Brief portrait: Harz University of Applied Sciences
The alternative procedure of the Harz University of Applied Sciences is programme-related. It uses existing elements of quality management and supplements these with greater involvement of external experts.
The central element is the upgrading of the regular student surveys to degree program workshops in which students, lecturers, university management and external experts participate. Based on the survey results, they discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the degree program and agree on measures for further development. At the same time, the external reviewers check whether the criteria according to parts 2 and 3 of the MRVO have been met and hold discussions with the status groups – similar to an on-site visit.
The expert group is supported by a representative of an accreditation agency. The peer review report with a proposed resolution is sent to the Accreditation Committee (AkAsHSH) after the faculty has made a statement. This is made up of external and internal members, whereby the external members predominate; the agency representative acts in an advisory capacity. The committee makes the accreditation decision and reviews the implementation of conditions.
A special feature of the accreditation procedures is the extended involvement of students and external expertise. The external participants act as critical friends and act not only in an evaluative but also in an advisory capacity. The involvement of an agency representative also ensures a link to current developments in the accreditation system and to the Accreditation Council’s decision-making practice.
Documentation of the accreditation procedures on ELIAS: Harz University of Applied Sciences
We see the dovetailing of internal and external Quality Management as well as the permanent external perspective on our study programmes and the high level of student participation in the evaluation as a great enrichment for our quality development. Thanks to consistent responsibilities and centralized data management, we are also gaining efficiency both in the Bodies and among the individual managers.
Brief portrait: HdM, HfWU, HFU
The Alternative Procedures were developed jointly by Stuttgart Media University (HdM), Furtwangen University (HFU) and Nürtingen-Geislingen University (HfWU) and are intended to replace the previous external system accreditation procedure. It is system-oriented and is based on a structured quality advisory board model. The quality advisory boards – externally appointed Bodies – are responsible for assessing the respective quality assurance systems and support both quality assurance and quality development.
The accreditation procedures are designed for the entire accreditation period. In annual to semi-annual meetings, the quality advisory boards review the fulfillment of the system accreditation criteria step by step. One to two criteria are assessed per meeting; some of these are revisited during the course of the period. At the end of the accreditation period, the quality assurance systems have thus been externally reviewed at least to the extent of a system reaccreditation. In addition, internal review procedures are integrated to ensure compliance with the Study Accreditation Ordinance (StAkkrVO) at degree program level. These accreditation procedures are also reviewed by the quality advisory boards.
The alternative procedure is designed as a joint project between the three universities. Each university sets up its own quality advisory board and anchors it in its specific structures. At the same time, there is close cross-university cooperation, which ensures the exchange between the quality advisory boards and the coordination of the implementation of the procedure. While the procedure is implemented as a joint model, the respective quality management systems remain university-specific.
Documentation on the accreditation procedures on ELIAS: HdM, HfWU, HFU
Our alternative accreditation procedure at system level is based on continuous, structured and trusting Quality Dialogues with our Quality Advisory Boards. The model has become very well established at all three participating higher education institutions. It shows that well-founded assessments of the conformity with criteria and effectiveness of the QM system can be combined with tailored impulses for its further development and documented in a lean, implementation-oriented form.