University of Tampere did not pass the re-audit
In its meeting on 9 November 2008 FINHEEC had decided, based on the proposal of the audit group and the audit report, that the quality assurance system of University of Tampere had material shortcomings in relation to the audit criteria and a re-audit was required.
The re-audit focused on three auditing targets set out in the FINHEEC Audit Manual for 2008–2011:
1. Definition and documentation of the objectives, functions, actors and responsibilities of the quality assurance system
2. Monitoring, evaluation and constant development of the quality assurance system
4. The quality assurance system as a whole.
The aim of the re-audit is to evaluate how the University has progressed in improving its quality assurance system in the areas that required further development. In the re-audit, the quality assurance system must be found to be at least at the "developing" stage as regards the areas under review when measured by the audit criteria.
The re-audit was based on the auditing material provided by the University in advance and on a visit made by the re-audit group to the University on 22 November 2011.
At the University of Tampere, the governance system and the steering of operations function as the quality assurance system. The governance system and the steering of operations constitute a clear entity as such, but the system contains only part of the available quality assurance procedures. As an entity, the quality assurance system is diffuse and, in the main, its impact on the quality assurance of operations remains unclear. According to the University, new procedures will be adopted for steering, governance and quality assurance.
The definition of aims is inadequate. The quality assurance operations have been defined only in part, and there is no systematic description of them. After the audit in 2008, the University has proceeded from collective responsibility towards assigning more responsibilities to directors. The responsibilities of the staff and students have not been defined although the University considers them to have a central role in quality assurance. Evidence as to how well the division of responsibilities functions is to some extent lacking. The documentation of the quality assurance system is diffuse, limited and lacking in its serviceability.
The University of Tampere has described the internal audit as a tool for the development of the quality assurance system but it has not yet been put to use. The University identifies certain individual procedures in governance and steering as tools used to develop the system but these have not been systematically described, nor has their impact been analysed. The procedures for monitoring, evaluating and developing the quality assurance system do not constitute a whole, nor have they been systematically and lucidly documented.
- Chair of the re-audit team, Professor Turo Virtanen, University of Helsinki, turo.virtanen[at]helsinki.fi, +358 50 317 5079
- Chief Planning Officer Sirpa Moitus, FINHEEC, sirpa.moitus[at]minedu.fi, tel. +358 40 7798 813
Report (in Finnish)