Quality Assurance in Continuing Professional Education

An Analysis

Philip Tovey

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2013
• eBook ISBN: 9781134961276
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

Higher education in the 1990s is characterised by a pre-occupation with quality assurance. This book provides an examination of what that means for one academic specialism, continuing professional education (CPE). Based on research conducted in and around UK universities, the book explores the range of existing practice in CPE, and develops a broadly based strategy for practical action. It is argued that a framework for quality should evolve from an awareness of the complex character of CPE as a distinct subject area - solutions cannot simply be brought in, but must be developed in relation to setting.

Part I

QUALITY AND QUALITY ASSURANCE

1

THEORY AND PRACTICE BEYOND EDUCATION

With all the hullabaloo surrounding quality issues in higher education it is easy enough to overlook the point that the process which is under way is actually being mirrored, and in some cases has been preceded, by similar attempts to pin down and operationalise the term in a range of contexts. It is seemingly becoming an institutional ever present, the first item to be confirmed on the agenda in both the public and private sectors. But that is only a part of the story. For while a review of many sectors will reveal a consistency of terminology, the courting of the same managerialist rationale and even pressures for the adoption of the same systems, a closer examination will reveal points of divergence which are helping to shape the trends in particular sectors.

Given the range of options available, selecting three sectors—the construction industry, health and welfare—inevitably involved a degree of subjective assessment. Despite this the selection was not purely arbitrary. Each case offers details of theory, practice or of continuing evolution which should prove to be of interest to these beyond the immediate specialism.

In a sense the rationale of this chapter is consistent with that for part I and, indeed, for the book as a whole. For it acts as both a discrete source of information; and it provides implications for developing approaches. The resource role emerges against a background of patchy and uneven knowledge about QA activity amongst CPE practitioners. This situation is quantified in part II.

The potential applications of this review extend beyond the overt search for usable practices. This review offers insight into varying interpretations of quality, and identifies how quality emerged as an issue in particular locations. Also, it provides access to aspects of practice, isolated cases of theoretical development, and the main lines of emerging critical discourse.

Although there is some similarity in the themes discussed in each example, the production of a strict comparative analysis is not the aim. Instead, each sector is approached in a manner specific to it; one designed to maximise the value of each illustration. For example, the inclusion of the construction industry is a deliberate attempt to provide some detail on the way in which quality is understood and applied in one branch of the private sector. The emphasis here is on detailing the kind of system which operates in construction, and on revealing the interpretation of quality which provides the foundation for this. The discussions of health and welfare are structured rather differently. Priority is given to commentators on the process, to those whose input helps uncover the frequently complex and contentious nature of the quality issue. Whether or not the human/social character of health and welfare have encouraged context-specific discussions and solutions is a dominant theme.

QUALITY ASSURANCE AND THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY

In introducing a discussion of construction industry practice we are, by any definition, a considerable distance from CPE. This is where the demands of the market are matched with the technical skills of the engineer. This is where the concepts of quality and quality assurance are clearly understood and equally clearly operationalised.

So why an interest in construction? Plainly, such an interest does not lie in the potential for a step by step utilisation of exactly the same procedures that this sector employs. The very real differences between the titles and responsibilities of key participants, and the obvious differences in content, see to that. However, once immediate expressions of inappropriateness have been put to one side, there are features of the situation which help to clarify why an interest in this area is a legitimate one.

To begin with, it contributes to the process of information acquisition already alluded to. Thus, if for no other reason than to gain an understanding of how the concept is institutionalised in this sector, one far removed from the life of higher education institutions, our attention is valid. But interest is grounded in something more substantial than inquisitiveness and a standard collation of background knowledge alone. We are, in fact, forced to take notice of what practice entails in settings like construction because the principles employed frequently re-appear in other settings: managerialism and complying with pre-identified schema are recurrent examples of this. This is an opportunity to reach beyond the rhetoric—of lessons to be learned—to see whether the style of approach utilised in industry is compatible with the requirements of education.

There is one feature of the construction industry which ensures that it is of particular interest to educationalists. For while the quality process is in part directed by the nature of standards developed within the relevant professions, much of what takes place does so within the limits of British Standards. While there are numerous standards involved, the co-ordinating role is reserved for BS5750.

Thus the example of the construction industry is able to provide an illustration of the kind of formalised approach—including the use of BS5750–that is currently sweeping organisations in modern Britain. It cannot, of course, be taken as representing each and every one of these. It does, though, provide an indication of what may regularly be involved.

To pull this discussion together, it is possible to distinguish two issues which the review should properly address, and which will require comment subsequent to it. The first goes to the centre of the debate. It is whether the quality that is being worked towards in construction can be conceptualised in the same terms as that which is relevant to CPE. This is not a matter of content, but form: orientation and structure. The second issue develops from the first. It is a consideration of whether approaches to assuring quality (systems, procedures) can be developed in the same terms in sectors as diverse as education and construction. To consider these issues, I will begin with a brief overview of the industry and continue with a presentation of the typical QA requirements placed on its main professionals and other participants. A recent article by Armstrong (1991) is the source of much of the technical information.

NATURE OF THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY

The construction industry usually deals with large-scale projects. It is not unusual for these to take several years to complete. It is in the nature of the work that once finished no future project will be conducted in quite the same terms again. These one-off projects, virtually without exception, require substantial financial backing. They also require the co-ordination of a range of participants, each contributing specific skills or the provision of particular materials. The importance ascribed to ensuring that the construction meets specific quality requirements first time is—even to those of us beyond the industry—recognisably appropriate.

CPE provision rarely takes the form of a non-repeated event; although as Armstrong (1991) points out, the repeated units are frequently the subject of only minor modification. In both the construction and the educational setting the institutionalisation of quality would seem to make practical as well as professional sense. However, perhaps the identification of a basis of similarity between the two processes does not take us too far. The recognition that each of the projects needs to be performed in a way which can be designated as high quality is unlikely to be challenged in any quarter; that it facilitates or offers support for any kind of mutual compatibility of approach is perhaps less apparent. For, as will be suggested, it is questionable whether the understanding of quality which underlies the production of procedures is able to meet the multi-faceted requirements of CPE.

In the business of construction there is a clear, identifiable goal. While the pre-construction phase may be one characterised by debate, once a given design has been accepted the quality objective is plain enough: a project conforming to strictly laid-out technical and financial specification. While beyond the confines of the site, arguments may rage about the relative merits of a particular construction, what faces those directly involved is the performance of a specific task—to construct in a manner which complies with best practice.

Of course, there will be few professional undertakings which are not started with an idea of the achievement of a positive end product. In those occupations where people are the immediate concern, such end products are, though not always, as simply identified. In these human/social professions good practice, it can be argued, is characterised by a degree of flexibility. While in each professional setting a broad notion of a desired end result will be present, it is frequently the interaction between professional and client (or range of clients) which helps to shape (more or less tightly defined) objectives.

For construction, the unequivocal nature of the desired end product allows a definite sense of formality and order to be applied to procedural requirements. The contribution of all those involved can be pre-defined and documented in great detail. It is within this context of apparent certainty the QA system is developed. An idea of what this might typically involve can be gleaned from the following examples.

PARTICIPANTS, PROFESSIONALS AND QUALITY ASSURANCE

The earliest point of the quality process is concerned with translating ideas on what is necessary into straightforward workable instructions. Instilled in practice from the beginning is the idea that there is one correct way of going about things; conformity to which is the essential requirement. Such clearly defined responsibilities begin with the project owner (who will draw on specialist help from a number of sources).

According to Armstrong (1991), before the various construction professionals are introduced into the process the owner has clear roles to perform. S/he will be required to provide the necessary finance, clarify exactly what is required from the project, select those professionals on which the job will eventually rest, and establish all necessary lines of contact with these on-site workers as well. S/he will also liaise with those involved in the supply of materials.

Such a level of involvement brings with it a place in the QA system; mechanisms exist which aim to ensure that the groundwork is done appropriately. Thus, there may well be a requirement to check on the skills and experience of those lined up to perform specific tasks; and, in order to prevent delays later, a requirement to ensure that all those involved are clear about the meaning and implications of the contract documents. Whether or not the eventual applicability of an industry-based system is accepted, there is certainly something of importance here: the inclusion of an error-exclusion procedure in the earliest stages of an event.

The task of job managers is to perform those functions—be they organisational or administrative—necessary to ensure the appropriate interaction of all the members of the team, at whatever level. The procedures used by the various members of such a team will relate to the phase of the project, and to the particular personnel, with which they are concerned. The need to ensure that tasks are being completed within a pre-established time and cost framework is the main determinant of the work schedule of such managers.

A clear indication of the very formalised way in which task lists are demarcated is revealed by a check through the typical responsibilities of job managers. These can be split into four phases.

1	Setting up the job entails: establishing a team; obtaining the brief from the client; obtaining services and fee agreements; preparing the office brief and completing the relevant job records.
2	During the planning phase, preparation of the job quality plan takes centre stage. In this, management diagrams, quality objectives, and professional, review, and administrative procedures are all formally documented.
3	This phase is all about working to the plan. It involves ensuring that each of the specifications are met. This is managed through reviews—both managerial and technical—through meetings and through audits.
4	During the final stage, responsibilities include archiving, completing records, establishing feedback and handing over the project.

This is manifestly the outline of a very elaborate process and quite possibly one with real value to a construction project. Without wishing to decry the value of an agreed-upon approach to the organisation of CPE events, just how far such inevitably time-consuming approaches would be welcomed—within a context of increasing calls on time in universities—has to be raised. And this is to leave aside any doubts surrounding the ‘managerialist’ tone of the process. For now, though, I will continue with the descriptive process.

While managers of a project are concerned with matters of overall organisation, more specific aspects of the work are the domain of the construction professionals. One group of such professionals are those that contribute to the design process in one way or another. Included here are architects, structural and service engineers, and quantity surveyors. Consistent with the need for a detailed system, the activity of these professionals is the subject of rigorously prepared procedures. A brief summary of the requirements prepared for architects can be used to illustrate those demanded of the design professionals as a whole.

The activity of the architect draws on a plan of work produced by their professional association: Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA). The architect’s quality plan is usually made up of a set of procedures which makes clear the precise stages, checks, and confirmations needed to secure objectives. Such components of a job-specific quality plan then fit into the aforementioned plan of action promoted by RIBA. Before reaching the stage of procedural detail such a plan would address and highlight all related responsibilities. This might include, for instance, the demarcation of points of authority, and details of established line management structures. Each element of the following list is operationalised via a detailed procedure. Compliance with the relevant National Standards is an integral part of this.

The standard procedures for a given project would begin with attention to initial briefing and the co-ordination of information. It would go on to embrace those matters directly related to professional activity such as drawing practice, the establishment of a specification system, and a review of design. Beyond this, procedures would be concerned with the inspection and monitoring of action on site, keeping appropriate records, sampling the procedures, and eventually with completion and the collection of feedback.

Such a set of procedures will bring with it a detailed task list. This would of course relate closely to the stages outlined above. Tasks would be identified in relation to matters of design, operations on site and the rest. As mentioned, as well as roles relating to professional activity, a management role may also be adopted. In such cases the expectation would be for this to be integrated into the system and for tasks relating to it to be specified in the regular way. This kind of detail is certainly not specific to the architects: what is required of engineers or surveyors is very similar.

Construction work is, of course, as much dependent on materials as the people who utilise them. As such, it comes as little surprise that formalised procedures are in place to deal with the manufacture, delivery and installation of the necessary equipment and components.

It is not only the systems of those involved at the purchasing and constructing end that are of concern, but also those of the suppliers. Details of the systems and p...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• Illustrations
• Acknowledgements
• Introduction
• Part I: Quality and quality assurance
• Part II: Quality assurance in continuing professional education
• Concluding Comments: Towards A Framework For Quality
• Bibliography
• Name Index
• Subject Index