Definition of quality assurance

Introduction

Quality Assurance (QA) can be simply defined as a system to support performance according to standards. It implies a systematic way of establishing and maintaining quality improvement activities as an integral and sustainable part of systems or organisations. In the education and health systems, this includes all activities that contribute to the design, assessment, monitoring of standards agreed upon by all stakeholders and improving quality of service delivery, client satisfaction and effective utilisation. In most cases, managers and supervisors tend to limit the standards to professional or technical ones, but in social services, client focused or “customer service” standards are very important determinants of utilisation of the services.

 

Characteristics of the Quality Assurance

It seems to have a stronger relationship with the review process: the wide coverage of quality aspects, and the wide involvement of relevant stakeholders in the Quality Assurance System are important. These findings give the impression that in the eyes of school staff a Quality Assurance System is more credible if all stakeholders can give their views on the quality of the functioning of the IVET provider, and if a variety of quality aspects is included in judging institutional quality. The fact that these two aspects of the quality assurance system are related to the success of the review stage raises the cause-effect question: is more successful review caused by a more wide inclusion of a variety of quality aspects and relevant stakeholders, or does a stronger focus on quality assurance including the review process lead to a more widely developed range of quality assurance aspects, and to more involved stakeholders? This dilemma applies to all factors having a relationship with the review stage and cannot be solved in this type of research, which asks for caution in drawing conclusions about (the direction of the ) relationships. Some procedural aspects of quality assurance also have a relationship with the intensity of the review stage: the range of methods used for collecting quality assurance data (more is also better here), spreading data collection over time, the regular and timely distribution of quality assurance findings, and the staff effort invested into quality assurance. The first procedural factor is similar to the factors discussed already (wide coverage of quality aspects and stakeholders) and each of those three factors maybe explained similarly: a more wide coverage of quality perspectives, stakeholders and data collection methods probably makes quality findings more credible. In terms of the first framework in Chapter 2: it makes the information more valid, reliable (factors B1 and B2), and relevant (factor B4). The other mentioned procedural factors related to successful review are on the one hand related to the burden quality assurance puts on staff (preventing too much of a burden, by spreading data collection in time), and the staff resources the school invests into quality assurance (enough staff effort, or not), and on the other hand to enabling the utilization of quality assurance findings by distributing these regularly and in time.

Quality assurance proves to be a time consuming enterprise and cannot just be done next to all regular activities; it requires in other words that schools and their staff really invest in it and look for ways burdening staff as little as possible. It may sound strange but although schools collect all kinds of data in order to form a basis for improving performance, this does not necessarily mean that these data once collected and processed are distributed regularly and timely among the target group to promote data use for decision-making. In those IVET providers where the distribution of findings is not a problem the review activity is also more successful. The last Quality Assurance System aspect enabling review is of a somewhat different nature than the ones discussed so far: the degree to which the goal of introducing and implementing a Quality Assurance System is clear to all affected by it. It makes sense that an important prerequisite for the successful introduction of

an innovation is that IVET provider staff know why this is done, which effects are intended, which activities it implies, and what is expected from them. If that is not the case staff will have to contribute to some vague activity of which the relevance is obscure to them, and for which they probably are not very motivated.

Quality Assurance Program Components

The purpose of the Quality Assurance (QA) Program is to promote continuing competency among the profession. Therefore, the Program components are designed to: Provide tools to assist occupational therapists in measuring their level of competence related to Essential Competencies and identify practices which fall below standard; Encourage occupational therapists to make improvements where necessary and demonstrate evidence of remediation; and Support occupational therapists in maintaining acceptable standards through continuing education. The QA Program consists of four main components: Continuing Competence; Program Communication and Education; Program Promotion; Program Research and Reporting.

Continuing Competency is most relevant to the occupational therapist. It consists of three separate phases:

l  Competency Enhancement: All occupational therapists will participate in Competency Enhancement annually.

l  Competency Review and Evaluation: Randomly selected occupational therapist participates in Competency Review and Evaluation. Every OT should expect to participate in this process over time.

l  Competency Improvement: Only those occupational therapists who need assistance to develop and demonstrate the Essential Competencies will participate in Competency Improvement.

Reasons for quality assurance

In the literature three core functions of educational evaluation and quality assurance can be distinguished: Certification and accreditation, i.e. checking whether object characteristics conform to formally established norms and standards. Accountability: quality is made available for inspection to other units and/or the society at large. Organizational learning, when quality assessment is used as a basis for improvementat the same object level (cf. Scheerens, 2006).

The Process and Product Quality Assurance process area involves the following activities:

·  Objectively evaluating performed processes, work products, and services against applicable process descriptions, standards, and procedures

·   Identifying and documenting noncompliance issues

Providing feedback to project staff and managers on the results of quality assurance activities.

The Process and Product Quality Assurance process area supports the delivery of high-quality products and services by providing project staff and managers at all levels with appropriate visibility into, and feedback on, processes and associated work products throughout the life of the project.

The acquirer evaluates critical acquirer work products, acquirer processes, results of supplier process quality assurance, and supplier deliverables. For example, process and product quality assurance ensures that the solicitation package was developed using standard processes agreed to by the organization and that it conforms to all applicable policies. The acquirer may review results of supplier quality assurance activities for selected supplier processes to ensure that the supplier is following its own processes.

Typically, selected supplier processes are critical processes, such as engineering or verification processes, where the supplier is required through the supplier agreement to follow project-specified standards. In exceptional cases, the acquirer may directly perform process and product quality assurance for selected supplier processes. The acquirer and supplier periodically share quality assurance issues and findings that are of mutual interest.

The practices in the Process and Product Quality Assurance process area ensure that planned processes are implemented, while the practices in the Acquisition Verification process area ensure that specified requirements are satisfied. These two process areas may on occasion address the same work product but from different perspectives. Projects should take advantage of the overlap in order to minimize duplication of effort while taking care to maintain separate perspectives.

Objectivity in process and product quality assurance evaluations is critical to the success of the project. (See the definition of “objectively evaluate” in the glossary.) Objectivity is achieved by both independence and the use of criteria. A combination of methods providing evaluations against criteria by those not producing the work product is often used. Less formal methods can be used to provide broad day-to-day coverage. More formal methods can be used periodically to assure objectivity. Examples of ways to perform objective evaluations include the following:

1.     Formal audits by organizationally separate quality assurance organizations

2.     Peer reviews, which may be performed at various levels of formality

3.     In-depth review of work at the place it is performed (i.e., desk audits)

4.     Distributed review and comment of work products

Traditionally, a quality assurance group that is independent of the project provides objectivity. However, another approach may be appropriate in some organizations to implement the process and product quality assurance role without that kind of independence. For example, in an organization with an open, quality-oriented culture, the process and product quality assurance role may be performed, partially or completely, by peers; and the quality assurance function may be embedded in the process. For small organizations, this might be the most feasible approach.

If quality assurance is embedded in the process, several issues must be addressed to ensure objectivity. Everyone performing quality assurance activities should be trained. Those performing quality assurance activities for a work product should be separate from those directly involved in developing or maintaining the work product. An independent reporting channel to the appropriate level of organizational management must be available so that noncompliance issues can be escalated as necessary. For example, when implementing peer reviews as an objective evaluation method, the following issues must be addressed:

·  Members are trained and roles are assigned for people attending the peer reviews.

·   A member of the peer review who did not produce this work product is assigned to perform the quality assurance role.

·   Checklists are available to support the quality assurance activity.

·   Defects are recorded as part of the peer review report and are tracked and escalated outside the project when necessary.

Quality assurance should begin in the early phases of a project to establish plans, processes, standards, and procedures that will add value to the project and satisfy the requirements of the project and organizational policies. Those performing quality assurance participate in establishing plans, processes, standards, and procedures to ensure that they fit project needs and that they will be usable for performing quality assurance evaluations. In addition, processes and associated work products to be evaluated during the project are designated. This designation may be based on sampling or on objective criteria that are consistent with organizational policies, project requirements, and needs.

When noncompliance issues are identified, they are first addressed in the project and resolved there if possible. Noncompliance issues that cannot be resolved in the project are escalated to an appropriate level of management for resolution.

This process area applies primarily to evaluations of project activities and work products, but it also applies to other activities and work products, such as training organizational support groups. For these activities and work products, the term project should be appropriately interpreted.

It also applies to the reviews of supplier process quality results as defined in the supplier agreement. For example, the supplier agreement can require the supplier to provide detailed appraisal results of mandatory, acquirer-scoped CMMI for Development appraisals of supplier processes.

Education had been described as the bedrock of every society and tool for nation building. For qualitative education to be achieved in a nation the principal actors of learning who are the teachers, learners and the environment must be cooperatively organized. In other words, the teacher must be adequate in quality and quantity. The students must be well trained ad facilities must be provided as well.

The importance of achieving quality assurance in organization education system can bring in benefits in several ways. The education curriculum and standards of education in organization should be reviewed to reflect the need and aspiration of the society. There is need to harmonize the internal and external criteria of quality assurance raising standard of excellence of the education system. There is also need to improve or employ modern teaching method and techniques in the classroom. The organization needs a more developed and reformed curriculum content is highly desirable. There is also the need for curriculum evaluation allows innovations and new techniques to be incorporated. Other than that, effective supervisory system should be injected into the system to work together to meet perfect result. With that, the organization will need a full professionalization of teaching in the country to set a standard under which a qualified and well trained teacher must operate is highly imperative.

In the conclusion, it is clear and evident that the educational organizations’ role in achieving, supervising and developing a quality education cannot be overemphasized. Organizations’ educational system is not allowed to be in shambles as inadequacies are the order of the day with human and material resources. Nevertheless, assurance process recognizes the need for an organization to accept responsibility for its own management process. It is in this regard that the main difference between inspection and evaluation and assurance arises. Assurance for quality education is a total holistic process concerned with ensuring integrity of outcomes. Thus, the responsibility for quality assurance rest with the organizations’ and this is expressed through its relationship with other stakeholders in the organization system. Lastly, quality assurance recognizes the autonomy of educational organization and seeks to enhance their capacity to operate in a responsive way.