![](bg2.png)
problems.
An example of a number based quality data item
with many implications is a credit point attribute of a
course module (e.g. following the European Credit
Transfer System (ECTS)). It needs a consistent
representation (summations should be correct or
breakdowns to specification of attendance and
learning times should add up correctly). It is used at
several positions (module description, study and
examination regulations) and quality analysis
compares it with actual student workload data.
Those kinds of data items should not be hidden in
document files. It should be under application
control, but still be integrated with text-based
information about modules.
For these reasons an adequate information
system for QMS should help to manage, to integrate
and to utilize all documents and data. Exploiting
these data for analysis of quality (like target-
performance comparisons) and for further
processing (like web site publishing or PDF
generation using the additional text based
information) would be very valuable. Furthermore,
an integrated information system facilitates the
uniform handling of quality management data and
documents at the entire university.
This paper outlines basic features of QMS at
universities and the correspondence to general
quality management. It is based on the European
standards and guidelines for quality assurance
(ENQA, 2009), but could be used elsewhere, if
similar tenets are applied. It investigates the
problems of simple file solutions in more detail and
derives general requirements for better software
support resulting in a design proposal. The
consequences for adequate software support are
extremely comprehensive. It turns out that the major
challenge for information system support of quality
management at higher education institutions is to
find a proper mixture of features known from
document management and data management. After
introducing related work we propose an object-
oriented framework based on structured documents
with associated organizational networks.
FINQUAS is an on-going project developing an
implementation in order to proof the proposed
concepts, based on the experience of our institution
with program and system accreditation, but it is
adaptable to special document and organizational
structures of other universities. A first release of the
system is available at our university supporting peer
reviews.
2 OUTLINE OF UNIVERSITY
QMS
In general, the established quality management
practices at universities (for the European variant see
(ENQA, 2009)) follow the basic scheme of PDCA
(plan-do-check-act) cycles known from industrial
management; see for instance (Deming, 2000). More
sophisticated schemes are well known, too, and are
applied as well. However, in the following we will
only sketch and summarize major activities of
quality management as preparation for the
presentation of requirements and solution
architecture. Specific institutions will vary
appropriately these activity structures and associated
information formats.
At the level of study programs the quality
management activities can be summarized as
follows:
Planning defines the output by setting objectives
like learning outcomes for study programs and
key figures like a dropout quota of students (to
take a simple example figure that does not take
into account the influence of grades of incoming
students) or professor/student ratio. Boards at
institution or faculty level are usually
responsible for setting the objectives.
Doing refers to the implementation of the
objectives. Higher education represents this as a
program curriculum consisting of modules and
their descriptions. In a broader sense it also
comprehends the documentation about required
technical (labs) and human resources with
organizational structures. Precise descriptions
are necessary as a base for quality assurance.
The exact description structure can differ
depending on the kind of study and university
specialities. Besides the core teaching service,
supporting processes and policies
(examinations, notification of credit transfer,
admissions, generation of certificates, course
scheduling, etc.) have to be documented as well.
A release process complements the
development process of descriptions.
Peer reviews are a standard practice for
checking program quality (for instance as
accreditation process). Based on documentation
of the study program, on-site visitations and
their domain knowledge, reviewers give a
structured judgment. Checklists are a common
way to support reviews. These lists are basically
document templates filled out by reviewers. The
written statements of reviewers can be
CSEDU2014-6thInternationalConferenceonComputerSupportedEducation
310