is seen by
the staff to be effectively overseeing the development of the programme. The audit
38
team concurred with this view. Its members are the Head of Study Affairs, the Head
of Degree Programme and those responsible for the major subjects studied within
the programme, as well as student representatives. It was evident in interviews that
these student representatives made a positive contribution to the curriculum work.
In common with the rest of the University, the faculty follows the curriculum planning
cycle set out in the Quality Manual, which is discussed in Chapter 6.1. More detail
of how this operates within the faculty was outlined in the self-assessment material.
Within the context of the overarching guidance provided by the Vice-Rector for
education, the faculty management team provides guidelines for curriculum design.
The curriculum is designed by the curriculum committee with final decisions taken
by the faculty council.
The programme has clearly defined learning outcomes. As a result of student
feedback, these are presented as a ‘house of learning’ (Figure 5) as this depicts the interrelationship between different elements in a way that students readily understand and,
as such is an example of good practice. In the model, the basic courses are depicted
as the steps of the house, three groups of skills and competences form the pillars and
a professional profile forms the roof.
M.Sc. in IEM
Boosting business processes
Internationalisation
Working life
skills
- Group working
- Working as superior
- Working as
supordinate
- Entrepreneurship
Sustainability
Business networks
Core competence
Communication
skills
- Recognizing improvement
needs
- Gathering, analysing and
utilizing information
- Planning, assessing and
choosing solutions
- Planning and managing
development projects
- Oral communication
- Written
communication and
reporting
- Language skills
- Undestanding of
different cultural
environments
General studies in industrial engineering and management
Understanding of technological processes
Computer science
Mathematics and natural sciences
Figure 5: the ‘house of learning’
39
The programme comprises general studies, major studies, a wide choice of minor studies
and optional studies. The combination of compulsory and optional studies enables
students to agree a personal study plan suited to their prior studies and future career
plans. It was evident that the students interviewed appreciated how the programme
met their individual needs, which was the result of a successful Personal Study Plan
process as well as a flexible programme structure.
One of the ways in which the programme maintains its relevance is through regular
meetings of its alumni advisory board; this close relationship was seen as an example
of good practice by the audit team. The advisory board has created contacts that are
used to enhance the relevance to working life of the programme, both through visiting
lecturers from companies and also by use of case-studies and project work. Students
particularly valued the opportunity to work on real problems set by companies which
they saw as contributing to their future employability. These good contacts with
industry could be further used in more structured careers guidance of the students,
which seemed at present to consist of small and individual activities rather than a
planned approach.
Implementation of education
The programme brings together engineering and management. These two disciplines
are integrated and inter-related in the programme, using group work assignments so
that the students coming from either background can work effectively together. The
interests of the students are taken into account in the implementation of the courses;
for example, students can have the freedom to focus more on either management
or on engineering side of project works, depending on their orientation and future
career aspirations.
The nature of the programme, both in terms of its intake and the professional areas
in which its graduates work, has encouraged the development of learner-centred
approaches to delivery and the adoption of a wide range of teaching, learning and
assessment methods, which benefit the development of transferable skills.
Case studies are used extensively in the courses, which is a relevant method for a
programme in this field. The case study method is used throughout the curriculum,
so that, as students advance in the programme, they also master the case method
more and more. In this way, the curriculum works also to support the students’
learning skills. The case study method allows for the strong and active participation
of the students in their learning and offers opportunities for meaningful inclusion
of company representatives, both in providing project topics and as guest lecturers.
The choice of assessment methods is up to the individual teacher, but the decisions
are not made in isolation; the assessment methods are discussed, especially within a
given major, but also in the programme’s curriculum committee. Assessment methods
are also written for the learning outcomes, which helps to get an overall picture of
40
the methods used in the programme. In practice, because the case study method is
the key teaching method, it is also reflected heavily in the assessment methods and
only a small portion of the courses rely solely on a formal examination.
As the programme is for UAS graduates, the beginning of studies differs to some
extent from those students that continue their studies directly from a Bachelor’s
degree at LUT and dedicated support is needed. Pre-enrolment support works well
in the programme. The interviews revealed that the students are happy with the
information and support given prior to the beginning of their studies. Dedicated
support included group meetings, tutoring and a Facebook group for this special
programme. Some teachers also try to mix the students with UAS backgrounds with
other LUT students. Thus, the UAS graduates are supported as they integrate into
LUT, but there is evidence from the interviews that support could be planned and
co-ordinated in a more systematic manner and expanded to cover the whole first
year of studies.
Effectiveness of quality work
The audit team found clear evidence of the effectiveness of the quality work conducted
in the programme. For instance, the annual curriculum development cycle produces
valuable updates to the curriculum and ensures continuous development of the
programme. Also, both the students and teachers could easily give examples where
the feedback gathered has had an impact. In some of the courses, direct feedback is
collected in discussions with students which, as it is a good practice, could be used more
widely to obtain more accurate and timely information from the students’ perspective.
The ASIIN accreditation that the programme has obtained and how it has used it to
develop the programme also provide evidence of the effectiveness of the quality work
in the programme, as the accreditation also assesses in detail how the planning and
delivery processes of the programme function in order to ensure that the students
achieve the intended learning outcomes.
The programme has obtained valuable insights from international benchmarking
with other similar programmes. This experience could be used to build a more
systematic and structured approach for using different kinds of benchmarking data
in the development of the programme.
In this programme, a strong organizational and quality culture is clearly evident; as
was mentioned during the interviews, quality is part of daily work.
6.2.3 Doctoral Programme in Electrical Energy Engineering
The Doctoral Programme in Electrical Energy Engineering is a well-established programme
and the opportunities for international experience are a particular strength. However, the
audit team was not convinced that quality management procedures are fully functional in
41
respect to student recruitment, the distinction between Masters and doctoral level studies,
on-going student supervision and supervisor training. Stakeholder groups are involved
in the provision of feedback, but it is not obvious that such feedback has been used in a
meaningful way.
The quality management of the Doctoral Programme in Electrical Energy Engineering is
at an emerging stage.
The Doctoral Programme in Electrical Energy Engineering (DPEEE) educates
researchers in electrical engineering and generates significant scientific knowledge
and new information on electro-technical products, systems and electricity market
(for example, for the needs of manufacturing industries, electric power companies and
other businesses in the field, as well as for research and education institutions). The
Programme is delivered in partnership with Aalto University School of Engineering,
Tampere University of Technology, the University of Vaasa and Technical Research
Centre of Finland and various Finnish industries. In addition, the programme is part
of the LUT Graduate School.
Planning of education
The intended learning outcomes for the DPEEE are as follows:
͘͘ The student is able to demonstrate in-depth insight into his/her field of study
and its societal relevance
͘͘ The student masters skills to apply scientific methods independently and critically
in his/her field of study and generate new scientific knowledge
͘͘ The student is able to analyse the development, fundamental problems and
research methodologies in his/her field of study
͘͘ The student demonstrates such a level of knowledge about the general theory of
science and about other relevant fields of study that enables him/her to follow
the development in these fields
͘͘ The student masters communication and management skills and project
management skills.
The curriculum is compiled by gathering suggestions from partner universities,
industrial partners, the DPEEE board and feedback from doctoral students. Within
this structure students are able to take courses from other universities. However, the
audit team was concerned that there was no clear understanding among teaching staff
and supervisors of the differences between Master’s and doctoral study, especially
in terms of expectations from the students. Similarly, students also seemed to be
unfamiliar with the differences between Master’s and doctoral study. Building
on the Bergen Communique and the Salzburg Declarations (2004), there are clear
European guidelines that help to define the differences between Master’s and doctoral
programmes. The audit team suggests that work is done to set out more clearly the
expectations of doctoral study and how these differ from Master’s programmes.
42
Implementation of education
When applying for a doctoral student position, doctoral candidates prepare a research
plan, an international mobility plan and a doctoral study plan, which together aim
at the completion of the doctoral studies and the doctoral dissertation in four years.
The University believes that this system has worked well, but has identified room
for development in the orientation of new doctoral students.
As well as developing academic researchers of high standard, the DPEEE aims to
prepare researchers for industry. Relevant skills are taught in doctoral courses and
seminars; entrepreneurial and international activities are a particular focus. Overall,
the DPEEE provides students with an academic and industrial network, guidance and
supervision in their research activities, financial resources, a working environment
and courses and seminars relevant for their research.
The audit team acknowledges that the programme produces many talented researchers,
both for academic life and for employment in industry. Moreover, it wishes to
commend highly the opportunities available for students to study abroad and to
present their work at international conferences, and the excellent opportunities to
work in partnership with business and industry
However, the team was concerned by the apparent variability in organisational rigour as
evidenced by discussions with both academic staff and students; the student experience
of the supervisory relationship and of the linked procedures was not consistent.
According to the self-assessment report, LUT considers the admission policies for doctoral
education as a University-wide development target. The reasons were clearly visible to
the audit team in the DPEEE programme: whilst the formal admissions requirements
(academic and/or professional) were clear, in practice there was a worrying dependence
on previous personal knowledge of many students. The audit team encourages the
University to make the recruitment process transparent and open in order to be able to
recruit students from a wider range of academic backgrounds. Many of the candidates
have studied elsewhere before coming to the programme and arrangements for induction
might be enhanced (as already acknowledged by the University).
As far as the day-to-day operation of the programme was concerned, it was clear
that there were variations in practice. Discussions revealed that formal supervisory
meetings were sometimes irregular, and that formal records of meetings, including
agreed outcomes, were not required. The team was aware that students and staff
regularly met in the laboratory or more casually around the department, but such
contact should not replace more formal student supervision. The team understands
that, in many cases, such forms of supervision can suffice. However, it is vital to have
systems in place that pick up the individual cases where such arrangements do not
suffice. Some students commented that, on occasion, there is too much freedom,
which can lead to delays in completing their studies.
43
From a quality perspective, the audit team advises that a stricter code of practice
for supervision of doctoral candidates be prepared, including inter alia criteria for
supervisor appointment, supervisor training (including periodic “refresher” courses
for experienced supervisors), arrangements for “first” and “second” supervisor
appointments, arrangements for changing supervisor in cases of difficulty, minimum
expectations for the frequency of formal supervisory meetings between supervisor(s)
and candidates, preparation of formal reports arising from such meetings and adoption
of regular progress reports. Moreover, it is important that such arrangements are
overseen and monitored, not only by the programme team, but also by another
authority within the University. In effect, the team believes that a set of minimum
standards or minimum expectations for doctoral study is required.
Effectiveness of quality work
Various indicators of quality are monitored by the University, including the number
of graduates, the number of journal papers and conference publications, in addition
to student feedback. Many of these indicators show positive movement in recent
years. The results of feedback are analysed by the programme coordinator and are
considered by the programme board. In this way different personnel groups, students
and external stakeholders can all contribute to the quality process. However, in
discussion it was not apparent where practice had changed as a result of such feedback.
The audit team therefore reaffirms its view that more effective procedures are needed
for the consideration of feedback and systematic action to enable a more pro-active
and forward-looking, rather than a reactive, quality culture.
In this context, the role of the University’s Graduate School may need to be defined
more closely. The value of the School as the sponsor of various training programmes
and as the promoter of further cross-disciplinary contacts between students was widely
recognised. However, further consideration should be given to the role of the School
within the quality system, especially in terms of quality assurance.
The DPEEE began life as a programme developed in partnership with other Finnish
universities. Although this arrangement has now ended, close links remain with the
former partners. The audit team welcomes such links and hopes that these contacts
can be maintained or enhanced further through joint courses and shared supervision.
In this way, students can benefit from access to the widest range of expertise and
facilities. At the same time, new partnerships are also emerging with international
universities and forging links of this kind has been a priority for the programme
staff, especially in the context of Horizon 20/20. The audit team strongly supports
such developments.
44
6.3 Research, development and innovation activities
Quality management of research is the responsibility of the Vice-Rector for research. Clear
objectives are set within the overall strategy of LUT. The quality system produces effective
information both at the system level and for individual projects. Key support services work
well in partnership with researchers. All stakeholders, both internal and external, are able
to participate actively in the development of research activities.
The quality management of research is at a developing stage.
6.3.1 The objectives for research, development and innovation activities
The University’s strategy until 2015 is intended to place the University as “an important
scientific actor and sought-after partner in its focus areas”. To this end, a number of
specific targets have been developed, including both input and output measures of
research activity. Some of these targets also form part of the University’s performance
agreement with the Ministry of Education and Culture.
The audit team noted that an earlier assessment of the quality of research, including
evaluations by international experts, had been significant in shaping current strategy,
including the identification of particular areas of strength. Moreover, the University’s
recent entry into the world’s top 300 universities, as calculated by Times Higher
Education, bears testimony to the success of this approach. The development of
targets and goals for research outputs and the use of external, international evaluation
are strongly commended; objectives are mostly linked to overall strategy. However,
whilst the University’s objectives were very clear, and were monitored closely, it
was much less apparent how such policies translated into practice for individual
researchers. In this context, the audit team identified some uncertainty about the role
and responsibilities of middle management in terms of monitoring performance at
the level of individual members of staff and of their role in identifying and resolving
under-performance.
A feature of the University’s research strategy is the identification of international
centres of excellence in research. Centres are selected by the Rector, on the nomination
of the Vice-Rector for research, and receive additional funding. The audit team was
aware of changes in the structure for research activity being implemented by the
University with over-arching interdisciplinary research themes. Within this new
structure it will still be necessary to implement a level of selectivity with respect to
particular activities and projects.
6.3.2 Functioning of the quality management procedures
It was apparent to the audit group that the University has made very significant
strides in the development of research in recent years. This achievement is first and
foremost the outcome of the efforts of researchers across the University. However,
45
it also reflects the investments made by the University in infrastructure. In recent
years, the balance between funding of teaching/learning and research has favoured
the latter; now, the University has chosen to shift the balance back towards teaching/
learning. It will be important to monitor the consequences of this decision, and to
communicate the changes effectively within the University.
The audit team noted that individual researchers were expected to prepare publication
plans for discussion with the head of their research group. In itself, this process is
to be commended. However, it was less clear how such plans were monitored and
what steps were taken to deal with any difficulties that arose in their implementation.
Since 2009, LUT has been developing a tenure track for researchers. The University
recognises that this process has proved to be demanding, mainly due to the constraints
of the existing human resource and funding structure. Clear regulations have now
been established to describe the detailed requirements for professors, research
directors, associate professors, post-doctoral researchers, university lecturers and
doctoral students. In terms of research administration and quality management, the
role of professors is crucial. As the new organisational structure develops, it will be
important for these roles to be acknowledged and supported through additional staff
development, particularly for early career researchers.
Further internationalisation is an important objective for the University, and is
crucial in enhancing the research profile of LUT. Open application procedures
have been developed to encourage international applications for professorships. In
addition, the University has introduced clear procedures to allow professors periods
of study leave, together with a scheme of staff travel grants and arrangements for
international staff exchanges. Overall, the audit team was highly impressed by the
internationalisation of research activity, and by the broad awareness among staff of
the opportunities available.
6.3.3 The information produced by the quality system
At the University level, the evaluation of research results and research projects is the
responsibility of the Vice-Rector for research. Information is collected by Performance
Guidance and Quality Management, and by Research and Innovation Services. Data
is collected in order to monitor the progress of staff on the tenure track; LUT has
also developed internal guidelines that include several research-related indicators and
that are applied to staff in addition to the national pay scales.
To measure the quality of the research project process, six indicators have been included
in LUT’s quality management system. The size of research projects and the amounts
and sources of funding are monitored systematically by Finance as well as Research
and Innovation Services. The information used in the follow-up is compiled into
a data warehouse and a research database. The audit team wishes to commend the
processes for the collection of management information for research and the use made
46
of such information in the development of overall University strategy. At the same
time, looking ahead, it will be important for such information to be disseminated
and used at all levels within the University.
6.3.4 Involvement of different parties in the quality work
The Vice-Rector for research is responsible for the University’s strategy for research,
development and innovation and thus for the strategic development of the University’s
research. Currently, Deans of Faculty, Heads of Department and of research units, and
professors leading research groups also exercise responsibilities for research administration.
However, the responsibilities below the Vice-Rector level are currently under consideration
as the University’s new organisational arrangements take shape. The University has
also founded a committee to support the Vice-Rector. This committee has produced an
action plan for research that complements the University strategy. The Quality Manual
describes the key procedures for research quality management. These arrangements
provide for the active involvement of staff, doctoral students and external stakeholders.
Most research projects have a steering committee that is responsible for the evaluation
and direction of the project. Feedback from stakeholders is utilised in the evaluation.
Most research, development and innovation is undertaken within research groups, based
in academic departments and headed by professors. A number of cross-disciplinary
research groups also exist, intended to create new interfaces both between researchers in
the University and with external partners. The audit team welcomed the commitment
to establishing multi-disciplinary research teams, but also identified significant
potential for further such developments. In order to compete effectively for external
funding, it is vital that the University is “quick on its feet”, able to react quickly and
flexibly to new opportunities as they arise. The audit team therefore welcomed ideas
for a new organisational structure that would place a particular emphasis on fostering
multi-disciplinary research activities. Such developments are to be encouraged. At
the same time, it will be necessary to put in place detailed arrangements for quality
assurance and enhancement down to the level of individual researchers. It will also
be important to ensure clarity of line management for individual members of staff
engaged in both teaching and research activity.
In recent years, the University has invested strongly in encouraging the process of
innovation and the commercialisation of research activity, including a cooperation
model for innovation with Russian partner universities. The audit team was impressed
by the commitment to innovation and the close links with other universities and
with industrial partners.
6.3.5 Support services key to research, development and innovation activities
The audit team was aware of the importance attached by the University to the
generation of external income. At present, LUT has not reached the target level
for competitive research funding (28%) agreed with the Ministry of Education
47
and Culture. In response, the University has taken action to increase funding; for
example, a specialist team has been created to support applications for EU funding.
The audit team supports the steps taken by the University; indeed, the level of such
investment is impressive compared with many much larger research universities. The
information available to researchers on funding opportunities, the level of support
during the process of applying for external funds (such as in financial costing) and
the availability of critical advice for researchers were all very strong; in particular,
the audit team commends the close working relationships between researchers and
research administrators that are apparent.
An essential quality management procedure for research support services is the
collection and utilisation of “customer” feedback. The system works well in practice;
for example, based on feedback, the University has strengthened its support for
research agreements.
The audit team noted that LUT had been awarded the 2013 HR Excellence quality
label as part of the HR Excellence for Researchers (HRS4R) project. This process
covers various aspects of human resource management relating to research. The
University should be rightly proud of this recognition.
48
6.4 Societal impact and regional development work
The work on societal impact and regional development at LUT is defined as societal
interaction. It consists of several different functions which lead to corresponding quality
management procedures. Most of these procedures work well to enhance the societal
interaction functions. Each of the different functions has its own objectives, which are
usually well integrated with the overall strategic ambitions of LUT. The usefulness of the
information produced by the quality system varies between the different functions, but the
information is used to develop the functions. Staff, students and, especially, the external
stakeholders have meaningful ways to participate in the quality work.
The quality management of societal impact and regional development work is at a
developing stage.
6.4.1 The objectives for societal impact and regional development work
In the Quality Manual, LUT refers to societal impact and regional development work
as societal interaction which it divides into seven processes:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
strategic public affairs and external communication
continuing professional education
open university education
alumni relations
promotion of environmental responsibility and other principles of sustainable
development
6. innovation and commercialisation of research results
7. projects, education and cultural activity that promote societal interaction
According to the self-assessment report, LUT’s strategic targets for societal interaction
are: the enhancement of the knowledge footprint of the University; operating in
dialogue with external stakeholders; and strengthening its role and quality management
procedures. In addition to these strategic ambitions, each of the seven processes have
their own quality targets set in the Quality Manual.
In the audit team’s view, quality targets which come from strategic ambitions are
mostly well linked to the mission set in the overall 2015 strategy of LUT.
6.4.2 The functioning of the quality management procedures
In the area of strategic public affairs and external communications, the quality of
actions is managed with a public affairs plan, together with a customer relations
management system. The plan is thorough and concrete, and serves as an important
tool at the University level. However, in the interviews, the plan did not surface as
a commonly known tool within other levels of the organisation and it was unclear
how it was used at the faculty level. The public affairs plan could have a more official
status and a stronger role across the organisation.
49
External stakeholders confirmed that the University collects a significant amount
of feedback from them and that the feedback has also had an effect, especially in the
advisory boards where external stakeholders take part; these are seen to be especially
beneficial for the institution.
The Open University functions as part of the undergraduate education process with
most courses the same as those offered in undergraduate education. Faculties are
responsible for course content. The quality and standard of Open University courses
is said to be equivalent to those of university courses taught at LUT. Thus, the quality
management of the education provided follows the quality management of degree
education in the University (discussed in Chapter 6.1).
Alumni relations is an area which LUT states has recently been developed actively
and this was confirmed by the interviews and the audit material. Media services is
responsible for coordination of activity. The communications director is responsible
for evaluation of alumni activity. However, actual quality management procedures
for the alumni work as a whole still seem to be somewhat fragmented and rely
mainly on feedback collection. The whole process could be approached more
systematically.
The University has developed a well-functioning PCDA cycle for the continuing
professional education function. The cycle works such that it ensures that the feedback
from previous education programmes is analysed and used in decision making and
planning before further sessions of the same programme are run. Further development
is encouraged.
LUT declares itself to be a green campus and the quality management for the promotion
of environmental responsibility and for other principles of sustainable development
is an important part of the University’s societal interaction. The green campus idea is
not only limited to the management and staff; the students also brought the concept
up in the interviews.
When it comes to commercialisation of research results, the quality management
procedures mainly consist of feedback collection and the follow-up of indicators. The
University has been successful in building close links with local small and medium-sized
enterprises and extensive interaction happens at an individual level. The University
could benefit from identifying existing good quality management practices in the
area and developing them to become University-wide practices.
6.4.3 The information produced by the quality system
LUT monitors closely its development in the area of strategic public affairs and
external communications. The main indicator used is the proportion of external
funding, which is also followed at the faculty and department levels; the interviews
confirmed that it is discussed between the management and the units. Also, according
50
to the audit material and the interviews, development of media coverage is important
for the University. However, it remained unclear what kind of action is taken based
on the results of media coverage.
For continuing professional education, the system produces relevant information.
Systematic feedback is gathered and analysed, project plans and budgets for projects
are made, and competitor analysis and feasibility assessments are carried out in
order to provide sound information for making decisions regarding upcoming
implementation and whether a programme will be implemented or rejected. Also, at
course level, the interviews revealed that there is close communication between the
teachers and the students. This spontaneous feedback system also leads, if needed,
to changes to courses during their implementation, if needed. According to the
interviewees, this was felt to have more impact than the statistical feedback which
comes from course surveys.
The quality management of the Open University relies on bringing together course
feedback from individual courses and following student numbers. This customer
feedback was said to be utilised in the planning of new courses, but, since most of
the courses are offered simultaneously as undergraduate study courses, it is not that
evident how this information is actually shaping the Open University process as a
whole. In the interviews with staff, the Open University had low visibility and LUT
could define the role of the Open University within its regional strategy more clearly.
Currently, the quality system does not seem to provide much useful information for
developing alumni relations. Alumni feedback is collected in four-year intervals and
in alumni advisory boards. This feedback is mostly used to develop the operations
of the University, which is good practice, but there was little evidence that it was be
used to develop the alumni activities in a systematic manner.
For the development of innovation and commercialisation of research results, the
most important information comes from the feedback collected from researchers and
companies involved in these activities. The system also produces a range of indicator
data for follow-up, but, as mentioned with other areas, it was not evident how this
data was used for future development.
Overall, in the area of societal interaction, there is significant quality management
activity, but the activities are not always approached systematically or strategically.
6.4.4 The involvement of different parties in the quality work
Industrial partners are involved in the development of the societal interaction in a
meaningful manner. The interviews confirmed that external stakeholders know how
to contact the University and how to express their views. They also feel that they can
have their say when needed and that their word is heard.
51
The staff at LUT are involved mostly in the development of the Open University
education and the commercialisation of research results. Based on the audit material
and the interviews, the students’ role in the quality management of societal interaction
relatively quite small. One good exception where the students are in a central role
is the Firmatiimi (firm team, enterprise team) project, where students go and visit
small and medium sized companies in the region and collect potential co-operation
models, ideas for theses and other suggestions for collaborative working. The students,
the University staff and the external stakeholders all saw this as a very good practice
which would benefit from being more widely adopted across the institution.
Overall, the societal interaction of LUT shows commitment to active involvement with,
and synergy between, industry, the region and the University, which is reflected back
in the commitment of the business and industry leaders to the University. However,
the audit team agrees with the desire expressed in the interviews that the University
could find further ways to make itself more accessible to the smallest of enterprises.
The support services for societal interaction processes are as varied as is the scope of
the societal interaction function. The quality management of the key support services
is commonly reliant on various feedback mechanisms, such as the annual customer
satisfaction survey of the support services, and seems to function in a satisfactory
way for the different parties involved.
52
7
Early undergraduate
study guidance
Early undergraduate study guidance for Bachelor’s and Master’s students is based on
established and well-functioning processes. The activities advance most of the strategic
objectives and the quality system produces relevant information that is utilised to enhance
study guidance. Students and teachers have a meaningful role in guidance and development
work although the role of teachers could be increased in supporting the students as learners.
Peer tutoring by advanced students is a clear strength. The role of external stakeholders,
however, is not so evident.
The quality management of early undergraduate study guidance is at a developing stage.
7.1 The objectives for early undergraduate study guidance
LUT has chosen early undergraduate study guidance as its optional audit target in
order to increase the efficiency and impact of study guidance in the early stages and to
ensure smooth progress of studies. Early undergraduate study guidance covers student
recruitment, applicant guidance and the first year of studies on both Bachelor’s and
Master’s level. Part of the overall study guidance objectives are to ensure the progress
of studies and a student’s individual development and to reach high employment rates
of graduates. As far as recruitment is concerned, the objective is to admit students
who are suited for LUT’s field of study. The objectives are aligned with the strategy
Together.
The success of early undergraduate study guidance is assessed through the number of
applications with LUT as a first choice, the number of students enrolled, the progress
of studies and the positive development of student satisfaction.
7.2 The functioning of the quality management procedures
The study guidance processes are established and examples show that development
relies mostly on enhancing individual processes and practices.
53
The student recruitment process functions well. The students interviewed found
information provided to applicants to be accurate and helpful. The main information
sources were the website, friends studying at LUT, home institutions and the admissions
office. Practices to ensure enrolment have been developed. A good example of
this is inviting accepted Computer Science applicants to Code Camp, an intensive
programming course in the summer, which increased the number of enrolled students
among those who participated in the camp.
A clear strength of early undergraduate study guidance is peer tutoring. Advanced
students, who act as peer tutors, support the newcomers in becoming members of
student community and help with practicalities, such as opening a bank account.
Peer tutors are provided with training for which they receive credits. The students
interviewed found that peer tutors are easy to contact and were satisfied with the
arrangement in place.
Other forms of guidance mentioned in the interviews include orientation weeks
and degree programme introduction courses. LUT has also invested in availability of
information on studies. Information is provided in the freshman guide sent with the
letter of acceptance, study guide and Uni portal. For international students, there are
lectures about studying in Finland, and in the local family programme, for example,
the students are invited to spend Christmas with a Finnish family.
Information on learning and planning of studies is available in the Quality guide for
studying and learning in LUT. The topics include the student’s role in the academic
community, motivation, time management and career planning. Also, descriptions
and instructions on sensory learning styles are included. However, this approach
is disputed among researchers and their inclusion in the guide should therefore be
reconsidered. It was also unclear how effectively the guide is utilised.
Preparing a personal study plan is a comprehensive practice throughout LUT, although
the guidance processes differ between degree programmes. In some programmes, the
personal study plan is prepared in the spring or in the second year to give students
more time to get acquainted with the opportunities available. To serve the objective
of students’ individual development more effectively, the personal study plan could
be developed into a personal development plan and careers guidance could be linked
with the process. Later in the studies, tutor teachers could have a role in discussing
the realisation of the plan.
The students were well aware of where to get support if they had problems related to
the planning and conduct of their studies. Study coordinators and student advisers
help to plan studies, and a study counselling psychologist helps with individual
problems. The students also felt that it was easy to contact the teachers on course
specific problems.
54
7.3 The information produced by the quality system
Student feedback surveys, especially the first-year student feedback survey, provide
information on the development needs of early undergraduate study guidance.
For example, the orientation days, peer tutoring and introduction courses have
been developed based on the feedback. Other quality management procedures,
such as accreditations and benchmarking, also apply. In Industrial Engineering and
Management, international benchmarking led to choosing the minor subject in the
second year of studies while it was previously selected in the first week of studies.
The progress of studies is monitored through credit accumulation. The follow-up data
is used to identify and contact students whose studies are delayed. However, usage in
study guidance, as LUT has noted, is not comprehensive and systematic. In the School
of Business, follow-up data is utilised by programme teams in curriculum work. The
interviewees noted that the usability of the follow-up data would be increased if it were
available on the level of major subjects. Currently, it is produced at programme level.
LUT is developing automated procedures for the production of follow-up data. The
University should consider whether the data could be further utilised; for example,
to identify bottleneck courses or groups of students whose needs are not met by the
current instruction and guidance practices.
Increasing the share of students completing 55 ECTS per year is one of the development
targets that was emphasised by the senior management and the target level is increased
in the new University strategy. Some measures, such as arranging the ECTS competition
for tutoring groups of first-year bachelor students, have been taken, but otherwise
there seemed to be no defined quality processes to support the action plans to achieve
the target. The audit team recommends defining the necessary development steps,
and while doing so, to pay attention to the development of study skills, flexible study
opportunities and good study facilities, as well as supporting students to find their
personal interests. It could be addressed for example with a University wide project.
Co-operating the student organisations is also advisable as study culture in a degree
programme can affect the progress of studies.
7.4 The involvement of different parties in the quality work
Teachers are involved through curriculum work and development courses. They play
an important role in supporting the students as learners and by integrating them into
the academic community. Information on course schedules helps students to plan their
work and diverse learning methods and practical exercises will develop study skills.
However, the teachers are not necessarily aware of their role in this process. Thus
the audit team recommends taking a more systematic approach to the development
of study skills, especially on the first year courses. The needs of Master’s students
coming from outside LUT should also be considered.
55
Degree programmes have teacher tutors whose task is to guide studies and career
planning. Also, one of the functions of teacher tutors mentioned in the interviews
is to act as a link to the degree programme as the first-year courses are mostly not
programme-specific. However, as LUT states in the self-assessment report, the role
of the teacher tutors is currently not well-known among students and staff and
that, therefore, their tasks are being developed. The audit team shares this view and
encourages to continue with the development.
Students act as peer tutors and are represented in working groups that deal with study
guidance and curriculum development. All students have multiple opportunities
to give feedback. The role of external stakeholders is less clear in the development
of early undergraduate study guidance. For example, in student recruitment, upper
secondary school study counsellors have provided feedback. Partner universities could
also serve as good sources of information.
7.5 Support services key to early undergraduate study guidance
Many support service units participate in early undergraduate study guidance. For
peer tutoring, there is a coordinating committee that supports the arrangements
and functions as a venue for information exchange and development. In student
recruitment, enhancing co-operation has been identified as a development target. The
study counselling psychologist has a central role in early undergraduate study guidance.
The main task is to provide individual counselling for undergraduate students who
struggle with their studies. Based on the student appointments, development targets
are compiled annually and presented to the steering and development committee
for education. As one example, the needs for guidance to academic staff on learning
disorders were identified this way; further advice and guidelines have also been presented
to staff in the afternoon coffee meetings on educational issues. The students were
also aware of these guidelines.
Accessibility to studies and the learning environment is important for all students,
and educational institutions are required to promote equality and take necessary
actions to enhance accessibility. Although LUT has a plan on equality that also
addresses access, the interviewees seemed to be unaware of students with special
needs and disabilities. It is also difficult to find information on mobility access on the
LUT website or in the Uni portal. The audit team recommends that LUT identifies
and develops action plans for what kinds of support these students need, both at the
admissions stage and during their studies. The University should also recognise the
particular needs of, and provide support for, students who begin their studies in the
middle of the academic year.
56
8
The quality system as a whole
The approach to quality management at LUT functions effectively as a quality system and
relates well to the University’s strategic goals and operational needs. The quality system
covers the main processes connected with the University’s duties in providing degree
education, in conducting research, development and innovation activities, and in societal
impact and regional development. The system supports the University in progressing
and developing its operations, and in achieving the goals and objectives and most of the
targets it has set. There is good evidence that the system has had an impact on operations;
a number of processes are very well understood and utilised, some less well so. LUT has
a clear commitment to quality improvement and to the operation of a well-functioning
quality system which has a strong performance related element.
The quality system as a whole is at the developing stage.
8.1 Present strategic context
In Together, the Lappeenranta University of Technology strategy to 2015, an ambitious
set of strategic goals is identified. The University claims to ‘create solutions and produce
problem solvers’ to help address contemporary ecological and energy challenges. This
strategy built on the previous strategy for 2013 and notes that LUT had progressed
faster than expected in meeting earlier strategic targets, and thus had sought to set
itself new challenges, building on its established values and strengths, especially in
linking technology and business. Together sets out a vision for 2015 of LUT as ‘an
agile, international university combining technology with business’, representing
‘the top European level’ in ‘its key areas of expertise’.
The strategy sets out a series of qualitative goals supported by a number of quantitative
objectives. These cover inter alia research (numbers of refereed outputs at an
international level), degree education (numbers of Doctoral, Master’s and Bachelor’s
graduates) and internationalisation (number of students participating in international
student exchanges, and number of international degree students).
57
LUT’s entry into the Times Higher Education World Rankings 2014 within the top 300
is testament to the extent to which the University has succeeded in its aims to recruit
talented research staff, to build high-level research groups, and to publish and present
the outcomes of its research in internationally recognised journals and conferences.
There is a strong performance management culture at LUT, with performance linked
closely to pay and rewards.
At the time of the audit visit, the University was in the process of developing its new
strategy to 2020. The approach to the development of the new strategy was inclusive,
involving workshops and development sessions from staff across the University as
well as external stakeholders.
8.2 Overview of the quality system
The quality system that supports Together, the current strategy, and the duties of
the University in delivering degree education, research and innovation and societal
impact is well established and functional. The quality system is well documented,
has clearly identified responsibilities and covers the major functions pertaining
to the quality management of education, research and societal impact. Staff are
familiar with the quality system and have found the availability of the Quality
Manual on the University’s intranet especially helpful in ensuring awareness
of quality processes and in making them readily accessible to all. The view of
University staff on the quality system was that it was effective and useful; at the
same time they recognised that further development was needed. A number of
areas for development were identified in the self-assessment and the audit team
would broadly agree with the University’s identification of issues, which confirms
its ability to self-evaluate.
The quality system is clear in its outline of responsibilities and has an appropriate
combination of consistency and flexibility. It is able to accommodate variations; for
example in the ways in which faculties operate and in local operating structures and
actors.
Quality processes and the quality system were found to be effective in ensuring the
basic functioning of core processes and a common understanding of them, whilst not
being inflexible by requiring consistency of practice in all areas. The quality system
was seen to be helping the University make progress towards meeting a number of its
own quantitative targets and those set by the Ministry of Education, but played less of
a role in helping the University to achieve other targets and aspirations. The quality
system works effectively within organisational units and for specific organisational
functions (such as curriculum planning). It describes and documents these functions
and processes effectively. However, the quality system is less effective in supporting
development, planning and strategic change i.e. it has a limited forward focus. It is
important that this is addressed if the revised quality system is to support the LUT’s
new strategy to 2020. The quality system is also less effective in supporting aspects
58
of cross-institutional change and widespread or whole-institution changes in, for
example, approaches to supporting learning. Examples discussed have been highlighted
in the relevant sections above.
The audit visit revealed a clear commitment to quality and a broad culture of continuous
improvement across the University. This was particularly evident in connection with
performance review and performance indicators linked to pay and progression which
have a strong influence on staff behaviour.
At the time of the audit visit, the University was part way through a wide-ranging
restructure of both academic units and support functions. There will, therefore, at
minimum, be a need to review the Quality Manual to re-map the allocation of duties
and responsibilities to the new structures and roles. It will be important that this is
done in a timely way and that changes in responsibilities are clearly communicated, in
order to ensure that revised responsibilities are understood, and that all functions or
processes continue to be operated effectively during and after the change process. It
will be important for the achievement of the strategic goals that a new quality system
matches not only the new structures but also the ambitions of the new strategy. The
University should be willing to re-think its approach to quality management in the
light of its new strategic goals and to match their ambition. It was not clear at the
time of the audit visit whether LUT was intending to use a reconceived approach to
its quality system to help lead and create the changes it planned or intending simply
to describe and document changes through an updated, but largely unchanged,
approach to quality.
8.3 Quality system: degree education
The quality processes that underpin the University’s provision of degree education are
well established and clearly set out. Staff across the University are familiar with them
and find them useful in supporting the design of the curriculum and for curriculum
changes. Whilst quality processes are clearly described they are not inflexible; thus,
there are variations in approaches and practices at departmental or programme level.
For example: one Faculty has a target of 3.5 against the LUT norm of 3.0 for student
satisfaction scores; there are different groupings to support degree education in the
different faculties; and the faculties have differing approaches to alumni and industrial
advisory boards.
Within the faculties, a range of practices and structures are in place to support academic
development and the development of academic practice. However, it was not clear
how the quality system routinely identifies which practices are particularly effective
or beneficial and encourages their wider adoption, especially at a whole-institution
level. The Vice-Rector (education) plays a vital role in promoting and developing
effective practices in teaching and learning, and some informal mechanisms outwith
quality procedures have been used encourage the development of academic practice
(for example, the afternoon coffee meetings on educational issues). This informal
59
mechanism was the principal means identified by staff for sharing examples of good
practice or debating current pedagogic matters. The seminars were valued by staff
met by the audit team and can support the dissemination of good practice, but do
not ensure ‘step change’ in practice or whole-institution change. They are also likely
largely to involve those “enthusiasts” more ready to adopt change.
The quality of education is assured through processes designed to test and evaluate the
study being undertaken, to monitor progress and to obtain feedback from students,
and through the evaluation of statistical indicators, including grade distribution.
The quality system is process-focused so it plays only a partial role in supporting
academic staff to become effective university teachers and students to develop as
learners within their disciplines. The principal means within the quality system to
ensure the quality of delivery is student feedback. This is collected systematically;
it is used as a performance indicator and has a significant role in staff performance
review. However, some students did not consider it worked well and it was reported
that response rates are often low and are variable. Desired staff behaviour is encouraged
by pay and reward systems rather than, for example, by introducing systematic
requirements for the new and established staff involved with teaching (or research
supervision). The Teacher’s Quality Manual provides a useful outline of learnercentred approaches and the principles of constructive alignment to learning and
teaching, but is not regularly updated. The version current in October 2014 is dated
2009, and is set in the context of the 2013 strategy and the educational technologies
then being used.
The quality system is not designed to support all the strategic goals linked to degree
education. Thus there is no process within the Quality Manual outlined to address
how the University is seeking to raise the proportion of students achieving a minimum
of 55 ECTS per academic session. This is an area where LUT still has progress to be
made to meet the Ministry target. Action is nevertheless being taken at departmental
or programme levels. Similarly, the present quality system is not designed directly
to support the achievement of strategic goals such as that of increasing the number
of individual programmes with international accreditation – although faculties and
programmes are active in seeking accreditation.
The quality system makes use of performance indicators and quantitative targets to
effect and affect change. It is less clear how some of the aspirations in the Together
strategy are supported by quality processes or through performance indicators/targets.
For example, quality processes clearly support the ‘continuous development of degree
programmes’, but are less evident in supporting ‘interdisciplinary cooperation in
education,’ the provision of opportunities for students from ‘diverse backgrounds’
or ‘the application of innovative teaching methods’. The University’s approach to
extending its provision to students from diverse backgrounds was narrowly interpreted
and underdeveloped.
60
8.4 Quality system: research and doctoral education
The quality system for the development of scientific research, for the operation of
LUT’s research units and for doctoral education are all clearly set out in the Quality
Manual. The inter-relationships between recruitment and career development are
well established and effective in attracting, developing and retaining high performing
research active staff. Whilst the University is attracting suitably qualified doctoral
candidates, it should be more transparent in its approach to applicants for doctoral
study. There is a clear tenure track for researchers strongly based on performance
measures.
The system to encourage and support the production of high quality research output
is detailed in the Quality Manual. This involves the interaction of performance and
development processes with those for reward and recognition as well as those to
approve research projects/proposals and to support them academically (e.g. steering
groups), organisationally (research institutes) and administratively (through Research
and Innovation Services). The quality processes that support the production of
research and the development of staff as researchers are effective; clear objectives
are set and the system produces useful information. Particularly strong emphasis
is placed on pay and reward, and this ensures a close connection between strategic
goals and individual staff priorities. Support services and functions support research
activity and researchers well.
Postgraduate (doctoral) education is supported by clearly set out processes for the
selection, acceptance and supervision of doctoral students. However, some of these
lacked transparency or were informal and variable. There are clear stages through which
doctoral candidates must progress and targets for progress and completion. Doctoral
education is seen as the first step of the tenure track towards full professorships and
is effective in developing and retaining early career researchers. The support and
development of research supervisors is less well developed and there is no consistent
process; for example mandatory initial supervisor training or requirements for periodic
refresher training. Custom and practice, more than the defined quality processes, have
established the approach to the identification and allocation of research supervisors,
which is broadly consistent, although there is variability.
8.5 Quality system: societal interaction
The overall aim of LUT’s societal interaction is to increase its ‘knowledge footprint’.
The Quality Manual outlines processes and targets around a diverse set of activities.
These include interactions with stakeholders, the provision of open education and
continuing professional education, alumni relations, work around innovation and
the commercialisation of research, the environmental impact and sustainability of
the University’s campus, and cultural activity. For each area of activity, the Quality
Manual lists the relevant quality indicators, the main players and how the activity
is evaluated. A societal interaction steering group has oversight of the full range of
61
activity and is responsible for overall evaluation and development societal interaction.
In line with its general approach, the University has developed pay-related incentives
to support its strategic aims.
The University has been particularly effective in establishing good relations with key
stakeholders locally, regionally and further afield. It has well established relationships
with business and industry linked to innovation and the commercialisation of research;
many of these contacts also feed into the curriculum of taught programmes enabling
students to explore real problems as part, for example, of their dissertations. The
University’s incentive system undoubtedly encourages the development of external
relationships; however, the relationships between the University, business, industry
and many other stakeholders were deeper and more established than those prompted
by direct incentives. External interaction and societal relevance inform an outwardlooking culture within the University which also shapes the nature of its curricula.
Societal interaction embraces a wide range of activity. In a number of areas, there is
good practice, but, in others, the approach is less systematic or less well developed.
8.6 Conclusions on the quality system
The quality system serves the institution well in ensuring the close connection between
strategic goals and action in practice. It is clearly and comprehensively documented
and readily accessible to all those involved.
62
9
Conclusions
9.1 Strengths and good practices of the quality system
Strengths:
͘͘ The commitment of staff at all levels to the continuous improvement of their
teaching and to high quality research output encouraged by a link to the pay and
reward system.
͘͘ The comprehensively documented quality system, which has clearly identified
responsibilities and covers the major functions pertaining to the quality
management of education, research and societal impact.
͘͘ The University’s new intranet provides a comprehensive, unitary source of
information on the operation of the quality system; staff are familiar with
the quality system and have found the intranet especially helpful in ensuring
awareness of quality processes and in making them readily accessible to the
whole University community.
͘͘ Commitment to active involvement with and synergy between industry, the
region and the University, which is reflected back in the commitment of the
business and industry leaders to the University.
͘͘ The internationalisation of research activity and the broad awareness among staff of
the available international opportunities, and good support for internationalisation
in postgraduate education.
͘͘ The inclusive, interactive and iterative approach to the development of the new
University strategy that involves staff, students and stakeholders.
͘͘ The curriculum cycle is well-established; it is clear that staff are familiar with
the cycle and its stages, and that the cycle is well used.
͘͘ The close working relationships between researchers and research administrators.
͘͘ In the samples of BSc and MSc programmes, the variety in teaching methods
supports the achievement of set learning outcomes, helps to develop a wider
range of skills and thus enhances the quality of the programme’s implementation.
͘͘ Well-functioning procedures to develop the quality system, which are reflected
in the systematic development work carried out after the previous audit.
63
Good practices:
͘͘ The Board makes formal decisions about development issues and has a logbook
for monitoring the progress of measures.
͘͘ Peer assessment of teachers and the moderation of assessment procedures in
the MIMM programme which could be used also in other degree programmes.
͘͘ The University’s use of the PCDA cycle for the continuing professional education
function, which includes a systematic creation of a project plan, budget and
competitor analysis, in order to provide sound information for decision making.
͘͘ The Firmatiimi (firm team, enterprise team) project, where students go and visit
small and medium sized companies in the region and collect potential cooperation
models, ideas for theses and other forms of collaboration.
͘͘ Inviting accepted Computer Science applicants to Code Camp, an intensive
programming course in summer.
͘͘ The advisory boards provide a meaningful form for the participation of external
stakeholders, including alumni, who are very positive about their ability to
influence education and feel that their views are valued, and help to maintain
the relevance of the curriculum.
͘͘ Peer tutoring in early undergraduate study guidance.
͘͘ The well-known afternoon coffee meetings on educational issues organised once
a month, which provide a venue for discussing current pedagogical issues, sharing
practices and meeting people across the University.
͘͘ The case-method used throughout the Master’s programme in Industrial
Engineering and Management for Bachelor of Engineering (UAS) graduates which
allows for the strong and active participation of the students in their learning
and offers opportunities for meaningful inclusion of company representatives,
both in providing project topics and as guest lecturers.
͘͘ The inclusion of students in the analysis of course feedback including, in some
of the courses, the collection of direct feedback from discussions with students,
in addition to formal feedback systems.
9.2 Recommendations
͘͘ The University should reflect further on how to achieve whole institutional change
and widespread ownership of planned changes; and what would be required of its
quality system in the future in order for it to achieve the ambitions in its new strategy.
͘͘ The University should consider how the quality system could better enable the
University systematically to identify examples of good and innovative practice
and to disseminate and embed them across the institution.
͘͘ The audit team advises that a stricter code of practice for supervision of doctoral
candidates be developed and that a set of minimum standards or minimum
expectations for doctoral study be prepared.
͘͘ The audit team encourages the University to make the recruitment process of
doctoral students transparent and open in order to be able to recruit students
from a wider range of academic backgrounds.
64
͘͘ Further consideration should be given to the role of the Graduate School within
the quality system, especially in terms of quality management in the oversight
of the quality of postgraduate education.
͘͘ The audit team recommends LUT to adopt a more systematic approach to the
development of pedagogic competences of experienced as well as new teaching
staff, paying attention also to how good practice is spread across the institution.
͘͘ The audit team recommends the management carefully to consider what kind
of detailed strategic development plans are actually needed and how they could
be made more communicative for the University community.
͘͘ The University should consider making full use of the reporting features of the
new intranet to improve business intelligence reporting. Specifically, the audit
team recommends that the University combines the data produced for strategic
and operations management to produce, for example, dashboards.
͘͘ The audit team recommends defining the necessary quality processes to reach
the target set for the share of students completing 55 ECTS credits per year, and
while doing so, to pay attention to the development of study skills, flexible study
opportunities and good study facilities, as well as supporting students in finding
their personal interests.
͘͘ Considering the importance of feedback and its place within performance
management and reward, it is recommended that the University takes action to
ensure higher participation rates in the end of course questionnaires in order to
provide a robust evidence base for the actions taken.
͘͘ The University should further develop its approach and provision of careers
education, information and guidance.
͘͘ LUT should identify and develop action plans for what kinds of support students
with special needs and disabilities need, both at the admissions stage and during
their studies.
͘͘ LUT could consider introducing a follow-up procedure for the internal audits in
order to improve their effectiveness.
͘͘ The University is encouraged to extend and develop its approach to and definition
of internationalisation in the context of teaching and learning. This should also
be understood more widely than the switching of language or mixing of students,
and should be supported accordingly.
9.3 The audit team’s overall assessment
The quality system of Lappeenranta University of Technology fulfils the FINEEC
criteria for the quality system as a whole and for the quality management as it relates
to basic duties. None of the audit targets are at the level of absent, and the quality
system as a whole (audit target 6) is at the developing level.
The audit team proposes to FINEEC Higher Education Evaluation Committee that
Lappeenranta University of Technology passes the audit.
65
10
Higher Education Evaluation
Committee’s decision
In its meeting on 9 April 2015, the Higher Education Evaluation Committee of the
Finnish Education Evaluation Centre decided, based on the proposal and report of the
audit team, that the quality system of Lappeenranta University of Technology meets
the FINEEC criteria for quality systems as a whole and the quality management as it
pertains to the higher education institution’s basic duties. Lappeenranta University
of Technology has been awarded a quality label that is valid for six years beginning
on 9 April 2015.
66
67
1. The quality policy of the
higher education institution
TARGETS
• suitable communication.
• documentation of the system
and the information it
produces or
• knowledge and commitment
of those responsible
• definition of the system’s
objectives and responsibilities
The quality system shows a
complete absence of or major
shortcomings in the:
ABSENT
Appendix 1:
Table of the audit targets and criteria
The quality system and the
information it produces is
documented in a clear and
appropriate manner. For the
most part, the information
needs of the HEI’s personnel
groups, students and external
stakeholders are taken into
account in the documentation.
The information produced by
the system is communicated
in a systematic and targeted
manner within the institution
and to external stakeholders.
The HEI has systematic and
wellestablished procedures
for documenting the quality
system and the information
it produces so that the
documentation satisfies the
information needs of various
parties. The institution has
excellent and wellestablished
procedures for communicating
information to different
personnel groups, students
and external stakeholders.
Communication is active and
up-to date.
The objectives of the
quality system are defined
in a very clear and inclusive
manner. The objectives and
division of responsibility
provide excellent support
for the development of the
institution’s operations.
There is clear and continuous
evidence of the skill level
and commitment of those
responsible for the operations.
The quality system and the
information it produces are
inadequately documented.
The information needs
of the HEI’s personnel
groups, students or external
stakeholders are not
adequately addressed in the
documentation. Information
produced by the system is not
systematically communicated
within the institution or to
external stakeholders.
ADVANCED
DEVELOPING
The quality system’s objectives
and responsibilities are clearly
defined. The goalsetting
process is an inclusive one.
The division of responsibility
functions well. The key people
responsible for the operations
are committed to their duties
and have sufficient skills to
undertake them.
EMERGING
The quality system’s objectives
and responsibilities have not
been clearly defined. The
division of responsibility
works only partially, and those
responsible for the operations
exhibit widely differing skill
levels and commitment to
their duties.
CRITERIA
68
2. Strategic and operations
management
TARGETS
• commitment to quality work
of managers involved in
operations management.
• ability to meet the needs
of strategic and operations
management or
• links to strategic planning,
management and operations
management
The quality system shows a
complete absence of or major
shortcomings in the:
ABSENT
The system does not serve as
a meaningful management
tool at all organisational levels,
and managers involved in
operations management show
a lack of commitment to joint
quality work.
The quality system is not
sufficiently well linked to
the HEI’s strategic planning,
management and operations
management. The system and
the information it produces do
not serve the needs of strategic
and operations management
in an appropriate manner.
EMERGING
In terms of management,
the system works at different
organisational levels, and
the managers involved in
operations management are
committed to joint quality
work.
The quality system is
quite well linked to the
HEI’s strategic planning,
management and operations
management. The system and
the information it produces
serve strategic and operations
management, and there is
evidence that the information
is put to use.
DEVELOPING
CRITERIA
In terms of management,
the quality system works in
an excellent manner at all
organisational levels, and
there is clear and continuous
evidence that managers
involved in operations
management are committed
to joint quality work.
Quality management
is a natural part of the
HEI’s strategic planning,
management and operations
management. The institution
has systematic, wellestablished and excellent
procedures that produce
information for strategic
and operations management
needs, and there is clear
and continuous evidence
that information is put to
systematic and wide use.
ADVANCED
69
Followup section for the HEIs subject to the
second FINHEEC audit:
3. Development of the quality system
TARGETS
The development of the
quality system after the first
audit has not been systematic
or effective.
The HEI shows a complete
absence of or major
shortcomings in:
• the development work
following the first audit.
• overall view of the
functioning of the quality
system.
• procedures for evaluating
or developing the quality
system or
The development of the
quality system after the first
audit has been systematic.
The system works better than
before.
The HEI has wellfunctioning
procedures for evaluating
and developing the quality
system. It is able to identify
the system’s strengths and
areas in need of development,
and system development is
systematic.
DEVELOPING
CRITERIA
The HEI has inadequate
procedures for evaluating and
developing the quality system.
It has a weak overall view of
the functioning of the quality
system. System development
is not systematic.
EMERGING
The HEI shows a complete
absence of or major
shortcomings in the:
ABSENT
After the first audit, the HEI
has systematically improved
the functionality and fitness
for purpose of the quality
system. Special attention has
been given to the workload
produced by the system. The
system has been developed in
a very successful and effective
manner.
The HEI has wellestablished
and systematic procedures for
evaluating and developing the
system. It is able to efficiently
identify the system’s
strengths and areas in need
of development, as well as
to evaluate the effectiveness
of the system. There is clear
and continuous evidence
of the system’s successful
development work.
ADVANCED
70
4d) Optional audit target
4c) Societal impact and regional
development work (incl.
social responsibility,
continuing education,
open university and open
university of applied
sciences education, as well as
paidservices education)
4b) Research, development and
innovation activities, as well
as artistic activities
4a) Degree education
4. Quality management of the
higher education institution’s basic duties
TARGETS
• quality management of
support services that are key to
the operations.
• participation of the
institution’s personnel
groups, students or
external stakeholders in the
development of the operations
or
• links between goals set for the
activities and the HEI’s overall
strategy
• quality management
procedures used to achieve the
goals set for the operations
The quality system shows a
complete absence of or major
shortcomings in the:
ABSENT
The quality management of
key support services is not
functional.
The personnel groups, students
and external stakeholders are
not involved in the development
of the operations in a
meaningful manner.
The quality system provides
insufficient information for
the quality management of the
operations, and information use
is sporadic and/or information
collection is an end in itself.
The quality management of
key support services functions
relatively well.
Personnel groups and students
are involved in the development
of the operations in a
meaningful manner. External
stakeholders also participate in
the development work.
The quality system produces
relevant information for the
quality management of the
operations, and the information
is used to develop the HEI’s
operations in a meaningful
manner.
Functional quality management
procedures advance the
development of the operations
and the achievement of goals
set for the operations. The
objectives are mostly linked to
the overall strategy of the HEI.
DEVELOPING
CRITERIA
The quality management
procedures are not fully
functional and do not support
the achievement of goals set for
the operations in a meaningful
manner. The goals are not
linked to the HEI’s overall
strategy.
EMERGING
The fulfilment of the following criteria is reviewed separately for each basic duty and optional audit target:
The HEI has systematic and
wellestablished procedures for
the quality management of key
support services. There is clear
and continuous evidence that the
procedures function well.
Personnel groups and students
are committed and very actively
involved in developing the
operations. Special attention
has been given to the workload
generated by the quality
management procedures.
External stakeholders are
involved in the development
work in a meaningful manner.
The HEI has systematic and
excellent procedures used to
produce information for the
quality management of the
operations. Information is used
systematically, and there is clear
and continuous evidence to
show that it is successfully used
to develop the operations.
The HEI has systematic
and wellestablished quality
management procedures
that provide excellent
support for the development
of the operations and the
implementation of the
institution’s overall strategy.
There is clear and continuous
evidence of the system’s
effectiveness in achieving the
goals set for the operations.
ADVANCED
71
• Suitability of key evaluation methods
and followup indicators and their im­
pact on the achievement of goals.
Effectiveness of quality work
• Participation of different personnel
groups, students and external stakehold­
ers.
• Teachers’ competence and occupational
wellbeing
• Students’ learning and wellbeing
• Methods used to assess learning
• Teaching methods and learning envi­
ronments
Implementation of education
• Participation of different personnel
groups, students and external stakehold­
ers.
• Relevance of degrees to working life
• Lifelong learning
• Links between research, development
and innovation activities, as well as
artistic activities, and education
• Intended learning outcomes and their
definition
• Curricula and their preparation
Planning of education
5. Samples of degree education: degree
programmes
TARGETS
• effectiveness of the quality
work.
• participation of the
institution’s personnel
groups, students or
external stakeholders in
the development of the
operations or
• quality management
procedures related to the
implementation of education
• quality management
procedures related to the
planning of education
The quality system shows a
complete absence of or major
shortcomings in the:
ABSENT
There is little evidence of the
effectiveness of the quality
work.
The personnel groups,
students and external
stakeholders are not involved
in developing the operations
in a meaningful manner.
The quality management
procedures related to the
implementation of education
are not fully functional and do
not support implementation
in a meaningful manner.
There is clear evidence of the
effectiveness of the quality
work.
Personnel groups and students
are involved in developing the
operations in a meaningful
manner. External stakeholders
also participate in the
development work.
The quality management
procedures related to the
implementation of education
enhance the quality of the
implementation and support
implementation itself.
The quality management
procedures related to the
planning of education enhance
the quality of planning and
support planning itself.
DEVELOPING
CRITERIA
The quality management
procedures related to the
planning of education are
not fully functional and do
not support the planning of
education in a meaningful
manner.
EMERGING
The fulfilment of the following criteria is reviewed separately for each degree programme:
There is clear and continuous
evidence of the effectiveness
of the quality work.
Personnel groups and
students are committed
and very actively involved
in the development of
the operations. External
stakeholders are also involved
in the development work in a
meaningful manner.
The quality management
procedures related to
the implementation of
education are systematic
and wellestablished and
provide excellent support for
implementation.
The quality management
procedures related to the
planning of education are
systematic and wellestablished
and provide excellent support
for planning.
ADVANCED
72
6. The quality system as a whole
TARGETS
There is no evidence of the
procedures’ impact on
the development of the
operations.
The HEI has only individual
and unrelated quality
management procedures
that do not form a structured
system.
ABSENT
The institution’s quality
culture is only just emerging.
The quality system
encompasses some of the
HEI’s basic duties but does
not provide meaningful
support for the development
of the operations. There is
little evidence of the system’s
impact on the development of
the operations.
The quality management
procedures do not form a
functioning and unified
system.
EMERGING
The well-established quality
culture provides excellent
support for the development
of the operations.
The quality system covers all
of the basic duties of the HEI
and provides excellent support
for the institution’s overall
strategy and the development
of the entire institution’s
operations. There is clear and
continuous evidence that
the system has an impact
on the development of the
operations.
The quality system covers
the essential parts of the
basic duties of the HEI and
provides meaningful support
for the development of the
operations. There is evidence
that the system has an impact
on the development of the
operations.
The development of the
operations is based on an
existing quality culture.
The quality management
procedures form a dynamic
and comprehensive system.
ADVANCED
The quality management
procedures constitute a
functioning system.
DEVELOPING
CRITERIA
Appendix 2: The stages and timetable of the audit process
Agreement negotiations between Lappeenranta
University of Technology and FINHEEC
14 January 2014
Appointment of the audit team
28 April 2014
The audit materials and self-evaluation report
submitted to FINEEC
29 August 2014
An information and discussion event at Lappeenranta
University of Technology
30 October 2014
Audit visit
25–27 November 2014
Audit decision
9 April 2015
Concluding seminar
20 April 2015
73
Appendix 3: Programme of the audit visit
Tuesday 25 November
9.00–9.50
Top management
10.00–10.30
University Board
10.40–11.30
Deans and Heads of Department
11.40–12.30
Theme: Quality management
14.00–14.50
Teaching staff
15.00–15.50
Students
16.00–16.50
External stakeholders
Wednesday 26 November
9.00–9.50
Theme: pedagogic development
10.00–10.50
BSc and MSc programmes in Business Administration: students
11.00–11.50
BSc and MSc programmes in Business Administration: staff
13.00–13.50
MSc programme in Industrial Engineering and Management for Bachelor of
Engineering (UAS) graduates: students
14.00–14.50
MSc programme in Industrial Engineering and Management for Bachelor of
Engineering (UAS) graduates: staff
15.00–15.50
Theme: early undergraduate study guidance
Thursday 27 November
9.00–9.50
Theme: ongoing organisational change
10.00–10.50
Doctoral Programme in Electrical Energy Engineering: students
11.00–11.50
Doctoral Programme in Electrical Energy Engineering: staff
13.00–13.50
Theme: research
16.00–16.30
Preliminary feedback to the top management
74
The Finnish Education Evaluation
Centre (FINEEC) is an independent,
national evaluation agency responsible
for the external evaluations of
education from early childhood
education to higher education in
Finland. It implements system and
thematic evaluations, learning
outcome evaluations and field-specific
evaluations. Moreover, FINEEC
supports providers of education and
training and higher education
institutions in matters related to
evaluation and quality assurance, as
well as advances the evaluation of
education.
Audits of the quality systems of higher education
institutions have been implemented in Finland
in accordance with the principle of enhancementled evaluation since 2005. The objective of
the audits has been to support Finnish
institutions in developing quality systems that
correspond to the European principles of quality
assurance and to demonstrate that functional
and consistent quality assurance procedures
are in place in Finland both in institutions and
on the national level. In the audits, institutions
are supported in their efforts to reach their
strategic objectives and in directing future
development activities in order to create a
framework for the institutions’ continuous
development.
This report presents the audit process of
Lappeenranta University of Technology and
the results of the audit.
ISBN 978-952-206-297-0 (pb)
ISBN 978-952-206-298-7 (pdf)
ISSN-L 2342-4176
Finnish Education Evaluation Centre
P.O. Box 28 (Mannerheiminaukio 1 A)
FI-00101 HELSINKI
Email: [email protected]
Telephone: +358 29 533 5500
Fax: +358 29 533 5501
karvi.fi