Methodology - Revision history

Diego Failla at 13:27, 1 December 2021

2021-12-01T13:27:22Z

Diego Failla at 13:26, 1 December 2021

2021-12-01T13:26:10Z

Diego Failla at 10:04, 30 November 2021

2021-11-30T10:04:03Z

Diego Failla at 10:02, 30 November 2021

2021-11-30T10:02:44Z

Diego Failla at 09:59, 25 November 2021

2021-11-25T09:59:06Z

Diego Failla at 09:48, 25 November 2021

2021-11-25T09:48:25Z

Diego Failla at 09:42, 25 November 2021

2021-11-25T09:42:40Z

Diego Failla at 09:31, 25 November 2021

2021-11-25T09:31:26Z

Diego Failla at 09:31, 25 November 2021

2021-11-25T09:31:04Z

Diego Failla at 09:30, 25 November 2021

2021-11-25T09:30:36Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:27, 1 December 2021
Line 15:		Line 15:


−	[[File:Flow ~~chart~~.png\|alt=\|867x867px~~\|center~~]]	+	[[File:Flow Chart.png\|alt=\|center\|867x867px]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:26, 1 December 2021
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	The aim of the SMART-QUAL project is not the creation of an exhaustive and extensive compilation of all possible Quality [[Indicators]] already in use or able for use, but of a SMART set that could be defined as follows:	+	The aim of the SMART-QUAL project is not the creation of an exhaustive and extensive compilation of all possible Quality Indicators already in use or able for use, but of a SMART set of [[Indicators]] that could be defined as follows:

	a) '''Short:''' focused on the efficiency and effectiveness of IQAS and avoiding oversizing.		a) '''Short:''' focused on the efficiency and effectiveness of IQAS and avoiding oversizing.

@@ Line 47: / Line 47: @@
 o 17 - strategic & operational & tactical
 === Phase 2 ===
-The second main source to feed the instrument was relevant literature on Quality Indicators for QMS, and particularly in the HEI setting. Up to 39 unique and valid resources have been analyzed, which are of different types: scientific articles, project and institutional reports, books and other scholar publications and management documents. These documents provided up to 302 indicators. The publication of the selected documentation was recent (46% published in 2918 and afterwards), whereas 26% were published before 2011. Most of these documents were scientific articles peer reviewed (58%).
+The second main source to feed the instrument was relevant literature on Quality Indicators for QMS, and particularly in the HEI setting. Up to 39 unique and valid resources have been analyzed, which are of different types: scientific articles, project and institutional reports, books and other scholar publications and management documents. These documents provided up to 302 indicators. The publication of the selected documentation was recent (46% published in 2018 and afterwards), whereas 26% were published before 2011. Most of these documents were scientific articles peer reviewed (58%).
 These indicators were also classified in the three categories according to its scope: 46 % were on “Teaching & Learning”, 25 % on “Research” and 14 % on “Relations with Society”. The remaining 15% were documents combining two categories or the three of them at the same time. According to the decision making level attained, 13% were strategic, 36 % tactical, 20 % operational and 31 % were combinations of the previous levels.

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:02, 30 November 2021
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	The aim of the SMART-QUAL project is not the creation of an exhaustive and extensive compilation of all possible Quality Indicators already in use or able for use, but of a SMART set that could be defined as follows:	+	The aim of the SMART-QUAL project is not the creation of an exhaustive and extensive compilation of all possible Quality [[Indicators]] already in use or able for use, but of a SMART set that could be defined as follows:

	a) '''Short:''' focused on the efficiency and effectiveness of IQAS and avoiding oversizing.		a) '''Short:''' focused on the efficiency and effectiveness of IQAS and avoiding oversizing.

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:59, 25 November 2021
Line 55:		Line 55:

	=== Phase 4 ===		=== Phase 4 ===
		+	The authors expertise was key for grouping, prioritization, and harmonization of the set of collected Quality Indicators.
		+
		+	The creation of the QIS was divided in three steps:
		+
		+	a) Grouping of similar indicators from the collected ones.
		+
		+	b) Prioritization of the most relevant considering the collection results and the expertise of partners.
		+
		+	c) The harmonization of their metadata.
		+
		+	A list of 94 groups or labels were set in order to distribute the indicators. An iterative process in which all individual assignation of each author were merged. Next step was assigning these 94 groups into the 15 standards previously agreed. At this point, some close indicators in terms of content, or very high overlap were discarded. Other indicators that did not fit in any standard were also dropped. Other indicators that did not fulfill the requirements agreed also were discarded.
		+
		+	The result is that from more than 500 collected indicators the QIS is finally summarized in 27 basic indicators and 29 as recommended.

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:48, 25 November 2021
Line 52:		Line 52:

	=== Phase 3 ===		=== Phase 3 ===
		+	Combining the results of the first two phases, a corpus of more than 500 Quality Indicators was compiled and became the initial input for QIS’s creation.
		+
		+	=== Phase 4 ===

@@ Line 25: / Line 25: @@
 The reasons for the selection of these institutions/QMS are varied, ranging from the characteristics of the institutions themselves (e.g. history, dimension, representativeness and relevance within the national higher education systems, good positions in international rankings, reputation), to the easiness of contact with relevant people within the institution (augmenting the possibility of collecting reliable and valid information on the QMS), the availability of public information on the QMS, including when searching the institutional website (e.g. on the process and the role played by each body, in a transparent way), the existence of well-structured and integrated governance and management systems, interested in promoting the quality of the nuclear processes and their results, ensuring the involvement of all stakeholders, or the maturity level of the QMS.
-Overall, 223 quality indicators have been identified in the 36 QMS analyzed.
+Overall, 223 quality indicators have been identified in the 36 QMS analyzed. The main characteristics of these quality indicators can be summarized as follows:
 === Phase 2 ===

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:31, 25 November 2021
Line 16:		Line 16:

	[[File:Flow chart.png\|alt=\|867x867px\|center]]		[[File:Flow chart.png\|alt=\|867x867px\|center]]
−
−
−
−
−
−

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:30, 25 November 2021
Line 16:		Line 16:

	[[File:Flow chart.png\|alt=\|left\|867x867px]]		[[File:Flow chart.png\|alt=\|left\|867x867px]]
		+