Institutional Review Self-Evaluation Report - QQI SQT SER.pdf · Institutional Review Self-Evaluation Report SQT Training Ltd March 2012

Institutional Review Self-Evaluation Report

SQT Training Ltd March 2012

Table of Contents Chapter Title Page 1 Introduction 1 2 Objective 1 Public Confidence 8 3 Objective 2 Strategic Planning and Governance 14 4 Objective 3 Quality Assurance

- Introduction - Element 1 Policy and procedures for quality assurance - Element 2 Approval, monitoring and periodic review of programmes and

awards - Element 3 Assessment of students - Element 4 Quality Assurance of teaching staff - Element 5 Learning resources and student support - Element 6 Information systems - Element 7 Public information

20 21 23 28 31 38 41 44

5 Objective 4 Qualifications Framework, Access, Transfer and Progression 45 6 Objective 6 Recommendations for Enhancement 48

Note: Objective 5 Operation and Management of Delegated Authority (DA) does not apply Book of Appendices Appendix Number

Title

1 Accreditation Agencies 2 Programmes validated by HETAC 3 Programmes validated by other agencies 4 Non-validated programmes 5 Lean Six Sigma projects 6 Breakdown of SQT Programmes delivered in 2011 7 Breakdown of HETAC awards by Programme 8 SQT tutors 9 Repeat business 10 Qualitative feedback from company programme organisers 11 Feedback from External Examiner (HETAC), External Evaluator (FETAC) and

Accreditation Manager (NEBOSH) 12 SQT’s engagement 13 Tutor feedback 14 SQT Strategic Plan (2012 – 2017) 15 Quality Submission for HETAC registration: Panel’s observations, SQT’s response, and

Review of Implementation 16 Policies and Procedures 17 Checklist for Quality Assurance Procedures Submission 18 SQT’s strategy for the Continuous Enhancement of Quality 19 Report of Peer Review Group for Programmatic Review and SQT’s Programmatic Review

Implementation Plan 20 Recommendations for Improvement from SQT’s Programmatic Review Self-evaluation

report 21 Lean Six Sigma programmes Assessment Tools 22 Checklist Assessment and Standards 2009 23 Analysis of training delivered in 2011 24 Quantitative feedback across all programme

25 Quantitative learner feedback Lean Six Sigma programmes, Part 1 26 Qualitative company feedback Lean Six Sigma programmes

List of Supporting Documentation Title SQT Quality Manual SQT Prospectus of Training Courses 2012

Chapter 1 Introduction Providers of higher education have primary responsibility for quality assurance. This principle is laid down in Irish law and in the Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area. A core element of contemporary quality assurance practice is external review of the institution as a whole. 1

All providers registered with HETAC, (Higher Education and Training Awards Council), both Institutes with delegated authority and other registered providers, are subject to external quality assurance review carried out by HETAC, normally on a five year cycle. The Institutional review process consists of six phases:

1. HETAC sets terms of reference following consultation with institution 2. Self-study by the institution (Self-Evaluation Report) 3. Visit by expert panel appointed by HETAC and written panel report 4. Institutional response including implementation plan 5. Panel report and response published 6. Follow-up report submitted by the institution.

Phase 1 for SQT Training Ltd., (SQT), has been completed. The Terms of Reference for this Institutional Review have been agreed with HETAC. This Self-Evaluation Report details SQT’s self-study, phase 2. The timetable for the remaining 4 phases of the Institutional Review process is included on page 12 of the Terms of Reference. It is assumed that readers of this Self-Evaluation Report have already read the Terms of Reference document. To avoid duplication, this report does not repeat content in the Terms of Reference but leads on from it. It is thus advised that the reader is already familiar with the Terms of Reference document before reading this report. The objectives for SQT’s Institutional Review are contained on pages 10-11 of the Terms of Reference. This report is laid out using the objectives as chapter headings and shows the self-study carried out by SQT under each objective. The changing Education and Training landscape Education and Training, both worldwide and in Ireland are undergoing a period of change.

• The general global recession and Euro crisis, coupled with the recession in Ireland are having their effect on education and training. This can be seen in the greater number of people who are unemployed and in initiatives such as the Higher Education Authority’s2 Springboard initiative, which offers job seekers the opportunity to take up a part-time course in higher education and training, free-of-charge. This can also be seen in the greater pressure across the board for cost management.

1 HETAC Policy on Institutional Review of Providers of Higher Education and Training 2007 2 The Higher Education Authority, (HEA), is the statutory planning and policy development body for higher education and research in Ireland.

1

• The publication in January 2011 of the National Strategy for Higher Education to 20303, also known as the Hunt report which sets out a vision for the higher education sector for the next two decades.

• The publication in February 2012 by the Higher Education Authority of a series of papers that set out a roadmap for implementing reform in higher education, following on from the recommendations of National Strategy for Higher Education.4

• The publication in July 2011 of the Qualifications and Quality Assurance (Education and Training) Bill 2011. The existing awarding bodies (FETAC, HETAC, NQAI5 and IUQB6) are being amalgamated into a single new agency, the Qualifications and Quality Assurance Authority of Ireland (QQAAI). At the time of writing, it is anticipated that the new authority will be established in early 2012. The authority will undertake the existing functions of NQAI, HETAC and FETAC in relation to the maintenance and development of the National Framework of Qualifications and the validation and awarding of qualifications (outside the university sector and Institutes of Technology with delegated authority to make awards). The authority will also have responsibility for the external quality assurance review of the universities, a function, which is currently performed by the IUQB and the HEA.7

• The establishment in July 2011 of SOLAS, a new authority to be responsible for the coordination and funding of further education and training. The new body will replace FÁS, which is to be disbanded.

SQT aims to keep abreast of changes in education and training by keeping up to date with national and international news and by being actively engaged within education and training communities.

Background to SQT HETAC’s Supplementary Guidelines for Institutional Review, July 2009, states: Institutional review covers all HETAC providers and includes both public and independent institutions, which range from relatively large, established institutions with a broad remit to smaller specialist institutions with a few programmes in niche areas. Given the diversity of institutions covered it is important that key differentiating factors between institutions are recognised by the review process including the institution’s profile and context; the relative maturity and stage of development of QA systems; collaborative arrangements with other institutions and other QA agencies; and future trajectory and planned developments.8

The following is a description of SQT in the above terms.

3 National Strategy for Higher Education to 2030, Department of Education and Skills, 2011 4 http://www.hea.ie/en/node/1462. Accessed 13th February 2012 5 The National Qualifications Authority of Ireland is an agency of the Department of Education and Skills and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Innovation. It has responsibility for developing and maintaining the National Framework of Qualifications. 6 The Irish Universities Quality Board was established to support and promote a culture of quality in Irish higher education and independently evaluate the effectiveness of quality processes in Irish universities. 7 http://www.qualificationsandquality.ie/Pages/FAQs.aspx. Accessed 13th February 2012 8 HETAC Supplementary Guidelines for Institutional Review, July 2009, Page 4

2

SQT is an independent training company which offers a range of programmes of short duration, (currently varying in duration from 0.5 to 20 training days), in the area of technical management. SQT is a limited for-profit company and is owned by three shareholders Lily and Denis Collison and Siobhan Cunningham. Lily Collison founded the company in 1989. Siobhan Cunningham joined the company as partner in 2001. Lily Collison and Siobhan Cunningham are joint Managing Directors of SQT. Denis Collison is a non-executive director. Both Managing Directors have strong backgrounds in Quality9. This has resulted in Quality being at the heart of the company since company inception. (CVs for both will be available at site visit). SQT has grown steadily from its small beginnings in 1989. The company was born out of a sense of entrepreneurship owing to the founder’s awareness of the lack of availability, in Ireland, of the IRCA validated Quality Management Systems Auditor/Lead Auditor training programme, though the demand from industry was high. At the time no Irish trainers were validated by IRCA and many people were going to the UK to complete this programme. The founder had previous experience in organizing a successful conference in Quality Management at Sligo Institute of Technology in 1986, while full-time lecturer there. Shannon Quality Training, later to be incorporated and re-named SQT Training Ltd in 2001, was thus established to deliver this one training programme. The company engaged UK trainers to deliver the training. The first programme was delivered in 1989 and this original programme has been delivered almost every single month, in the intervening 23 years. Since 1989 many more programmes have been added. In the 2012 prospectus there are 170 programmes. Training provided by SQT currently covers 16 broad areas:

- Lean Six Sigma - Continual Process Improvement - Project and Programme Management - Quality - Medical/Hospitals - Healthcare - Laboratory - Food Safety - Management Systems - Online Marketing - Health and Safety - Environment - Energy Management - iPhone/iPad Application School(AppSchool) - Leadership and Personal Development - Train the Trainer

Although SQT’s programmes are of short duration, (currently varying in duration from 0.5 to 20 training days), many programmes involve significant learner effort10 hours outside of training days to fully transfer the learning from the classroom into the workplace. With one exception all training

9 Prior to establishing SQT, Lily Collison was a Senior Lecturer in Quality Management in Sligo IT for two years and previous to that worked in Quality Management in Abbott Laboratories, Sligo for eight years, latterly as overall plant Quality Manager. Lily holds an honours degree in Natural Science, TCD and Masters in Medical Science, UCD. Siobhan Cunningham joined SQT in 2001. Siobhan has many years senior management experience in various industries; European Service Logistics Operations Manager in Dell, Director Product/Marketing Services in Rand McNally Media Services & Sykes, Client Services Manager in McQueen, Product Introduction/Quality Manager in DCA Associates and Vendor Quality Engineer in Wang Laboratories. Siobhan holds a Diploma in Electronics, GMIT. (DCA Associates was acquired by Rand McNally, in turn acquired by McQueen, in turn acquired by Sykes.) 10 Learner effort hours include time, which learners spend in lectures or tutorials; studying or reading; and completing work-based projects or case-studies.

3

is trainer-led. The one blended learning programme is the International Diploma in Occupational Health and Safety accredited by the National Examination Board in Occupational Safety and Health (NEBOSH). The learning for this programme is achieved through a combination of home-study of (SQT supplied) course material with regular tutor-led workshops. SQT delivers programmes:

• Validated by HETAC • Validated by other agencies, and • Non-validated training

The other agencies are:

• FETAC (Further Education and Training Awards Council) • NEBOSH (National Examination Board in Occupational Safety and Health) • IRCA (The International Register of Certificated Auditors) • IEMA (The Institute of Environmental Management & Assessment) • IOSH (Institution of Occupational Safety and Health) • CIEH (The Chartered Institute of Environmental Health), and • AEE (Association of Energy Engineers)

Appendix 1 contains a brief summary of each agency. A full listing of all programmes is included in Appendices 2-4.

SQT’s four programmes, validated with HETAC, lead to Special Purpose awards at Levels 6 – 8 on the National Framework of Qualifications (NFQ)11. The four part-time programmes are:

• Diploma in Process Engineering, Level 8 on the National Framework of Qualifications (NFQ)12, 60 ECTS credits13 - Black Belt (20 training days and completion of a work-based project)

• Certificate in Process Engineering (Service and Transaction), NFQ Level 8, 40 ECTS credits - Black Belt (Service and Transaction) (10 training days and completion of a work-based project)

• Certificate in Process Engineering, NFQ Level 7, 10 ECTS credits - Green Belt (5 training days and completion of a work-based project)

• Certificate in Process Engineering, NFQ Level 6, 10 ECTS credits - Green Belt (5 training days and completion of a case-study)

Lean Six Sigma is a comprehensive and highly effective strategy for achieving and sustaining business success. Lean Six Sigma delivers bottom line savings, project by project, in an organised, proactive and highly transparent manner. It is driven by a close understanding of customer needs, disciplined use of knowledge, facts and statistical analysis and diligent attention to the DMAIC14 methodology to improve or reinvent business processes. A short summary of three projects 11 National Framework of Qualifications (NFQ) is a system of ten levels and is used to describe the Irish qualifications system. http://www.nfq.ie/nfq/en/about_NFQ/about_the_NFQ.html12 NFQ- The National Framework of Qualifications is a system of ten levels and is used to describe the Irish qualifications system. http://www.nfq.ie/nfq/en/about_NFQ/about_the_NFQ.html 13 The European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System (ECTS) is a tool, which enables students to collect credits for learning achieved through higher education. 14 DMAIC project methodology has five phases: Define; Measure; Analyse; Improve; Control.

4

completed by learners, is included in Appendix 5, to give examples of Lean Six Sigma deployment. Unlike many other higher education providers, SQT does not deliver centre-based training. SQT provides two types of training: Public15 and In-house training. It delivers the training at a location to suit the learner, typically in hotel venues (for training programmes open to the public) or using the company’s own training facilities/a hotel close to the company for In-house training. In-house programmes are for one particular organisation and generally cater for 4 to 15 people. Dublin is the main location for public programmes. A small number of public programmes are delivered around the country. This is demand driven. In 2011, 27% of SQT programmes were delivered on a public basis and 73% were delivered In-house. SQT’s learners are adult learners, most in employment and almost all learner fees are paid by organisations on behalf of the learner. (97% of fees in 2011 were paid by organizations on behalf of learners). Both genders are well represented among learners. SQT’s learners come from industry, both service and manufacturing, public and semi-state organisations and Skillnets. SQT’s business is well spread. SQT’s top 10 companies in 2011 accounted for approximately 25% of its business, thus SQT’s business is not reliant on any one individual company. This is important as it means the continuity of SQT is not dependent on the continuity of any individual company. In 2011, 98% of SQT’s training was delivered in Ireland. SQT also provides programmes abroad when requested by companies. This accounted for 2% of provision in 2011. This is an area, which we will investigate for further growth. Enterprise Ireland have approved SQT for grant aid to investigate the delivery of training overseas. SQT grew steadily in the period to 2008. The general recession in Ireland caused a decrease in 2009 and 2010 from 2008 figures. There was a significant recovery in 2011 over 2010. Appendix 6 shows the breakdown of learners on SQT programmes delivered in 2011. The percentage of learners on HETAC validated programmes was 4% thus SQT’s provision of HETAC validated programmes is small in the overall context of SQT. Nevertheless as a HETAC registered provider, SQT is very aware of its responsibilities and the requirements of Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area 2009 and HETAC’s Policies and Procedure. The same applies as a FETAC and NEBOSH registered Provider. Appendix 7 includes a table showing the breakdown of HETAC awards achieved by learners to the end of 2011 on the four HETAC validated programmes. The Green Belt Level 7 programme is consistently the most popular.

15 People from any organisation, or individuals, may attend public programmes.

5

SQT is the entity with overall management responsibility for the process, from start to finish, for delivering training for the learner and company. To the learner and company SQT is a seamless organization. SQT has a team of over thirty very experienced tutors. The full list of SQT’s tutors is included in Appendix 8. CVs for tutors will be available at the site visit. Tutors are not direct employees of SQT but work for a number of companies with whom we have formal contracts to deliver our training. This model of tutor engagement has been in place since inception of the company and at HETAC registration. The strong background in quality, evident in the principals of SQT, is also evident in SQT’s tutors. Many are quality management professionals with formal qualifications in quality including Lean Six Sigma and ISO900116. For example the company who deliver SQT’s Quality, Environment and Health and Safety management courses is itself certified to each standard; ISO9001, ISO1400117 and OHSAS 1800118. Many of SQT’s programmes are in the area of quality management. Quality is thus a cornerstone of SQT. A detailed review of teaching staff is included in Chapter 4 under Element 4. SQT’s administration office is located in the Callan Centre, a modern purpose-built office building in the National Technology Park, Limerick. The Callan Centre is owned by a partnership comprising of the three directors of SQT. The centre contains four suites of offices, one of which is occupied by SQT19. SQT became a HETAC registered training provider in 2008, SQT applied for HETAC validation of four programmes, three in 2008 and the fourth in 2009. All programmes were validated on first application. The four programmes were revalidated by HETAC for a further five years under Programmatic Review completed in 2011. SQT became a FETAC registered training provider in 2007 and a NEBOSH registered training provider in 2005. SQT was registered with each body on first application. All reviews/monitoring have been positive. For validated programmes other than HETAC, FETAC and NEBOSH, the tutors who deliver those programmes manage their accreditations. This has been our model since inception of the company. For example Antaris Consulting deliver our IRCA, IEMA and IOSH validated programmes, and have done so for the past 14 years. Antaris Consulting, (and previously a UK company), maintain accreditation for these programmes. SQT is a young provider in HETAC terms. This is SQT’s first Institutional Review. To date SQT has not engaged in such a detailed self-study of itself as an institution and has benefited from the process. In conducting this self-study under each objective, we have identified Recommendations

16 ISO9001 Quality Management System standard 17 ISO14001 Environmental Management System standard 18 OHSAS 18001 Health & Safety Management System standard 19 The three other suites are leased to Xtrata (a Canadian mining company), Munster Rugby and the Department of Justice and Law Reform.

6

for Enhancement, which we will implement. All however can be classed as minor. We feel that the reason we found only minor recommendations for enhancement in our self-study for Institutional Review is because of the strong Quality ethos that has been in SQT since inception and the fact that we actively engage on an ongoing basis with Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area 2009 and HETAC Policies and Procedures. Self-Evaluation Report In Chapter 2 we have detailed how we approached Institutional Review. We have endeavored to write this report succinctly. This report is supported by:

• A separately bound Book of Appendices, and • Supporting Documentation

The following are just some general points relevant to this report:

• Though the amalgamation of HETAC and FETAC is imminent, for the purposes of this report HETAC and FETAC are still considered separate organizations.

• In SQT traditionally we have used the term ‘tutor’ rather than ‘lecturer’. Whilst in higher education there is often a clear distinction between the roles of both, the role of the SQT ‘tutor’ is as ‘lecturer’.

• There is also debate on the difference between ‘training’ and ‘education’. Our nomenclature has been SQT Training, training courses etc. We haven’t changed the nomenclature though we recognize the differences between ‘training’ and ‘education’.

• We do not imply difference in usage of the terms ‘course’ and ‘programme’. • The generic term ‘company’ is used to include all organizations: industry, both service and

manufacturing, the public and semi-state sectors.

7

Chapter 2 Objective 1 Public Confidence Objective 1: To enhance public confidence in the quality of education and training provided by the College and the standards of the awards made. SQT is both a further and higher education and training provider. The public’s confidence in SQT itself is to some extent influenced by confidence in the overall education and training sector in society, both nationally and internationally. In Chapter 1 we reflected on the changing education and training landscape. Whilst it is imperative that SQT keeps abreast of developments in education and training, we must however focus on enhancing the public’s confidence in the quality of education and training we provide and in the standards of the awards we make. We reflected on the question – How can the public have confidence in the quality of education and training we provide and in the standards of the awards SQT makes? Public Information Public information is one of the pillars on which public confidence in SQT rests. Our aim, in all the public information we provide, is that it is accurate, clear and readily accessible. This applies to information we provide in SQT’s:

• Website • Annual prospectus of programmes • Programme brochures • Marketing emails

Comprehensive information on all SQT programmes is provided to the public through the company’s website. The website includes the annual prospectus of programmes and a detailed brochure for each programme. The information on programmes includes the qualifications they award, the teaching, learning and assessment procedures used. Our website contains information behind links on the homepage to each of the eight accreditation agencies, (HETAC, FETAC, NEBOSH, IOSH, IEMA, CIEH, IRCA and AEE). SQT hosts, on its website, the lean Six Sigma Network20 and provides a repository of information/resources that can be accessed by Lean Six Sigma graduates. SQT aims to be open and transparent in the information it provides to the public. We publish all quality related information on our website. There is a requirement to publish some of this information, but we have chosen to publish over and above that requirement. In the Quality section of our website, we include:

• SQT’s Quality Policy • SQT’s Quality Manual

20 SQT founded the Lean Six Sigma network in 2004 to create a forum where Six Sigma tutors, practitioners and those actively involved in Lean Six Sigma projects or programme roll-outs, can come together to discuss topics and areas of similar interest, share experiences and generally learn from each other to create a support network that will benefit all. Meetings are held quarterly in Dublin. The Network homepage can be found on the SQT website.

8

• SQT’s Strategy for the Continuous Enhancement of Quality • HETAC External Examiner’s Reports/FETAC External Authenticators’ Reports • Monitoring Reports • Programmatic Review Reports • Examination results

As part of our self-study we realized that the quality section of our website which contains all the above information may not be sufficiently obvious to a website visitor. We will investigate making it more accessible. SQT’s website includes use of social media (Twitter and Facebook) and a company blog. Whilst we recognize that the our learners and companies include those who have grown up using social media, we have found social media (Twitter and Facebook) to be of limited use in our engagement with learners and companies. An analysis of visitors to the website reveals that people visit the blog posts. We will endeavor to provide more information through this medium. In a survey of learners conducted as part of Programmatic Review, 97% of the learners who use our website, stated that they found it useful and user-friendly. We also regularly receive positive comments on ease of use of our website. The analysis of visitors to our website shows that the number is increasing. There was a 21% increase in visitors for the three months, December - February 2012 compared with the same three months last year. SQT maintains a database of customers with whom it communicates regularly through email, detailing upcoming programmes. Recipients have told us that they find this communication to be useful in that it is unobtrusive, yet keeps them informed. There is a facility for recipients to request not to be added (on Course Assessment Forms) or be removed (Opt-out box on email) from future mailings. SQT receive very few such requests but acts on each. For example an analysis of email marketing sent from 1st October 2011 to 31st January 2012, revealed that 0.1% of recipients elected to opt out. SQT do not share its mailing list with any third party. We place great emphasis on speedy response to enquiries from the public. These come to SQT via email enquiries to [email protected], to individual email accounts, and by telephone. The [email protected] emails are handled by one member of staff. We aim to have proposals for courses sent within 24 hours of receipt of enquiry. The management of information to learners during the amalgamation of HETAC and FETAC will be important so that there is no confusion for the learner. We will aim to provide clear information to our companies and learners. HETAC Programmatic Review SQT underwent Programmatic Review as a positive, supportive and an open process. We saw Programmatic Review as an excellent opportunity to have an objective look at what we had done since validation and see how we could do things better. Programmatic Review is detailed in Chapter 4 under Element 2. The outcome of Programmatic Review was positive and all programmes were re-validated for a further five years. This contributes to public confidence.

9

HETAC Institutional Review Completing this Institutional Review is a contributor to public confidence. We used a similar approach with Institutional Review, again viewing it as a positive, supportive and open process and an excellent opportunity to have a ‘root and branch’ look at SQT, the institution. We looked at the past, particularly focusing on the last five years since we first applied for HETAC registration and forward focusing on the next five years. Like Programmatic Review, Institutional Review involved a big team effort. We were guided by:

• HETAC’s Policy on Institutional Review of Providers of Higher Education and Training 2007

• HETAC’s Supplementary Guidelines for Institutional Review 2009 • European Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher

Education Area 2009 SQT is very mindful of its responsibilities and accountability to its stakeholders, both internal and external. We had garnered substantial stakeholder feedback, which is summarized in the following table. Both qualitative and quantitative data was collected. Table 1: Stakeholder feedback for Institutional Review

External or Internal Stakeholder

Stakeholder How feedback obtained

External All Learners Review of Course Assessment Forms 2011 External Lean Six Sigma Learners Review of Course Assessment Forms 2008 –

April 2011 External Companies Feedback from programmes organizers all

programmes Survey of Lean Six Sigma programme organisers

External Examiner (HETAC) External Examiner Reports Feedback

External Authenticator (FETAC) External Authenticator Reports Feedback

External

NEBOSH Assessment results Feedback from Accreditation Manager

External Peer Review Panel Programmatic Review FETAC/HETAC

Report Monitoring reports

Internal Teaching staff Lean Six Sigma All Teaching Staff Éamon Ó Béarraand Maire Murphy

Meetings Survey Meetings

Internal Administration/Management Meetings

Additionally reports, records and meeting minutes were collected and reviewed. A full assessment of the effectiveness of SQT’s Quality Assurance was conducted. The review of the above informed our self-study under the relevant objectives of Institutional Review. The self-evaluation report was drafted, read and commented on by Management, (Siobhan

10

Cunningham and Lily Collison), Teaching (Éamon Ó Béarra and Maire Murphy) and Administrative staff (Kim Feehan, Eilish Cummins and Jean Feehan). The final report was written, approved by the governing body and the Academic Committee for HETAC validated Lean Six Sigma programmes and submitted to HETAC. Overall we found the self-evaluation to have been a very useful exercise because it allowed us to do a complete review of operations from a multiple of perspectives. We tried to stay focused on the Terms of Reference and to produce a thorough and clear self-evaluation report. SQT looks forward to its engagement with the expert panel appointed by HETAC and their panel report. We will respond to that report and include an implementation plan. HETAC will publish this Self-Evaluation Report, the Panel report and our Response alongside the previously published Terms of Reference. We will also publish these documents on our website. We will issue a follow-up report to HETAC in 2013. Other Reviews Public confidence rests on the fact that SQT continues to meet the requirements of FETAC and NEBOSH. SQT completed self-evaluations of FETAC programmes in 2008 and 2011. SQT underwent FETAC Monitoring in 2009 and the reports were positive. Because SQT was first registered with FETAC in 2007, our five-year review is due this year. SQT contacted FETAC to plan this review. FETAC informed us that they wish us to schedule it for later in 2012 and will contact us with a schedule. SQT are registered with NEBOSH to deliver two programmes: the International General Certificate and Diploma in Occupational Health and Safety. NEBOSH re-register providers for delivery of their programmes on a triennial basis. SQT submitted their Diploma course for re-accreditation in December 2011 and were immediately re-approved for delivery up to January 2015. The Certificate course is due for re-accreditation in August 2012. The first, full NEBOSH audit of SQT is planned for 2012. The following also demonstrate public confidence in SQT: Continued growth of SQT SQT’s continued growth since 1989 is evidence of the public’s confidence in SQT. SQT has grown steadily from initially offering one training programme in 1989 to offering 170 programmes in 2012. SQT has grown from 40 learners in 1989 to 3,601 in 2010 and 4,723 learners in 2011. Though the recession did cause a decrease in learner numbers, 2011 has shown significant recovery over 2010. We are not the exclusive provider in Ireland for any of the programmes we offer. For every programme we offer, we have a competitor. The fact that companies and learners have choice and yet consistently come to SQT for training is evidence of public confidence in the quality of education and training we provide and in the standards of the awards we make. Much of SQT’s

11

business is repeat business. Appendix 9 lists examples. Companies would not continually return to SQT for training if they did not have confidence in the training SQT provides. Feedback from learners and companies on quality of programmes Public confidence rests on the quality of the programmes delivered. All learners who attend an SQT training programme complete a Course Assessment Form (CAF) on the last day of training. An analysis of Course Assessment Forms from 585 Lean Six Sigma learners during the period 2008-2011 revealed:

• 100% of learners stated that they would apply the new skills learned • 100% stated that they would recommend their course to a colleague • 96% stated that they were fully or very satisfied with their programme

In a survey of companies conducted as part of Programmatic Review, companies expressed high levels of satisfaction with SQT’s programmes. 96% of learners who attended SQT programmes delivered in 2011 stated that they were fully or very satisfied with their programme. The data was collected from the cohorts of learners from 77% of programmes delivered in 2011. (Some companies requested to use their own Course Assessment Forms so these were excluded.) Qualitative feedback collected from company programme organizers across all SQT programmes exhibits high levels of satisfaction. Reference Appendix 10. Award recognition The availability of recognized awards helps to give the public added confidence in the quality of programmes on offer at an Institution. SQT recognizes the value of validated programmes as evidenced by:

• Its engagement with validated programmes since inception of the company • The range of validated courses it has added to its prospectus over the years

We endeavor to meet our learners’ and companies’ needs by providing a wide range of programmes, as many validated as possible, from which they can choose and working with stakeholders to develop new programmes. Currently 28% of programmes in our 2012 prospectus are validated. The number of validated versus non-validated programmes depends the availability of a validated programme. For example one limiting factor with HETAC is size of programme. The minimum programme size available for private training providers is 10 credits, equivalent to 250-300 Learner Effort Hours. This is inconsistent with Institutes of Technology, also under HETAC, who can offer 5 credit programmes. We are raising this inconsistency with HETAC. We reflected and sense that we get mixed messages from our companies and learners on the value they place on programme validation.

• Currently 28% of programmes in our 2012 prospectus are validated. The percentage of validated programmes available in 2011 was very similar to 2012. 32% of programmes delivered by SQT in 2011 were validated which shows a slightly greater preference for validated programmes.

12

• In a survey of past learners for Programmatic Review of SQT’s Lean Six Sigma programmes, 80% of learners stated that the fact that the Lean Six Sigma programme was HETAC validated was an important factor, however in 2011, 46% (154) learners were registered on non-validated Lean Six Sigma training, where validated options were available. (Some companies choose non-validated programmes because they allow learners to complete group, rather than individual projects, do not have as strict timetables for project completion and allow customisation of programme content.)

Feedback from External Examiner (HETAC), External Evaluator (FETAC) and Accreditation Manager (NEBOSH) The External Examiner (HETAC), External Evaluator (FETAC) and Accreditation Manager (NEBOSH) are stakeholders of SQT. Feedback was sought as part of this Institutional Review. Positive feedback was obtained from each of the above and is detailed in Appendix 11. SQT’s active engagement Testament to the public confidence in SQT is our active engagement in fields of learning, in the local and national community and in the higher education and training community. Examples, (not a complete list), of such engagement are included in Appendix 12. Enterprise Ireland After due diligence Enterprise Ireland approved SQT in 2011 for grant aid to investigate the delivery of training overseas. Indeed the Report of the Peer Review Group for Programmatic Review commented: ‘… SQT should be encouraged to continue on its development plans at postgraduate level and in the international markets subject to the national regulatory requirements in international provision.’ SQT and its Lean Six Sigma tutors were approved by Enterprise Ireland in February 2012 for inclusion in their Directory of approved Lean Service Providers. Conclusion to Public Confidence We reflected on the above and conclude that in our opinion the public has confidence in SQT. We will continue to work to enhance this confidence. Recommendations for Enhancement

1. As part of our self-study we recognized that the quality section of our website may not be sufficiently obvious to a website visitor. We will investigate making it more accessible.

2. The management of information to learners during the amalgamation of HETAC and FETAC will be important so that there is no confusion for the learner. We will aim to provide clear information to our companies and learners.

3. One limiting factor with HETAC validated programmes is the credit size. The minimum programme size available for private training providers is 10 credits. This is inconsistent since Institutes of Technology offer 5 credit programmes. We will raise this inconsistency with HETAC.

13

Chapter 3 Objective 2 Strategic Planning and Governance Objective 2: To contribute to coherent strategic planning and governance in the College. Governance and Organisation As part of Institutional Review we reflected on the organisation structure of SQT. The organization structure of SQT is as follows:

Quality Committee Academic Committee SQT Administration

Examination Board

SQT Tutors

SQT Governing Body

Governing body The role of the governing body is to provide consistent management, cohesive policies, guidance, processes and decision-making for SQT Training Ltd. The governing body consists of Lily Collison and Siobhan Cunningham, joint Managing Directors. There has been consistent leadership of SQT since its inception. In the current tough economic climate, continued survival of any company is a challenge, be it training or other. The careful leadership and management of SQT over the past 23 years is one of the factors we would identify as having contributed to the success of the business in that time-period and gives confidence for the future. By mid-January of each year, business accounts are completed for the previous month’s (i.e., December) year-end for both SQT Training and the Callan Centre Partnership. All returns for submission to the Companies office and Revenue are also prepared in January. All tax affairs are kept up-to-date and a current tax clearance certificate is always in place. In January of each year, the governing body conducts an annual management review. Annual goals are set. Lily Collison and Siobhan Cunningham though in regular contact, have a formal monthly management meeting and consider all aspects of the operation of SQT. Both take away action plans from the meeting. A feature of SQT, which has greatly contributed to its success, has been the careful selection of both teaching and administration staff and the creation of a good working environment.

14

SQT stay in close contact with Learners and Companies. Communication with learners is by way of telephone and email. Communication with companies is by way of telephone, email and face-to-face meetings between management and/or tutors and companies. SQT has good lines of communication with all validation bodies. Good information management is facilitated through our website. Good information management is also facilitated through the Customer Relationship Management system we have in place using customized software. SQT’s principals are mindful of the need for long-term planning for the leadership of the organization and will address this at a future Institutional Review. SQT’s tutors SQT has a team of over thirty very experienced tutors. Chapter 4, element 4 details SQT’s tutors. Academic Committee SQT has an Academic Committee in each subject area, which is responsible for all aspects of the academic integrity of the courses in that area. For the HETAC validated Lean Six Sigma programmes it consists of: • John Ryan, Black Belt Programme Manager/Course Tutor • Éamon Ó Béarra, Green Belt Programme Manager/Course Tutor • Lily Collison, Registrar • Siobhan Cunningham, Managing Director • Kim Feehan, Lean Six Sigma Course Manager • Company/Learner representative As a result of our self-study for Programmatic Review we included a Company/Learner representative on the Academic Committee. It is too early to evaluate the inclusion of a Company/Learner representative but we are confident that it will be a good addition to this committee. The Academic decision makers are well qualified and experienced. The academic committee meets biannually for Lean Six Sigma programmes. Lean Six Sigma is itself a quality improvement process. Thus there is a strong quality ethos among the Academic committee members. We are confident that the system of governance in place in SQT protects the integrity of academic processes and standards. Academic decision-making takes place at the Academic Committee. The interests of learners have been at the heart of Academic Committee deliberations. We reflected on how we can demonstrate this confidence. We can demonstrate this confidence by: • The separation of the Governing Body and Academic Committee • The Academic Committee includes senior teaching staff • The inclusion of a Company/Learner representative on the Academic Committee. • Minutes of Lean Six Sigma Academic Committee meetings

15

Operations meetings for Lean Six Sigma programmes are held as required. The Academic Committees for other subject areas meet at frequencies appropriate for the subject area. Whilst quality metrics for the other subject areas are excellent, as part of this Institutional Review we will review the Academic Committees for other subject areas and reflect on how we can make improvements. Examination Board The Examination Board for HETAC validated courses consists of: • Registrar who acts as Chairperson • Lean Six Sigma Programme Managers • External Examiner The role of the Examination Board is to ensure the fair and consistent assessment of learners. SQT manages HETAC learner awards biannually to match HETAC registration/results file deadlines. The attendance of the External Examiner at each Exam Board meeting is necessary as each meeting is for recommendation of granting of HETAC awards. Brendan McCarra B.Sc. (Hons), M.Sc., MIBiolI, Lecturer in Biotechnology Institute of Technology, Tralee was appointed in 2008 as External Examiner by HETAC for SQT’s Lean Six Sigma programmes. He was previously an External Examiner at Cork Institute of Technology. His CV will be available at the site visit. Administration team Excluding both Managing Directors, the administration team is seven persons: Of the seven administration staff, six have qualifications at third level, one at Masters level. Of the seven administration staff, four are full-time and three are part-time. SQT’s administration staff average nine years service with the company, the range being two to twenty years. Quality Systems Committee Up to this Institutional Review we had not identified a formal Quality Systems Committee though one had always worked under the direction of the Registrar and Quality Systems Coordinator. They are responsible for Quality systems management including:

• Conducting internal quality systems audits • Coordinating Reviews

As part of this Institutional Review we added Éamon Ó Béarra, (Tutor) to our Quality Systems Committee. We will define the role of the tutor on this committee. We have now added a Quality Systems Committee onto the organization chart. Quality Assurance is addressed in detail in Chapter 4. SQT is a small organisation in Higher Education and Training terms. People have multiple roles, though each role is clearly identified. The following table details roles particularly with regard to HETAC validated Lean Six Sigma programmes.

16

Table 2: Personnel Roles Person Role Lily Collison • Managing Director

• Registrar • Member of Lean Six Sigma Academic Committee • Member of the Quality Systems Committee

Siobhan Cunningham • Managing Director • Operations Manager • Member of Lean Six Sigma Academic Committee

John Ryan • Black Belt Programme Manager/Lead Tutor • Member of Lean Six Sigma Academic Committee

Éamon Ó Béarra • Green Belt Programme Manager/Lead Tutor • Member of Lean Six Sigma Academic Committee • Member of Quality Systems Committee

Tutors • Teaching, Learning and Assessment Eilish Cummins • Course Manager

• Examinations Secretary • Member of the Quality Systems Committee

Kim Feehan • Lean Six Sigma Course Manager • Member of Lean Six Sigma Academic Committee • Accounts Manager

Aishling Kelly • Marketing Manager Jean Feehan • Public Course Manager Lisa Keating • In-house Course Manager Frances Killeen • Materials Manager Margie Sheehan • Materials Coordinator The compact, team based structure of SQT greatly facilitates communication, both formal and informal, throughout the organization. The clear definition of roles greatly facilitates function. Staff turnover at all levels in the organization has been very low. Qualitative feedback obtained from tutors as part of this Institutional Review was very positive and is included in Appendix 13. (Tutors were asked in an email survey for any suggestions as to what SQT management/administration could do better.) SQT’s Mission Statement, Vision and Values We reflected on the mission, vision and values of SQT. The Mission Statement of SQT is: SQT Training Ltd. designs, develops and delivers training courses for adult learners in industry; service and manufacturing, public and semi-state organizations and individuals. Our primary stakeholders are our learners, companies, tutors, administrative staff and accreditation bodies. We are committed to quality in every aspect of our course provision. We considered and conclude that the mission statement remains relevant. We reflected on our mission vis a viz other higher education institutions. In the context of higher

17

education and training, we recognise that we are a small, niche provider of validated training programmes of short duration. To some extent, this need is also met, by larger institutions having short courses along side its full-time courses. For Programmatic Review, we identified who our competitors were for each of our Lean Six Sigma programmes and many indeed are larger Institutions. It can be said that the main, (though not sole), focus of many large institutions of higher education is on the needs of their populations of full-time students, many coming directly from second-level. The needs of full-time students coming directly from second-level are very different from the needs of people in industry attending programmes of study of short duration. We reflected on the advantages of our model of being a niche provider of training for industry:

• SQT is totally focussed on specialist training for learners from industry. • SQT communicates very closely with its learners and companies. • The principals of the organisation come from industry so have a good understanding of the

needs of the industries SQT serves. • SQT’s small size allows it to react quickly to market needs. • SQT’s teaching staff have a good balance between being both teachers and practitioners. • In this era of an embargo on public service recruitment, no such embargo exists for SQT to

bring on board personnel where skill shortages exist. The disadvantages of our model are:

• We don’t have the back-up of a large organisation for example in doing Institutional Review. • When it was identified that our teaching staff needed further academic development, we did

not have such support as exists in many larger institutions and had to bring in expertise from outside.

However both of the above are disadvantages for SQT management, not for the learner. As a niche provider of training for industry we feel we are able to meet the needs of learners and companies very well. Though there has been demand over the years, SQT has always resisted getting involved in other activities, (for example consultancy), to allow it to stay focused on its core competence as a niche provider of training for industry. The vision for SQT for the next five years is encapsulated in its strategic plan. We used the opportunity of this Institutional Review to reflect further on our Strategic Plan, included in Appendix 14. SQT’s strategic planning process takes the needs of all stakeholders into account; internal and external, including learners, companies, administration, tutors and accreditation agencies. Our strategic plan is a short document because there are no plans for any major changes for the business in the next five years, the time-period relevant to this self-study. The plan is to build on what we have achieved to date and grow the company steadily into the future. Basically to continue to do what we are doing. To some extent the values of an organisation are exhibited not by what it states, but by what it does. SQT values can be exhibited by:

• The emphasis it places on Quality throughout all aspects of the organization. • The value SQT places on having programmes validated by outside agencies. (The reader

may feel that currently only 28% are validated, but as discussed in Chapter 1, this is

18

dependent on the availability of validation.) • SQT recognises that higher education and training is a collegial endeavor. It actively takes

part in higher education and training community as detailed in Chapter 2. We reflected on and consider that there is good coherence between SQT’s mission, vision and values. We reflected on the question how do we know that the strategic planning and governance operated by SQT are effective? We feel that strategic planning and governance at SQT are effective because:

• Feedback from learners and companies is consistently very positive. This will be detailed in Chapter 4.

• SQT met the requirements of HETAC, FETAC and NEBOSH on first application. All Lean Six Sigma programmes have been validated with HETAC on first application. All external monitoring and reviews have been positive.

• Feedback from the External Authenticator (FETAC) and External Examiner (HETAC) who each have known SQT for a period of 3 years has been excellent.

• Staff turnover is low and staff morale is high at SQT. • SQT has consistently grown and developed over its history. Consistent annual growth and

growth during recession, when many companies are contracting and/or closing, does not happen without careful stewardship.

• SQT is actively involved in the further and higher education communities and gives generously of its time.

• The company operated very effectively during the period 2002 -2007 when Lily Collison took a five-year sabbatical from the company for family health reasons.

We thus conclude that the strategic planning and governance of SQT is effective. Recommendations for Enhancement

1. We will review the Academic Committees for other subject areas and reflect on how we can make improvements.

2. As part of this Institutional Review we added Éamon Ó Béarra, (Tutor) to our Quality Systems Committee. We will define the role of the tutor on this committee.

19

Chapter 4 Objective 3 Quality Assurance Objective 3: To assess the effectiveness of the Quality Assurance arrangements operated by the College. Introduction As part of this Institutional Review, SQT assessed the effectiveness of its Quality Assurance. This is a requirement of The Qualifications (Education and Training) Act 1999. The review of our Quality Assurance is based on Part One of Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area 2009. In this section we focus on our provision of programmes in the area of Higher Education and training, specifically our Quality Assurance arrangements for delivery of our HETAC validated Lean Six Sigma programmes. We were guided by:

• HETAC’s Supplementary Guidelines for the Review of the Effectiveness of Quality Assurance Procedures 2008, and

• Irish Higher Education Quality Network, Principles for reviewing the effectiveness of quality assurance procedures in higher education and training 2007.

The steps involved in our review of Policy and Procedures for Quality Assurance included the following: Step 1Review of implementation of recommendations arising from the agreement of QA procedures with HETAC SQT submitted its Quality Assurance in 2007. HETAC stated that the panel found ‘the submission to be well set out and much of the required details available however they made the following observations regarding your submission.’ SQT immediately addressed each of the panel’s six observations and agreed its quality assurance with HETAC in 2008. We reviewed the implementation of each recommendation arising from the agreement of QA procedures with HETAC in 2008. All are working satisfactorily. The observations made by the panel, SQT’s response and a review of implementation are included in Appendix 15. Step 2 Review with respect to standards and guidelines In preparation for Programmatic Review, the Quality Manager conducted a desk-based review of SQT’s policies and procedures with respect to the European Standards and Guidelines and HETAC Policies and Procedures to ensure consistency, completeness and adherence. The list of HETAC Policies and Procedures relevant to SQT is included in Appendix 16. Our review showed that we meet their requirements. In our Self-Evaluation Report for Programmatic Review we detailed implementation of:

• HETAC Effective Practice Guidelines for External Examining 2010, and • HETAC Assessment and Standards 2009

Step 3 Operation of QA procedures For Institutional Review we verified that internal auditing of all SQT policies procedures and Work Instructions had been completed per schedule. We completed the Checklist for Quality Assurance

20

Procedures Submissions and it is included in Appendix 17. Step 4 Effectiveness of QA procedures Step 5 Quality Improvement Plan (Opportunities for Enhancement) Step 6 Follow-up We then had a thorough look at the effectiveness of the QA procedures. We looked for objective evidence. We considered the effectiveness of QA and Opportunities for Enhancement under each of the seven elements of Part One of Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area 2009. The remaining sections of this chapter detail SQT’s reflection on the effectiveness of QA and Opportunities for Enhancement under each of the seven elements. The special consideration in SQT’s Terms of Reference are included under Element 4, Quality Assurance of Teaching Staff and Element 5, Learning Resources and student support. We will follow up to ensure that our improvements are implemented. This follow-up will be coordinated by the Registrar. Note: We have not included the NEBOSH International Diploma in Occupational Health & Safety, though it is mapped back to NFQ Level 8, in this section because a separate audit by NEBOSH is planned for 2012 and its scope will cover the delivery of the two NEBOSH validated programmes. Secondly the structure of NEBOSH programmes is very different to HETAC programmes. For NEBOSH validated programmes, providers deliver a prescribed NEBOSH syllabus and prepare learners for external NEBOSH examinations. Element 1 Policy and procedures for quality assurance

Institutions should have a policy and associated procedures for the assurance of the quality and standards of their programmes and awards. They should also commit themselves explicitly to the development of a culture which recognises the importance of quality, and quality assurance, in their work. To achieve this, institutions should develop and implement a strategy for the continuous enhancement of quality. The strategy, policy and procedures should have a formal status and be publicly available. They should also include a role for students and other stakeholders.

SQT has a policy and associated procedures for the assurance of the quality and standards of our programmes and awards. These are contained in our Quality Manual, published on our website for all stakeholders. A link to our Quality Manual is also included on the HETAC website. SQT’s Quality Manual is a live document and is continually updated. The revision level of documents contained therein evidence this. Whilst we continually update our Quality Manual, there has been no substantive change in our Quality Assurance since first agreed with HETAC in 2008. In the intervening years we kept abreast of developments in European Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area, (revisions 2007 and 2009) and HETAC Policies and Procedures. The main reasons for change in SQT’s Quality Manual since 2008 include:

21

• As a result of process improvement • As a result of internal audit • Reflecting the publication of new policies and procedures by accreditation bodies.

We reflected on our Quality Policy as part of this Institutional Review. This reflection resulted in us re-articulating our quality policy in more specific terms. SQT’s Quality Policy

• SQT is committed to the teaching of programmes of study of short duration for its customer base; industry, both service and manufacturing, public and semi-state organisations and individuals.

• SQT commits itself explicitly to the development of a culture, which recognises the importance of quality, and quality assurance throughout the organization. Leadership for quality assurance comes from the highest level within SQT. Senior management, Administration and Teaching Staff all have their role to play in quality assurance.

• The organisation of quality assurance is formally documented in our quality manual. • SQT is committed to operating quality assurance that meets the quality and standards of the

certification bodies with whom it is registered. • SQT’s quality standard is that a minimum of 80% of learners to be fully or very well satisfied

with programme. All programmes not meeting this quality standard will be investigated and appropriate action taken.

• SQT has a strategy for the continuous enhancement of quality in place. • All staff involved in the teaching of students are qualified and competent to do so. • Each programme will have clearly articulated intended learning outcomes. Our staff are

ready, willing and able to provide teaching and learner support that will help learners achieve those outcomes.*

• We continually seek and act on feedback from stakeholders including learners, companies and accreditation agencies.

• SQT is committed to openness and transparency and will publish its quality manual and quality reports on its website.

• SQT will undergo reviews and audits by accreditation agencies in an honest, open and positive manner.

• This Quality Policy is implemented throughout the organization, is monitored on an annual basis and updated if necessary.

* Until all programmes have learning outcomes, we will use objectives to describe the learning.

All Lean Six Sigma programmes have clearly articulated learning outcomes. Other programmes have programme/course objectives. We will articulate the learning for all programmes using learning outcomes by end 2012. Whilst quality enhancement has continually been to the forefront we did not have a formally documented Strategy for the Continuous Enhancement of Quality. We reflected on this and documented it. It is included in Appendix 18.

22

Objective evidence We reflected on what objective evidence is there to demonstrate the effectiveness of SQT’s Policy and procedures for quality assurance. Objective evidence includes the following:

• SQT agreed its quality assurance with HETAC, FETAC and NEBOSH on first application. • All programmes have been validated with HETAC and NEBOSH on first application. • Positive feedback in HETAC and FETAC Monitoring reports. (Available to panel at site visit.) • Positive feedback from Learners and Companies was obtained as part of Programmatic

Review of Lean Six Sigma programmes. This is detailed in Chapter 4 under Element 4. • Positive feedback from learners across all programmes delivered in 2011. This is detailed in

Chapter 4 under Element 4. • Positive feedback in HETAC’s External Examiner’s Reports. (Available to panel at site visit.) • Positive feedback in FETAC’s External Authenticators’ Reports. (Available to panel at site

visit.) • Positive Report of Peer Review Group for Programmatic Review of SQT’s Lean Six Sigma

suite of programmes, (Appendix 19) • As part of Institutional Review we obtained feedback from our External Examiner. He is

currently a full-time lecturer in Biotechnology at Tralee Institute of Technology and previously External Examiner at Cork Institute of Technology. He stated: ‘SQT’s QA policies and procedures are of a high standard and effective in the context of higher education and training today.’

• As part of Institutional Review we obtained feedback from our FETAC External Authenticator. He has previously been Head of School of Electrical and Electronic Engineering/ Head of Department of Electrical Engineering/Senior Lecturer at Cork Institute of Technology. He has also been External Examiner for Dublin Institute of Technology. He stated: ‘I have found that the policies, procedures and processes for Quality Assurance operated by SQT to be excellent and are in accordance with national and international standards.’

• Positive feedback from Accreditation Manager NEBOSH, (Appendix 11).

Recommendations for enhancement 3. We will monitor the implementation of our revised Quality policy and Strategy for the

continuous enhancement of Quality. 4. We will articulate the learning for all programmes using learning outcomes by end 2012.

Element 2 Approval, monitoring and periodic review of programmes and awards

Institutions should have formal mechanisms for the approval, periodic review and monitoring of their programmes and awards.

SQT has formal mechanisms in place for the approval, periodic review and monitoring of its programmes and awards. Focusing on HETAC validated programmes, the following table summarises SQT’s four programmes validated with HETAC.

23

Table 3: SQT’s four programmes validated by HETAC SQT Programme title

Programme Code

Title of Named Award

NFQ ECTS credits

Validation date

Revalidation Date

Black Belt SQ704 (replaces SQ700)

Diploma in Process Engineering

8 60 SQ704 June 2010 (SQ700 June 2008)

Jan 2012

Back Belt (Service and Transaction)

SQ701 Certificate in Process Engineering (Service and Transaction)

8 40 June 2008 Jan 2012

Green Belt SQ702 Certificate in Process Engineering

7 10 June 2008 Jan 2012

Green Belt SQ703 Certificate in Process Engineering

6 10 April 2009

Jan 2012

Programme Approval SQT applied to HETAC for validation of programmes on two occasions. Three programmes were validated on the first occasion, 2008 (SQ700, SQ701 and SQ702) and one programme was validated in 2009, (SQ703). All programmes were validated on first submission. All conditions/recommendations contained in the Panel of Experts reports were met. Reports of the Expert panels and SQT’s response will be available at the site visit. Following review by HETAC in 2010, the credit level of the Black Belt programme was increased from 40 credits, (Programme code SQ700), to 60 credits, (Programme code SQ704). Programmatic Review was completed on all four programmes in 2011 and all four programmes were revalidated for a further five years. As a result of Programmatic Review the credit level of the Black Belt (Service and Transaction) programme was increased to 40 credits. Programme development is part of strategic planning within SQT. The quinquennial Programmatic Review is a useful time for planning the development of new Lean Six Sigma programmes. As part of Programmatic Review we identified demand for a Master Black Belt. We will investigate the provision of this programme on completion of Institutional Review and if following this investigation we decide to proceed, we will submit it to HETAC for validation and only after the amalgamation of agencies has been completed. A Level 8 Black Belt qualification would be an entry requirement for this Masters Black Belt programme, proposed for NFQ level 9. The investigation will evaluate likely demand versus cost to provide. In the period 2008 to 2011, only 34 learners achieved a level 8 Black Belt qualification with SQT alone. Thus the numbers completing a Level 9 Masters Black Belt qualification would be extremely small. As part of this investigation we would also consider our capacity to deliver. The likelihood of us submitting for a Master Black Belt programme is probably low as we perceive that the demand may be too low, but for completeness we want to fully investigate.

24

We were awarded an Enterprise Ireland grant to investigate the delivery of training overseas. We will first investigate, then test markets with non-validated Lean Six Sigma training. If all works well and there is demand, we will discuss with HETAC the delivery of validated Lean Six Sigma programmes overseas. This would necessitate our meeting the requirements of HETAC’s Policy for Collaborative Programmes, Transnational Programmes and Joint Awards 2008. Again this project is scheduled for after this Institutional Review. As part of this Institutional Review we reflected are there other programmes i.e., outside of Lean Six Sigma, which we offer which would be suitable for validation with HETAC. Because we are committed to the teaching of programmes of study of generally short duration for industry and the minimum size of programme, which can be validated with HETAC is 10 credits, equivalent to 250-300 learner effort hours, many of the programmes we provide fall outside of this. We have already referred to this in Chapter 2. Programme development has involved a big team effort with SQT management, administration and tutors involved. We take on board input from external stakeholders including learners and companies. The Academic Committee approves all new Programme Development. Getting programmes validated with HETAC is an expensive process in both time and money. Since we first became a HETAC registered provider in 2008, we feel that we now have a much better understanding of programme approval gained from:

• Previous programme approvals • Conducting Programmatic Review in 2010 • Increased understanding of HETAC’s policies and procedures • Learning gained from SQT’s Registrar’s training as a HETAC expert panel member and

participation in panels. Programme Monitoring The Academic Committee in each area is responsible for all aspects of the academic integrity of all programmes in its area. The academic committee meets biannually for Lean Six Sigma programmes. Whilst we were very diligent with the delivery/assessment of Lean Six Sigma programmes as validated and though we did review the programmes at the intervening Academic Committee meetings and made some changes, we were nervous around making even minor changes to the validated programmes. As we have grown in maturity we now have a much better sense of what changes can be made to the validated programmes in the annual review. As part of Programmatic Review we have now formalized the review of Lean Six Sigma programmes at one of the two Academic Committee meetings held each year. A further Programmatic Review enhancement was to develop a programme booklet for each Lean Six Sigma programme. Prior to this we did not have one document describing the validated programme which could be used by all stakeholders including, tutors, learners, companies, external examiner and administration. We reviewed the new Programme booklets with a learner representative, our External Examiner and at a Lean Six Sigma Network meeting. The programme

25

booklets will be available to the Institutional Review panel at the site visit. We will continue to monitor the usefulness of the Programme Booklets. The progress and achievement of learners is reviewed biannually at both Academic Committee and Exam Board meetings and this works well. Programmatic Review Programmatic Review was conducted by SQT on its four HETAC validated programmes in 2011. SQT conducted a critical review of its suite of Lean Six Sigma programmes, which had been developed and delivered over the period since initial validation of the programmes by HETAC in 2008. The self-reflection provided us with the opportunity to have a good ‘root and branch’ look at what we had done since validation and see how we could do things better. We found the Self-Reflection part of Programmatic Review to be enormously beneficial. Obtaining feedback from multiple stakeholders greatly enriched the Self-Evaluation Report. The output of our self-evaluation was a table of Recommendations for Improvement, contained in Appendix 20. This is a very useful document for us because it draws together all improvements together and keeps us focused. The involvement of the full team promoted a collegiate feel among all involved in the delivery of Lean Six Sigma programmes. We submitted our self-evaluation report to the panel on schedule in August 2011. This was our first Programmatic Review. HETAC appointed the Chairman of the Peer Review Group and SQT appointed the other four members with the agreement of HETAC. Unfortunately close to the visit two members of the panel were not able to partake. In communication with HETAC, SQT made two substitutions. The Registrar of SQT held a meeting with the Panel Chairman in advance of the panel visit on 29th September 2011. We were very appreciative of the work of the panel, in advance, during and after the site visit. We found the dialogue with the panel useful and received useful recommendations, particularly that of providing exit pathways for learners who through no fault of their own fail to complete their project. Based on our experience, we would make a number of recommendations for improvement, particularly for small providers completing their first Programmatic Review.

• HETAC recognize the diversity of institutions. SQT is a small specialist institution with a few programmes in a niche area. Our panel Chairman came from the opposite end of the scale, a large, established institution with a broad remit. Whilst we acknowledge the need for consistent programme provision across all HETAC registered providers we felt that a Chairman, somewhat closer to the area of provision, might have been better. The need for consistent programme provision, could be met by the panel itself reflecting the diversity of institutions, as well as, other stakeholder interests.

• As a small provider embarking on their first Programmatic Review, when forming the panel we read and followed HETAC’s Provider Monitoring Policy and Procedures 2010 and Participating in an evaluation panel as an expert assessor: Guidelines 2009. We also

26

discussed and agreed all panel appointments, (both original and replacement), with HETAC executive so we were a little disappointed to read criticism of the “selected panel” in the final report. Clearer guidelines to all on panel composition would have been helpful to prevent this difference of opinion between HETAC executive and panel Chairman.

• HETAC’s Provider Monitoring Policy and Procedures 2010, lists prepare a report on the findings of the PRG as one of the functions of the Peer Review Group. Whilst we totally understand and appreciate that the panel gives of their time free gratis, more clarity in advance would have prevented unnecessary misunderstanding/delay. We had been advised by HETAC executive of the need to provide secretarial support to the panel but it wasn’t clear that this included drafting the report/issuing the final report to panel members. In SQT’s case, on HETAC’s recommendation, a person from middle management provided secretarial support to the panel. She however felt insufficiently experienced to draft the report. For a small institution it ended up that the Registrar, who had project managed Programmatic Review, also wrote the draft report. SQT issued the final report to panel members. SQT feels that smaller providers, with their small number of staff, are too ‘close to the action’ to write the Report of the Peer Review Group even in draft form. It is not at all a question of workload, (the Registrar has willingly been panel member for a number of Institutional Approvals), it’s a question of the appropriateness of the person for the job. Our recommendation for Programmatic Review of smaller providers would be that one panel member acts as chairman and another panel member acts as secretary and that the panel retains ownership of the report.

We have learned from this Programmatic Review, learning that we take to our next Programmatic Review. We have implemented/are implementing corrective actions to address the findings of our own self-evaluation and those of the Peer Review group. The list of Recommendations for Improvement from SQT’s Self-Evaluation Report (August 2011), the Report of the Peer Review Group (October 2011) and SQT’s Implementation Plan (November 2011) are included in Appendices 19 and 20. We will monitor that the corrective actions, taken to address the findings of Programmatic Review, are effective. We will provide an update on SQT’s progress to the panel at the site visit. Objective evidence We reflected on element 2 and concluded that SQT’s Lean Six Sigma programmes have been well-designed, regularly monitored and periodically reviewed, thereby securing their continuing relevance and currency. Objective evidence to support this includes the following:

• All programmes were validated with HETAC on first application. • The four programmes reviewed under Programmatic Review were re-validated with HETAC

for five years, the maximum length possible following Programmatic Review. The report of the Peer Review Group for Programmatic Review commented: ‘The peer review panel are satisfied that SQT have met the requirements set out in Part 2 Programmatic Review Guidelines of HETAC’s Provider Monitoring Policy and Procedures 2010.’ and ‘SQT are to be commended on their general engagement with the panel and the review process. An open and engaging process was evident and the panel was facilitated in accessing information as necessary.’

27

Recommendations for enhancement 8. We will monitor that the corrective actions taken to address the findings of Programmatic Review, (both in SQT’s Self-evaluation and in the Report of the Peer Review Group) are effective.

Element 3 Assessment of students

Students should be assessed using published criteria, regulations and procedures which are applied consistently.

As part of Programmatic Review we undertook a ‘root and branch’ review of Assessment of students on Lean Six Sigma programmes under the following headings:

• Assessment of programmes • Review of External Examiner process • Implementation of Assessment and Standards 2009.

Assessment of programmes The assessment tools employed on the four Lean Six Sigma programmes are summarised in Appendix 21. Learners on all four programmes thus receive unclassified awards i.e., a pass/fail grade only. Although the Black Belt programme, (SQ704), has a credit value of 60 credits and Assessment and Standards 2009 (page 22) refers to the possible classification of Special Purpose awards in excess of 60 credits, a letter dated 19/11/2010 from Ian McKenna, HETAC stated that ‘awards for learners registered on all non-major programmes are unclassified’ Thus we do not classify this award. In Programmatic Review we included a review of our policy on repeats, special consideration, that assessment of learners is reliable, valid and authentic and learner assessment information on our website. One recommendation of the Peer Review Group for Programmatic review was that a clear articulation of how SQT support learner completion is undertaken and specifically that policy be drawn up to formalise exit pathways for learners who through no fault of their own are frustrated in completing the programme. We have now clearly documented how we support learner completion, and we have drawn up a policy to formalise exit pathways for learners who through no fault of their own are frustrated in completing the programme. We valued this recommendation.

Review of External Examining process Our current External Examiner, Brendan McCarra, BSc (Hons), MSc, MIBioII, Lecturer in Biotechnology, Tralee Institute of Technology, appointed by HETAC, has been in place since 2008. Precept 1.6 of HETAC’s Effective Practice Guideline for External Examining 2010, states: ‘An External Examiner’s term of appointment is sufficiently long to allow him or her to assess trends, and sufficiently short to provide diversity and maintain the required level of independence. Traditionally, the normal period of appointment has been three years.’ Because we completed Programmatic Review in 2011 followed immediately by Institutional Review this year, with

28

HETAC’s and our current External Examiner’s agreement, we decided not to change External Examiner while undergoing these two processes. We will appoint a new External Examiner from the first Exam Board meeting in 2013. Seven Exam Board Meetings have been held to end 2011 at SQT’s offices. Since all SQT’s programmes are single-stage, thus award stage, it was necessary for the External Examiner to attend each Exam Board meeting. This occurred. As part of our Programmatic Review we did a complete review of the External Examining process. Our review showed:

• We have found the external examining process to be a very positive, supportive and open process.

• The publication of HETAC’s Effective Practice Guideline for External Examining 2010 was a very useful aid to managing the External Examining process. We re-wrote our procedures to reflect the requirements of HETAC’s Effective Practice Guideline for External Examining 2010, particularly precept 2.2.

• Our use of the biannual examination board as a cut-off date to collate learner data has been very useful.

• Our process of issuing minutes after each Exam Board meeting and receiving an annual report from the External Examiner works well.

• We actioned all recommendations contained in External Examiner’s reports. Going forward we now issue a report in advance of the next Exam Board meeting of all actions taken from previous report or minutes to provide a clearer record of this. Reference precept 4.5 HETAC’s Effective Practice Guideline for External Examining 2010.

Implementation of Assessment and Standards 2009 A special consideration for Programmatic Review was to include a review of the implementation of Assessment and Standards 2009. As part of Programmatic Review we reviewed implementation of:

• Assessment and Standards 2009 (Foundations, Sectoral Conventions for Assessment and Protocols), and

• Section 1.3 Assessment of students of Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area 2009.

As part of Pogrammatic Review we developed a checklist from the Foundations section. The Foundations section includes all points from the guidelines under Element 3 of Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area 2009. The checkist is included in appendix 22. We reflected on each point to answer the question ‘is SQT compliant?’ This was a very useful checklist for us. We found that SQT is compliant with the Foundations other than Section 2.2.8, page 16 ‘In the case of small providers (or isolated niches within larger providers), independent external assessors (as distinct from external examiners) should be used (along with the internal assessors) to provide the necessary objectivity’. We highlighted our difficulty with this to HETAC at the time of publication of Assessment and Standards 2009.

29

The Sectoral Conventions for Assessment section do not apply to SQT. We have encorporated the protocols in our assessment procedures. We found this detailed review conducted as part of Programmatic Review to have been very useful. Objective evidence We reflected on element 3 and we feel we can conclude that learners are assessed using published criteria, regulations and procedures which are applied consistently. Objective evidence to support this includes the following:

• SQT’s review of Assessment of programmes, External Examining process, and Implementation of Assessment and Standards 2009, conducted as part of its Programmatic Review of HETAC validated programmes, supported the assertion that learners are assessed using published criteria, regulations and procedures which are applied consistently.

• Positive feedback in HETAC External Examiner’s Reports. These reports will be available at the site visit.

• For HETAC, results are unclassified. No learner’s pass grade has ever been downgraded. • In the survey of graduates conducted as part of Programmatic Review of HETAC validated

Lean Six Sigma programmes, 84% of learners stated that they were fully or very well satisfied with how their programmes were assessed.

• Positive feedback from HETAC External Examiner: ‘A consistent high standard of learning among Lean Six Sigma learners has been achieved by means of efficient assessment strategies and marking schemes for the Diploma/Certificate in Process Engineering (Special Purpose awards – Level 6, 7 and 8). Efficient assessment strategies have been completed for project planning, final project reports, oral presentations, case studies and continuous assessments. The demonstration of the learner to optimise use of the six-sigma tools available in the respective programmes in order to perform work related tasks correctly, economically and effectively are important aspects of the assessment strategy of these programmes. The fact that SQT tutors are available to monitor project progress once underway also ensures a consistent standard of learning … Recommendations by the external examiner in connection with benchmarking existing programmes with other organizations has been completed and confirms the high standard of SQT's QA policies and procedures.’

• The Report of the Peer Review Group for Programmatic Review commented ‘SQT have an effective engagement with the external examiner and clear evidence of acting on recommendations.’

• Positive feedback in FETAC External Authenticator’s Reports. These reports will be available at the site visit.

• For FETAC assessment results are classified; pass, merit and distinction. No results have ever been downgraded. A small number have been upgraded.

• Positive feedback on SQT’s assessment of FETAC programmes from External Authenticator. He stated: ‘I have reviewed the Assessment Work for fourteen FETAC programmes, delivered and assessed by ten tutors. On all my visits to undertake authentication I was provided with all the necessary materials and supports that enabled the work of authentication to be undertaken in an effective and efficient manner. I have been greatly impressed with the professional organisation and management of SQT. The standard

30

of teaching, learning and assessment is excellent at SQT. There is a consistent standard in teaching and assessment across different subject areas and across different tutors.’

• For NEBOSH programmes, external exams are provided and managed by NEBOSH. NEBOSH issue exam results to each provider with an overall average for all NEBOSH providers. SQT consistently outperform NEBOSH averages for both the NEBOSH Certificate and Diploma programmes. This will be detailed under Element 6.

Element 4 Quality assurance of teaching staff

Institutions should have ways of satisfying themselves that staff involved with the teaching of students are qualified and competent to do so. They should be available to those undertaking external reviews, and commented upon in reports. Special Consideration The Institutional Review should consider the implications for the SQT quality assurance arrangements and any other arrangements (if any) arising from the model of tutor engagement used by SQT. According to the provider, it has a team of over thirty very experienced tutors. SQT tutors are not direct employees of SQT but work for a number of independent companies with whom SQT has formal contracts to deliver SQT’s training. For example, the tutors who deliver SQT’s Lean Six Sigma programmes work with ASST (Applied Six Sigma Technology Ltd), whose principals are John Ryan and Éamon Ó Béarra. ASST have been providing Lean Six Sigma training for SQT for the past 11 years. Their other area of activity is Lean Six Sigma consultancy. The tutors work for these companies and SQT refers to the principals of these companies (up to approximately 16 in number) as principal tutors (also known as lead tutors). All tutors hold qualifications relevant to their subject areas, some up to PhD level. No tutor delivers training without undergoing prior training. According to SQT, this model of tutor engagement is very flexible, holds many advantages and has been in place since the initial engagement with HETAC. SQT states that there is very low tutor turnover. A full list of SQT approved tutors is included in the Quality Manual.

That ‘teachers are the single most important learning resource available to most students.’21 has been a core belief at SQT since inception of the company. SQT would attribute the emphasis it puts on excellence in delivery as one of the main factors in the success of the company. SQT’s engagement with its tutors is different to the traditional model of tutor engagement in more traditional establishments. SQT has a team of thirty-three very experienced tutors. Our tutors are not direct employees of SQT but work for a number of independent companies. SQT’s model of tutor engagement has been in place since company inception in 1989 and since the initial engagement with HETAC. Our tutors have proven technical experience, practical hands-on experience and excellent course delivery skills. All tutors hold qualifications relevant to their subject areas: 88% to Level 8, 42% to Level 9 and 9% to Level 10. 70% also have training and continuing education certificates, (86% for SQT’s main tutors). CVs for teaching staff evidencing their qualifications and experience will be 21 European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area 2009, Helsinki, 3rd edition

31

available to the panel at the site visit. Tutors are also active consultants in their subject areas. SQT’s full list of tutors is included in its Quality Manual and also in Appendix 8. An analysis of training carried out in 2011 is included in Appendix 23. It shows:

• The breakdown of 2011 training by subject area • The tutor groups who deliver that subject area

Appendix 24 includes a table showing the percentage of SQT’s training delivered by each tutor group. SQT’s main tutors are:

• ASST • Antaris Consulting • Industrial Management Systems • Albert Plant & Associates • Lasair Healthcare • JMG Associates • Kevina O’Donoghue

Their training accounted for 91% of SQT’s training in 2011. Formal contracts are in place and will be available at the site visit. There is very low tutor turnover. The only tutor changes from 2011 to 2012 were:

• Kevina O’Donoghue who delivered Cleanroom training in 2011 under SSE has set up her own company, Micro Matters Ltd. SQT discontinued offering ICEB validated programmes with this change.

• Maire Murphy is now leading JMG Associates. SQT and ASST had been working together on delivery of Lean Six Sigma programmes since 2001, for 7 years before SQT became a HETAC registered training provider. We had thus established a track record in programme delivery. To date we have been delivering programmes together for 11 years. For Lean Six Sigma programmes, SQT and ASST work closely together on programme development, approval, monitoring and review. This work is done under the Academic Committee. Lead tutors who are subject matter experts develop the materials for delivery and assessment of the programmes. The advantages of SQT’s model of tutor engagement for the learner/company are:

• They receive teaching from tutors who are both teachers and practitioners. No tutor is exclusively delivering training. They are also active consultants. It enables the tutors to stay very much at the forefront of developments in the industries they serve. Our model of tutor engagement allows us to get the benefit of consultancy, which we strongly encourage, without SQT management having to dilute its focus in managing same. The focus of SQT always remains on delivering excellence in training.

• It enables us to bring in sector specific knowledge. For example in the area of Lean Six Sigma having a tutor who has in-depth knowledge and experience of Lean Six Sigma in healthcare is very useful when delivering Lean Six Sigma for the healthcare sector.

• Being involved in other activities in their key sectors in addition to training and consulting, means that the tutors also bring a wealth of ‘other’ knowledge to their training. For example Antaris Consulting, our Environmental and Health & Safety trainers, also maintain the

32

registers of legislation on behalf of many Irish and UK companies. The Antaris Register of Legislation service, the only ISO 9001 certified service of its kind in Ireland, assists organisations in understanding, interpreting and reacting to their legal requirements.

• The model allows us to offer training in new subject areas and in subject areas where demand might be low. If demand however continues to be low over a period of time, we would discontinue that area.

• Over the years we have built up close relationships with many key customers. Our customers know our commitment to quality and like the fact that they can come to us for a wide portfolio of training.

• The model allows for the discontinuation of tutors in the event of poor performance. We would only do this however following a period of adequate support to try to improve performance. Our preventative effort through careful staff selection has resulted in us rarely having to do so.

Teaching staff undergo Continuous Professional Development and CPD records will be available at the site visit. A similar model is employed by University of Limerick for delivery of its Level 9 Specialist Diploma – Lean Systems (Postgraduate). This is one of a large number of technical professional education programmes delivered at the University of Limerick22. The programme consists of four subjects:

• Lean Thinking/Lean Tools I • Lean Sigma, Project Management & Finance • Lean Thinking/Lean Tools 2 • Leadership and Change Management

A number of outside practitioners deliver subjects on the programme. As an example of how SQT’s model of tutor engagement works, we will review ASST who deliver the HETAC validated programmes. ASST and Lean Six Sigma programmes In consultation with industry, SQT identified a need for Lean Six Sigma training. This market intelligence came from talking with companies, being aware of what was available elsewhere both internationally and in Ireland. Motorola was one of the leaders in Lean Six Sigma development and in 2000. SQT visited the Motorola plant in Chicago to discuss Lean Six Sigma training in detail. We identified three possible groups who could lead the delivery of Lean Six Sigma training for SQT. We met with each group. We selected ASST to proceed with the development of Black and Green Belt programmes for delivery in Ireland. ASST was a company formed by John Ryan and Éamon Ó Béarra, experienced Lean Six Sigma practitioners. ASST and SQT signed a formal contract to deliver Lean Six Sigma training. ASST manage its own Lean Six Sigma consultancy. The first programmes were offered in 2001. SQT principals worked closely with ASST’s Lead

22 Website http://www3.ul.ie/ulearning/default.htm

33

Tutors to ensure that the programmes were delivered according to our Quality System requirements. Again following consultation with stakeholders we approached HETAC for registration in 2007. SQT agreed its Quality Assurance with HETAC in 2008 and offered its first validated Lean Six Sigma programmes in that year. Over the years ASST and SQT have identified other programmes for development in the area of Lean Six Sigma. Our current prospectus has 20 programmes, four of which are HETAC validated. ASST lead tutors work closely with SQT in terms of programme development, approval, monitoring and review. ASST lead tutors work closely with SQT to ensure that programmes continue to be delivered to our Quality System requirements. ASST commenced with just two lead tutors, John Ryan and Éamon Ó Béarra. As demand for programmes grew, they themselves recruited further tutors to deliver the programmes that they had developed. Teaching standards are maintained at a very high level, through the Lead Tutor who inducts and oversees the work of other tutors as they are the subject matter experts. SQT support the tutors to ensure that programmes are delivered to our Quality System requirements. Individual tutors liaise with Lead Tutors and SQT administration with regards to course delivery. SQT monitors the performance of each individual course delivered. The following outlines how research activities inform teaching. Our Lean Six Sigma tutors continue to undertake research to ensure all Lean Six Sigma training remains current with developments in the evolution of continuous improvement. One of the main research channels employed is via working directly with customers to overcome the challenges they are facing. All Lean Six Sigma tutors are engaged in consulting activities. Recent examples of consulting activities that have resulted in updates in Lean Six Sigma training content are as follows:

• John Ryan is currently engaged as a technical coach to a Lean Six Sigma Champion responsible for worldwide deployment of Lean Six Sigma in a large US based service organisation. Challenges faced by this office include working with virtual teams. As a result several freeware applications have been identified to help virtual teams conduct brainstorming. One of these, called “StickySorter” is now referenced in the 10 day Service and Transactional Black Belt course as an aid for working with virtual teams.

• Nicola Donohoe is currently engaged by a leading US manufacturing company to assist in the worldwide rollout of their Lean Six Sigma programme. Arising from this Nicola has developed training materials to cover challenges identified by this company such as ‘Decision making’ and ‘Problem Solving’. Some of these materials have already been incorporated into our HETAC Green Belt training.

• Padraig Kelly is currently engaged by the HSE to drive continuous improvement activities in a large Dublin hospital. As a result of assessing the challenges faced by Lean Six Sigma practitioners in this environment Padraig has developed a Green Belt training course tailored towards the healthcare industry. SQT currently have a high demand for this course and Padraig has recently received several invitations to present his work at Healthcare and Lean Six Sigma conferences.

• Éamon Ó Béarra is a certified 3rd Party Auditor with Eagle Registrations Inc. who are based in the USA with clients all over the world. Éamon conducts audits to the TS 14969, ISO

34

9000, and ISO 14000 standards and this allows him to keep abreast of new techniques and initiatives in industry, in particular the Automotive Industry where Lean Six Sigma has been and still is extensively deployed.

In addition to the consulting channel our tutors also utilise other sources to ensure our Lean Six Sigma programme remains at the forefront of knowledge advancement, particularly internationally. These other channels include:

• Use of Irish Lean Six Sigma Network as a focus group/ think tank to collect information on current developments in continuous improvement/process engineering thinking. Many of the member organisations are part of multinational corporations, with significant Lean Six Sigma deployment worldwide.

• Membership of American Society for Quality and subscription to associated publications such as ‘Quality Progress’ and ‘Six Sigma Forum’.

• Membership of Six Sigma network groups on professional networking forum Linkedin. • Exposure to a wide variety of projects in different industries enables Lean Six Sigma trainers

to capture innovative practices, which are then shared among trainers and incorporated into training materials as examples of best practices or alternative approaches.

Objective evidence We reflected on element 4, on; staff involved with the teaching of students are qualified and competent to do quality assurance arrangements and considered the implications for the SQT quality assurance arrangements and any other arrangements (if any) arising from the model of tutor engagement used by SQT. We conclude that staff involved with the teaching of students are qualified and competent to do so and that the model of tutor engagement used by SQT works. Objective evidence to support our conclusion includes the following: 1 Quantitative learner feedback all programmes All learners who attend an SQT training programme complete a Course Assessment Form (CAF) on the last day of training. The CAFs for each cohort of learners are then read by the Tutor, the Course Manager and the SQT Managing Director. Appropriate action is taken based on this feedback. The table in Appendix 24 shows an analysis of the percentage of Learners who stated that they were fully or very well satisfied with their programmes. The data was collected from the cohorts of learners from 77% of programmes delivered in 2011. (Some companies requested to use their own Course Assessment Forms so these were excluded.) The table shows consistent high learner feedback. Feedback was consistently high regardless of whether the course was delivered by a main tutor or a tutor group who delivers only a small portion of SQT’s training. 2 Quantitative learner feedback Lean Six Sigma programmes, Part 1 As part of Programmatic review we analysed the Course Assessment Form completed by each of 585 Lean Six Sigma learners over the period 2008-2011. This represented 96% of all possible forms. The table in Appendix 25 shows a summary of learner satisfaction with the programmes garnered from the 585 learners. The table shows the percentage of Lean Six Sigma programmes delivered by each individual Lean Six Sigma tutor during the period. It then shows learner satisfaction for each area specific to a tutor’s presentation.

35

The table shows:

• Learner satisfaction across a range of metrics was consistently high for all tutors. • Learner satisfaction was consistently high for tutors who delivered only a small number of

programmes. This provides objective evidence that tutors are fully trained Furthermore the overall analysis of the 585 Course Assessment Forms showed:

• 100% of learners stated that they would apply the new skills learners • 100% of learners stated that they would recommend the course to a collegue • 96% stated that they were fully or very well satisfied with their programme

3 Quantitative learner feedback Lean Six Sigma programmes, Part 2 Learners complete their course assessment forms when their training is complete, however Lean Six Sigma leaners have yet to complete their project or case study. For Programmatic Review we decided to do a further anonymous survey using a web-based survey software package, (Suveymonkey). This survey was conducted after a period of time time for learners to incorporate their learning back into their workplace, to allow for mature reflection on the usefulness of their learning. We sent the survey link to 229 learners and received responses back from 81 learners, (35%).

• 85% of learners were fully or very well satisfied with what they had learned on the programme.

• 84% were fully or very well satisfied with how the programme was assessed. • 95% were fully or very well satisfied with their mentoring. • 94% were regularly/sometimes using the learning they achieved on their programme in their

current job. • 96% considered that the programme will improve their career prospects.

4 Qualitative company feedback all programmes SQT receives qualitative feedback from company course organizers. Appendix 10 shows very positive feedback from company course organizers. 5 Qualitative company feedback Lean Six Sigma programmes As part of Programmatic Review we did a telephone survey of four company organizers. All four gave very positive feedback. This is included in Appendix 26. 6 Report of the Peer Review Group for Programmatic Review Positive feedback in the Report of the Peer Review Group for Programmatic Review: ‘SQT operate a traditional programme board structure with a defined programme leader. It is clear that committed staff run the programmes ...’ ‘The feedback from learners was extremely positive and their training and education had clear and positive impacts on their work.’ ‘Substantial evidence was presented in terms of the capacity of SQT to satisfy the needs of employers.’

36

7 External Authenticator FETAC validated programmes Positive feedback from External Authenticator: ‘There is a consistent standard in teaching and assessment across different subject areas and across different tutors.’

8 External Examiner HETAC validated Lean Six Sigma programmes Positive feedback from External Examiner; ‘The standard of assessment material completed and presented by learners confirms both a consistent and high standard of teaching and assessment by the Lean Six Sigma tutors involved in this programme. As external examiner for the respective subjects of this program and indeed for the Institure of Technology sector also, this was quite clear in the standard and consistency of grades achieved in the elements of the respective programmes Six Sigma-Black Belt, Six Sigma-Black Belt (Service and Transaction) Six Sigma-Green Belt (level 7) Six Sigma-Green Belt (level 6).’ 9 Calibre of learners enrolling on Lean Six Sigma programmes Reviewing the qualifications of a sample of learners, across all programmes revealed that a high percentage of learners already had qualifications at level 9 prior to entry on our level 6 to level 8 programmes. 50% of learners taking the Level 8 Black Belt programme already had Level 9 qualifications. 24% of learners taking the Level 6 Green Belt programme already had Level 9 qualifications. The high calibre of learners enrolling on Lean Six Sigma programmes is evident. It can be deduced that learners of such calibre would not continually enroll on these programmes if they were not satisfied with the standard of teaching and learning on the programmes. 10 Continued demand for all programmes Demand for SQT’s programmes in general continues to be high. This is despite the recession in Ireland and the fact that we can identify a competitor in Ireland for all programmes we deliver. 11 Enterprise Ireland approval After due diligence, Enterprise Ireland approved SQT in 2011 for grant aid to investigate the delivery of training overseas. In addition SQT and its Lean Six Sigma tutors were approved by Enterprise Ireland in February 2012 for inclusion in their Directory of approved Lean Service Providers. Having reflected on the objective evidence, we conclude that our model of tutor engagement works, that the teaching, learning and assessment on SQT programmes is effective. In our Self-Evaluation for Programmatic Review we identified that to facilitate a more collegiate, supportive atmosphere for tutors, and even better communication between SQT management, administration and tutors, we will host an annual tutor day This recommendation arose when collecting tutor feedback as part of Programmatic Review.

37

A recommendation contained in the Report of Peer Review Group for Programmatic Review that given the nature of contracted staff, it is recommended that SQT develop and implement a continuous academic development plan for staff teaching on their programmes. To commence addressing both of the above points, a tutor training day had been organised for Monday 23rd January 2012 including training with John Dallatt, Head of Department, Centre for Excellence in Learning and Teaching, Dundalk Institute of Technology. It had to be postponed due to John Dallat’s sudden illness and is now scheduled for 2nd April. Recommendations for enhancement 9. We will monitor the effectiveness of the annual tutor day and the continuous academic development plan for teaching staff. Element 5 Learning resources and student support Institutions should ensure that the resources available for the support of student learning are adequate and appropriate for each programme offered. Special Consideration The Institutional Review should consider the quality assurance arrangements in place for the SQT model of out-centre provision. SQT Training Ltd delivers all its programmes at hotels and at companies’ own facilities.

Out-centre provision

Unlike many other higher education providers, SQT does not deliver centre-based training. We deliver the training at a location to suit the learner. Delivering courses at a location to suit learners is very cost effective in terms of time, money and environmental impact. Dublin is the main location for public courses. A small number are delivered around the country. This is demand driven. For In-house courses it is far more cost effective for the tutor to travel to the location of the cohort of learners, rather than vice versa. Effectively managing the quality of training locations, is one of our management roles.

Public programmes For public courses, we carefully select hotel venues that we judge suitable for our courses. Most public courses are delivered in Dublin. Once we are happy with the quality of a venue, our policy is to stay with that venue, working closely with their management to maintain/improve quality standards. In turn the hotel has the incentive to keep quality high to maintain the business. Training business tends to work well with hotel’s other business as it is concentrated in the quieter times for hotels, on weekdays, particularly mid-week and outside of the summer season. (Our delivery of public programmes tends to follow a normal academic year; busiest from late September to early December and late January to early June.) The majority of Dublin course are held at Castleknock Hotel. We give hotels clear instructions on how we require our courses to be set up. Each week the Course Manager communicates with the hotel on precise numbers, any special requirements (e.g., dietary, mobility) for forthcoming courses.

38

Tutors liaise with hotel management if there is any issue. The Course Manager and Managing Director review every Course Assessment Form which learners complete and take any action necessary. SQT management visit venues for public programmes on a regular basis. As part of our Learner survey for Programmatic Review, we asked ‘If you attended a public course in Dublin, were you satisfied with the hotel e.g., location – easy to get to, availability of parking?’ 83% of respondents were happy with our hotel location. It is difficult to get one location, which suits all learners and we were happy with the positive response in this survey. An analysis of Course Assessment Forms for public programmes held in 2011, showed that:

• 82% of learners were fully or very well satisfied with room comfort, ventilation, audibility etc. • 90% were very satisfied with lunch /refreshments.

We reflected on these results and conclude that the venues for public courses meet learners’ needs. In-house programmes For In-house programmes the client company arranges the venue. It is normally their own facilities or a local hotel. The company normally does the organization of the local hotel but we do so for the company if requested. We give the company clear instructions on how to lay out the training room. For In-house programmes we do not include an evaluation of training facilities as part of our Course evaluation. However tutors will note on the Tutor report if there was any issue and the Course Manager/MD addresses as necessary. With In-house, there may be a series of programmes being delivered thus addressing any issue early with the course organizer is important to prevent its recurrence. An analysis of Course Assessment Forms for In-house programmes held in 2011, showed that 95% of learners were fully or very well satisfied with the overall programme. Learner support SQT is an unusual HETAC registered provider in that it specializes in providing courses of short duration. All SQT learners are adult learners, most in employment and almost all learner fees are paid for by organisations on behalf of the learner. Thus the needs of our learners with regard to resources and support differ greatly from the needs of for example, a young learner transitioning from second-level to full-time third-level education. The traditional learner supports do not apply for example; Library, Guidance/pastoral care, IT facilities. For Lean Six Sigma programmes, learners are given extensive course materials, which cover the teaching on the programme. A reading list containing recommended and supplementary reading/reference material is supplied. For Black Belt programmes, learners need a laptop with specific data analysis software pre-loaded. For Green Belt programmes, learners need to have access to basic statistical software. Because completion of a project is a requirement of three of the four HETAC validated programmes, they are only suitable for learners in employment. Because the economic landscape in Ireland changed dramatically since 2008, and more learners were unemployed and thus not in a

39

position to complete a work-based project, we developed and obtained HETAC validation for a fourth Lean Six Sigma programme, which involved completion of a case-study rather than a work-based project. Following training Lean Six Sigma learners must complete their case-study or project and submit it within a set time-period following completion of the formal training days. Learners are mentored by their tutor (by telephone, email, site visit), during this time-period. Learners are encouraged to submit their projects as early as possible in the time allowed for project completion. This allows their tutor to point out areas for improvement and the learner has the guidance and time to do so. In a survey of Lean Six Sigma learners, completed as part of Programmatic Review, 95% stated that they were fully or very well satisfied with the mentoring they received from their tutor. The following initiatives help to support Lean Six Sigma practitioners in the field after they have completed their training programmes:

• SQT founded the Lean Six Sigma network in 2004 to create a forum where Six Sigma tutors, practitioners and those actively involved in Lean Six Sigma projects or programme roll-outs, can come together to discuss topics and areas of similar interest, share experiences and generally learn from each other to create a support network that will benefit all. Meetings are held quarterly in Dublin. The Network homepage can be found on the SQT website. This network has proven very successful.

• SQT provides a repository of information/resources that can be accessed by Lean Six Sigma graduates on its website. (This was a suggestion from a past learner.)

• SQT is organising the first Irish Lean Six Sigma conference to be held at the RDS on Wednesday 21st March 2012.

We reflected on the above. The first has been in operation since 2004 and has been very successful as judged by continued membership, good attendance at meetings with lively discussion. Network members who are very experienced practitioners were also very willing to present papers at the March conference. The repository of information/resources is new and we will monitor its usefulness over time. We are working hard at preparing and hope that the conference will be well attended. This is our first attempt at holding a lean Six Sigma conference and arose from our self-study as part of programmatic Review. Objective evidence We reflected on and conclude that the resources available for the support of student learning are adequate and appropriate for each programme offered. Objective evidence to support our assertion is:

• 95% of SQT learners in 2011 stated in their overall evaluation that they were fully or very well satisfied with their programme.

• In a survey of Lean Six Sigma learners, completed as part of Programmatic Review, 95% stated that they were fully or very well satisfied with the mentoring they received from their tutor.

• Feedback from learners and companies, included under element 4, was very positive.

40

Element 6 Information systems

Institutions should ensure that they collect, analyse and use relevant information for the effective management of their programmes of study and other activities.

We reflected on how we get knowledge to allow us to effectively manage our programmes of study and other activities.

SQT’s IT system stores information centrally for access by Management and Administration. SQT stores all information on courses, learners, companies on a custom-built database. This database, originally developed twelve years ago, is an excellent source of information and allows us to generate very useful reports. We have good information on the profile of our learner population. SQT’s records include information such as learner name, place of employment, programme attended, date attended. We can analyse this information by organization, by subject area, by programme. We upgraded our IT hardware and software in 2011, an investment of €17,000. We have an annual hardware and software maintenance agreement. The following table lists the sources of information we use at SQT. Table 4: Information Sources

Source Information provided Course Assessment Forms

Give feedback on each individual course from each individual learner. This feedback informs us on learners’ satisfaction across 15 metrics including the effectiveness of teachers.

Tutor reports Give formal feedback from the tutors who deliver the programmes.

Feedback from Course Organiser for In-house programmes, (normally by telephone)

Gives formal feedback on companies’ satisfaction with programmes and the effectiveness of teachers.

Assessment information - Completion rates - External Examiner Report (HETAC) - External Evaluator Report (FETAC) - Examination Results (FETAC, NEBOSH)

Give feedback on teaching, learning and assessment.

Accreditation Agencies reports Give feedback on Quality Assurance. Programmatic Reviews, HETAC and FETAC Give feedback on the past performance of programmes and

plans for the future development. KPIs on the numbers of Public and In-house bookings, the percentage of In-house proposals sent, which were successful, marketing metrics, website metrics

Give feedback on business performance.

Monthly management accounts prepared by MD. Annual accounts completed by Accountant

Give feedback on company finances.

Almost all SQT learners are already in employment. As part of Programmatic Review we did a

41

survey of past Lean Six Sigma learners. 96% of survey respondents stated that they consider that their programme will improve their career prospects. SQT was approved for delivery of a Lean Six Sigma programme under the HEA Springboard initiative, which offers job seekers the option to take up a part-time course in higher education and training, free-of-charge. SQT was one of the few small private training providers included amongst the Universities and Institutes of Technology in this initiative. To date we have delivered 3 programmes and have been approved for delivery of two more programmes. We did an initial survey of graduates to see if they had gained employment but this was very soon after programme delivery. At that stage 23% of attendees had gained employment. We plan to repeat this survey one year after programme completion. For IRCA, IEMA, IOSH, CIEH and AEE validated programmes, the tutors manage the accreditations. Although completion rates and assessment results have been good, we have not collated completion data/assessment results for these programmes on an ongoing basis. We reflected on this and going forward we will collate and review results twice annually. We will also review the reports of any monitoring visits carried out by these agencies. Comparing SQT We reflected on how we could compare ourselves with other similar organisations within the European Higher Education Area and beyond to allow us to extend the range of our self-knowledge and to access possible ways of improving our performance.

1. Comparison of SQT’s NEBOSH assessment results with published NEBOSH averages The following table shows a comparison of SQT and NEBOSH average pass rates for the last five assessment periods for the NEBOSH International General Certificate in Occupational Health & Safety. Table 5: Comparing SQT and NEBOSH average pass rates for NEBOSH International General Certificate in Occupational Health & Safety Assessment date

Paper 1 Paper 2 Practical Assessment

SQT NEBOSH average

SQT NEBOSH average

SQT NEBOSH average

Jun 2011 100% 54% 100% 47% 100% 89% Mar 2011 100% 48% 88% 38% 100% 91% Sep 2010 100% 54% 100% 63% 100% 81% Mar 2010 93% 58% 94% 58% 100% 89% Sep 2009 100% 63% 75% 44% 100% 87% The above table shows that SQT exceeded NEBOSH average pass rates for 15/15 assessment elements in the last five assessment periods. The following table shows a comparison of SQT and NEBOSH average pass rates for the NEBOSH International Diploma in Occupational Health & Safety.

42

Table 6: Comparing SQT and NEBOSH average pass rates for NEBOSH International Diploma in Occupational Health & Safety

Unit A Unit B Unit C Unit D Examination date SQT NEBOSH

average SQT NEBOSH

average SQT NEBOSH

average

Assessment date SQT NEBOSH

average Jul 2011 33% 45% 83% 38% 83% 61% Sep 2011 56% 50% Jan 2011 59% 50% 83% 49% 17% 36% Mar 2011 75% 42% Jul 2010 57% 49% 89% 65% 67% 53% Sep 2010 75% 61% Jan 2010 53% 39% 71% 51% 54% 45% Mar 2010 40% 60% Jul 2009 50% 41% 45% 38% 58% 44% Sep 2009 50% 47% The above table shows that SQT exceeded NEBOSH average pass rates for 17/20 assessment elements in the last five assessment periods.

2. Feedback External Authenticator (FETAC) Though the External Authenticator’s engagement with SQT is in the area of further education and training, his own background is in higher education. He has previously been Head of School of Electrical and Electronic Engineering at Cork Institute of Technology. He has also been External Examiner at Dublin Institute of Technology. He stated: ‘Although my engagement with SQT is in the area of further education and training, I have considerable experience in the delivery, operation and management of higher education both at national and European level. It is my opinion that SQT compares very well with similar organisations within the European Higher Education Sector.’

3. Feedback External Examiner (HETAC) SQT’s External Examiner, a full-time lecturer in Biotechnology at Tralee Institute of Technology and previously External Examiner at Cork Institute of Technology, stated ‘SQT’s QA policies and procedures are of a high standard and effective in the context of higher education and training today. These policies and procedures compare well with other similar organisations within the European Higher Education Area.’ We reflected on the above and are happy with the comparisons. We will continue to work hard at trying to provide excellence in education and training.

Recommendations for enhancement 10. To ascertain if the Lean Six Sigma programme delivered under the HEA Springboard initiative helped graduates obtain employment, we will do a survey one year after programme completion. 11. We will collate and review results twice annually for IRCA, IEMA, IOSH, CIEH and AEE validated programmes We will also review the reports of any monitoring visits carried out by these agencies.

43

Element 7 Public information

Institutions should regularly publish up to date, impartial and objective information, both quantitative and qualitative, about the programmes and awards they are offering.

SQT is very aware of its responsibility that all public information it provides is accurate, clear and readily accessible. A detailed discussion of public information was included in Chapter 2. Keeping the information on our website totally up-to-date, is a priority for us. In the design of our latest website, (2010) having a content management system which we could access and easily update was a big priority. In August of each year, we do a full update of public and In-house courses and add the schedule for the forthcoming year. Each Monday the Marketing Manager updates the website removing any course dates which have passed. All information is approved at an appropriate level before it is published.

44

Chapter 5 Objective 4 Qualifications Framework, Access, Transfer and Progression To confirm the extent that the College has implemented the National Framework of Qualifications and procedures for Access, Transfer and Progression. SQT offers programmes of short duration, validated by HETAC, FETAC and other agencies and Non-validated programmes. The following details SQT’s programmes:

• SQT’s four HETAC validated programmes are mapped onto the National Frameworks of Qualifications, (NFQ) at Levels 6 – 8 and all lead to Special Purpose awards.

• The 25 FETAC programmes which SQT offers in its current prospectus, reference Appendix 3 are on the NFQ at Levels 4 – 6 and all lead to Minor and/or Special Purpose awards.

• SQT’s two NEBOSH programmes are mapped onto the Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework (SCQF). They are mapped through SCQF23 to Levels 5 and 8 on the NFQ.

• Four out of five of SQT’s CIEH programmes we offer are mapped through Ofqual24 to Level 4 on the NFQ.

• Programmes validated by IRCA, IEMA IOSH and AEE are not yet mapped onto any framework. Shane Curran (Tutor) and Lily Collison were members of the FETAC Standards Development group for Management System Standards, chaired by NSAI. Part of the plan for this group was to map auditing programmes, currently validated by IRCA and IEMA, to the NFQ. The work of this development group has now ceased during the amalgamation of the agencies but hopefully will continue following amalgamation.

We reflected on our performance with regard to Access, Transfer and Progression.

Access Access is defined as the process by which learners may commence a programme of education and training having received recognition for knowledge, skill or competence required. There are clear entry criteria specified for each programme. All programmes mapped to the NFQ through HETAC and FETAC are clearly labeled on our prospectus and website. We include NFQ level. For the two NEBOSH programmes we have included details of their mapping onto the Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework in the individual programme brochures, but not on the prospectus or website. We will include this on our prospectus and website list of programmes going forward. The CIEH awards are at Level 2 on the Qualifications and Credit Framework/ National Qualifications Framework for England and Northern Ireland. Level 2 on this framework is

23 The Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework (SCQF) is the national credit transfer system for all levels of qualifications in Scotland. 24 The Office of Qualifications and Examinations Regulation (Ofqual) is the regulator of qualifications, examinations and assessments in England and vocational qualifications in Northern Ireland.

45

equivalent to Level 4 on the NFQ. We have included this on our prospectus but will include on our website list of programmes going forward. Programmes validated by IRCA, IEMA IOSH and AEE are not yet mapped onto any framework. If possible we will continue to work on this. Programme entry requirements are stated for all programmes. Programme entry requirements for Lean Six Sigma programmes are shown in Appendix 2. As part of Programmatic Review we reviewed the entry criteria specified for each programme and all were still considered appropriate. In Programmatic Review of Lean Six Sigma programmes we found that our operation of Approved prior Experiential Learning (APEL) for Lean Six Sigma programmes worked well. There was no correlation between not attaining award and being accepted on the programme on the basis of APEL. (76% of the small number accepted on the basis of APEL achieved their HETAC award compared with 81% overall.) SQT has a policy, published on its website, to provide reasonable accommodation to meet the needs of a learner who have a disability. To date we have been able to accommodate all special needs encountered among learners. We reflected on whether we could operate Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL) for learners who already have completed Green Belt training, who subsequently go on to do Black Belt. Whilst Green Belts have basic grounding in the same five subjects that are taught on the Black Belt, the learning on the Black Belt is far more detailed and is dispersed throughout the training days. We reflected on whether the structure of the programmes could be changed to accommodate but felt it was not possible. Since we now have graduates with a 60 credit Diploma, we issue the Diploma Supplement. Transfer Transfer is defined as ‘the process by which learners may transfer from one programme of education and training to another programme having received recognition for knowledge, skill or competence acquired.’ Because SQT’s suite of programmes are of short duration, leading to Special Purpose awards (HETAC) and Minor and/or Special Purpose awards (FETAC), transfer is not applicable. Theoretically it would be possible for a learner to transfer from a Level 8 Black Belt (Service & Transaction) 40 credit qualification to a Level 8 Black Belt 60 credit qualifcation. This is unlikely because the two qualifications are designed for two different markets. Progression Progression is defined as ‘the process by which learners may transfer from one programme of education and training to another programme, where each programme is of a higher level than the preceeding programme.’

46

The progression routes pertaining to HETAC validated Lean Six Sigma programmes are: • Level 6 Green Belt to Level 7 Green Belt. • Level 7 Green Belt to Level 8 Black Belt (Service & Transaction) or Level 8 Black Belt. • We currently don’t have a progression route to a Master Black Belt programme though one

is available at University of Limerick. Since commencement of the programmes:

• 5 learners have progressed from a Level 7 Green Belt to a Level 8 Black Belt award. • 8 learners have progressed from a Level 7 Green Belt to a Level 8 Black Belt (Service &

Transaction).

The number of learners progressing is low but the data shown here is only for four years.

In our survey of learners as part of Programmatic Review, graduates were asked would they benefit from further training in the Lean Six Sigma area, 66% replied yes. Of the 18 graduates who replied yes:

• 4 (22%) indicated Master Black Belt • 6 (33%) indicated Black Belt • 3 (17%) indicated Black Belt (Service & Transaction), and • 2 (11%) indicated Level 7 Green Belt

As part of Programmatic Review we identified that we would investigate the provision of a Masters Black Belt programme.

Reflecting in general on the National Framework of Qualifications, we have found in engagement with our learners and companies, that there is limited understanding of e.g., the National Framework of Qualifications, Special-Purpose Awards, ECTS credits etc. The terms Access, Transfer and Progression are not in general use. We have provided explanations of relevant terminology in the new Programme Booklets we have developed for Lean Six Sigma. SQT will do further work to promote a better understanding among our customer-base. Whilst we include a section in our Course Prospectus explaining the NFQ, we will also include a section on our website. We will write regular blog posts to further disseminate this understanding. Recommendations for Enhancement 12. We will include details of mapping of NEBOSH and CIEH programmes on both our prospectus/website going forward. 13. Programmes validated by IRCA, IEMA IOSH and AEE are not yet mapped onto any framework. If possible we will continue to work on this. 14. SQT will work to promote a better understanding of the National Framework of Qualifications and associated terminology among our customer-base.

47

Chapter 6 Objective 6 Recommendations for Enhancement To provide recommendations for the enhancement of the education and training provided by the College. In HETAC terms we are one of the smaller specialist institutions with a few programmes in niche areas. Our HETAC validated programmes lead to Special-Purpose awards of 10-60 ECTS credits. 4% of SQT’s learners in 2011 were registered on HETAC validated programmes. In HETAC terms we are a young provider having only been registered since 2008. This was our first HETAC Institutional Review. This Self-Evaluation Report has detailed our self-study, phase 2 of the Institutional Review process. This Self-Study provided us with an excellent opportunity to stand back and critically review the institution as a whole. It was an excellent opportunity to have an objective look at what we do and see how we could do things better. In this self-study we have found 14 Recommendations for Enhancement. All can be classed as minor. We feel that the reason we found only minor recommendations for enhancement in our self-study for Institutional Review reflects on the Quality ethos that has been in SQT since inception and the fact that we actively engage on an ongoing basis with Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area 2009 and HETAC Policies and Procedures. We will address all the Recommendations for Enhancement, which we found under the objectives for this Institutional Review. They can be summarized as follows: Recommendations for Enhancement Objective 1 Public Confidence

4. As part of our self-study we recognized that the quality section of our website may not be sufficiently obvious to a website visitor. We will investigate making it more accessible.

5. The management of information to learners during the amalgamation of HETAC and FETAC will be important so that there is no confusion for the learner. We will aim to provide clear information to our companies and learners.

6. One limiting factor with HETAC validated programmes is the credit size. The minimum programme size available for private training providers is 10 credits. This is inconsistent since Institutes of Technology offer 5 credit programmes. We will raise this inconsistency with HETAC.

Objective 2 Strategic Planning and Governance 7. We will review the Academic Committees for other subject areas and reflect on how we

can make improvements. 8. As part of this Institutional Review we added Éamon Ó Béarra(Tutor) to our Quality

Systems Committee. We will define the role of the tutor on this committee. Objective 3 Quality Assurance Element 1

9. We will monitor the implementation of our revised Quality policy and Strategy for the continuous enhancement of Quality.

10. We will articulate the learning for all programmes using learning outcomes by end 2012. Objective 3 Quality Assurance Element 2

11. We will monitor that the corrective actions taken to address the findings of Programmatic

48

Review, (both in SQT’s Self-evaluation and in the Report of the Peer Review Group) are effective.

Objective 3 Quality Assurance Element 4 12. We will monitor the effectiveness of the annual tutor day and the continuous academic

development plan for teaching staff. Objective 3 Quality Assurance Element 6

13. To ascertain if the Lean Six Sigma programme delivered under the HEA Springboard initiative helped graduates obtain employment, we will do a survey one year after programme completion.

14. We will collate and review results twice annually for IRCA, IEMA, IOSH, CIEH and AEE validated programmes We will also review the reports of any monitoring visits carried out by these agencies.

Objective 4 Qualifications Framework, Access, Transfer and Progression 15. We will include details of mapping of NEBOSH and CIEH programmes on both our

prospectus/website going forward. 16. Programmes validated by IRCA, IEMA IOSH and AEE are not yet mapped onto any

framework. If possible we will continue to work on this. 17. SQT will work to promote a better understanding of the National Framework of

Qualifications and associated terminology among our customer-base. We will now prepare for phase 3 of the Institutional Review process, the visit by the expert panel and the panel report.

49