Kingston University
School of Surveying
Faculty of Design
Knights Park
Kingston upon Thames
Surrey
KT1 2QJ

Contact:
Mr T. Bennett
Tel: 0208 547 7070
Email: t.bennett@kingston.ac.uk

Aims:
The Building and Land and Property Management provision at Kingston University stated in its self-assessment document, that its aims were to :

• offer high quality programmes addressing educational, professional and vocational requirements of students and provide them with appropriate knowledge, skills and understanding;
  
• design courses which meet the changing needs of the relevant professions;
  
• present curricula in ways which foster students' creativity, problem solving abilities, powers of independent thought and transferable skills;
  
• create a supportive and stimulating learning environment appropriate to an intellectual approach and cognisance of the need for, and role of, research;
  
• give access to students from varied educational backgrounds. These represented the broad aims against which the provision was judged in achieving its maximum score. The aims of the project management of the visit were defined as simply to maximise the ‘score’ that was to be achieved for this provision.

Resources:
To ensure a successful outcome significant resources were allocated to the preparation, delivery and analysis of the inspection visit as follows:

• a cross-University project team with appropriate delegated authority;
• a project manager with appropriate delegated authority;
• dedicated administrators;
• a liaison team;
• a dedicated budget;
• dedicated resources and space;
• experienced assessors forming part of the project team;
• a knowledge sharing network within University;
• appropriate time allocation for the preparation and management of the QAA visit.

Details:
The over-riding principles applied to the QAA assessment exercise were those of Knowledge Management and Project Management. These management tools were the back-bone to the response to the QAA requirements and the framework for ensuring delivery of a successful outcome.

Within the University a number of other subject areas were engaged in the preparation for, or had received, visits. Furthermore, other Universities within the same area of assessment had undergone visits that allowed lessons to be learnt from their experiences. This was, in the first instance, a valuable insight into the QAA assessment methodology and provided a starting point for the best response methodologies and structures to be considered that could lead to the best possible outcome. In addition, a number of key personnel within the School had been trained as assessors and some had already gained experience through participating in visits. These were all important contributory factors in the preparatory stages.

The initial planning stage for the visit followed key project management principles of scope definition, activity definition and defining the control mechanisms that would need to be in place for constant redefinition of these aspects. There was a concern that ‘detail’ would become the driver in the early planning stages rather than focussing on the need to address the strategic issues which had been defined as part of the assessment visit brief. The ability to draw on others’ experience was in fact a double-edged sword. The opportunity to analyse the outcome of other visits was a positive advantage whilst, on the other hand, the temptation to focus on too much detail could become an unnecessary focus at too early a stage in the planning process.

Naturally, with any fixed-time target there can be a tendency to allow slippage to take place and many of the strategic deliverables then become impossible to achieve because of time constraints. This was a key issue, which would affect the resource requirements of the project. As part of the initial scope and activity definition, the six areas of assessment were taken as the starting point with, in the first instance, the need to understand how they inter-linked in terms of subject matter, personnel, processes and outcomes. One of the aims was to ensure that, in addressing these criteria, the Schools, Faculties and the University appeared seamless: there should no gaps into which the potential scores could fall.

Within the project management agenda, there was little initial focus on cost issues as the view was taken that cost was a factor that should not jeopardise the outcome of the project. The fact that two Schools were part of the same assessment visit also allowed much of the costs to be shared equally. Having defined the scope and specific activities, resources were then allocated. These were in terms of material and its generation, together with the key personnel who would be part of the live visit and others who would provide a valuable supporting role in the production and delivery of the material.

It was felt vital that a project manager or a key individual should co-ordinate the project and have the authority to act in this capacity. Following accepted programme management principles, any successful project must be allocated appropriate skilled personnel who have the necessary authority and control. These staff were drawn from within the hierarchy of the cross-School/University staffing group and, again, these staff were given the authority to act and to make decisions. This staffing framework was essential to the success of the exercise.

It has been identified that one of the key strategies was to ensure that the different parts of the exercise were seen to be seamless, i.e. the sum of the parts should look like it made the whole. Unfortunately, the demands of QAA methodologies and the nature of modern Universities inevitably leads to a paper generation response. Information and data overload do not, however, provide all the answers. It is the effective use of information together with the experience of the staff that makes the educational processes work: it is these factors that must be effectively harnessed. The ‘glue’ that enabled this to happen was effective communication or, in its wider context, knowledge management.

Therefore, knowledge management techniques and principles were applied to the planning of the visit. These took the form of communication planning, management of meetings, information distribution, communication control and the creation of appropriate transfer protocols for information. Examples of these include the involvement of information co-ordinators within assessment meetings. Their specific duty was to note all discussion, highlight issues raised no matter what there significance or insignificance, identify the performance of personnel, and note the non-verbal language of the assessment team members. The assessment meetings were scheduled to allow sub-meetings to take place between the allocated meeting slots at which the information co-ordinators could identify their findings. The information was assessed and documented and action taken to address issues raised at the next or subsequent meetings. The findings were also shared within the team network so that relevant positive aspects could be reiterated throughout the visit which either highlighted good practice or reversed negative thinking within the assessment team. Further, additional team members were drawn into the exercise who it was felt could provide additional credence to issues that needed to be addressed. The management of meetings was also considered an important element with, again, key personnel allocated to control and direct from the sidelines as required.

Evaluation:
Whereas high QAA scores must be as a result of quality course provision, this on its own may not be sufficient to ensure the award of the highest scores. The application of project management and knowledge management principles to the preparation and management of the QAA visit allowed Kingston University to maximise the positive attributes of the provision and minimise the negatives. The result speaks for itself.

Benefits:
The benefits of careful planning leading to a successful QAA outcome can be summarised as:

• providing an excellent short-term marketing tool;
• allowing the University to recognise what aspects of the provision were performed well and what not so well;
• providing an agenda for continuous improvement;
• encouraging networking within the Faculty and University;
• allowing good practice to be shared throughout the University.

Issues and lessons to be learnt:
Many of the issues, which were raised by the assessment exercise, have provided the foundation for new course developments and course review. One of the key outcomes has been the approach to course review with a clearer understanding now gained of learning, teaching and assessment strategies. Module and course developments now have greater academic cohesion linked to clearer objectives. This has led to a greater understanding of both course aims and course/ module learning-outcomes. These positive lessons, in turn, benefit the students who have a better understanding of module context and both requisite and pre-requisite requirements.

Ongoing developments:
Learning and teaching have become a key focus within the University and the School and form the basis of one of the research areas in which the School is now involved. Greater parity is now being shown throughout the University with consistent, uniform regulations and policies being implemented.

References, further reading and sources of further related information:
For Kingston University QAA report for Building see:
www.qaa.ac.uk/revreps/subjrev/All/q58-98.htm

For the Subject Overview report for Building see:
www.qaa.ac.uk/revreps/subjrev/overviews.htm