Higher Polytechnic School of Engineering

Central Campus and Santa Cruz

Quality Assurance System

Technical Architecture Section

Presentation

The Internal Quality Assurance System (SGIC) In university institutions, it is one of the fundamental elements upon which the construction of the European Higher Education Area is based. The Quality Assurance System (SGIC) of the School of Building Engineering, currently the Technical Architecture Section, has adopted as a reference the criteria and guidelines proposed by the National Agency for Quality Assessment and Accreditation (ANECA) for the establishment of the SGIC.

In accordance with Royal Decree 1393/2007 and the process designed by ANECA for the VERIFICA Program, the following criteria will be addressed in this SGIC: structure for the development of the SGIC and quality objectives, planning, development and results of teaching, academic staff, results of the training program and dissemination of results.

You can access the SICG evaluation, carried out in July 2009, in the following document: AUDIT Program, final report.

The basic document of the SGIC to be implemented in the School of Building Engineering, now the Technical Architecture Section, is the Quality Manual (QM). It defines the general characteristics of the system, the requirements it addresses, its scope, and references to the generic documentation it is based on or to the procedures that develop it.

The SGIC documentation is completed with a Procedures Manual (PM) composed of a series of documents that are continually referenced in the MC and the list of indicators that will allow the measurement of the results of the Section's activity.

Following the process of creating centers through the merger of the University of La Laguna (Decree 61/2014, of June 5, which established the creation of various centers through the merger of the University of La Laguna), the Technical Architecture Section was integrated into the Higher Polytechnic School of Engineering. However, it was not until October 2015 that the School, with the appointment of its Management Team, began operating as an independent center.

With the new structure, it was deemed necessary to restructure the quality assurance system, adapting it to the center's new characteristics and the challenges it presents. Since every quality assurance system involves a process of analysis, evaluation, and reflection to ensure the quality of the center and the degrees it offers, it has not been possible to establish a single system. Therefore, the School will maintain the various internal quality assurance systems of its departments until a unified system is finalized.

Those responsible

This section outlines the structure established for the development of the SGIC of the degree, which is organized into two levels: the institutional level of the ULL and the Center level.

Given that every QMS must be based on previously established quality objectives, this section includes the procedure by which the Center will establish its quality objectives.

Organizational Structure for the development of the Internal Quality Assurance System

Quality Council. The University of La Laguna (ULL) will establish a Quality Council responsible for proposing, promoting, coordinating, evaluating, and updating the assessment and training processes necessary to ensure the optimal development of teaching, research, and administrative and service activities leading to the achievement of its objectives. Among the functions assigned to this body, the following stand out in relation to Quality Assurance Systems:

  • Gathering necessary reports and studies and promoting collaboration among experts, institutions and entities in the evaluation and improvement of University Quality.
  • To approve the planning and implementation of the processes of institutional evaluation, accreditation and certification of degrees, as well as research, services and administration of the University.
  • To supervise the correct development and functioning of these processes, through the Quality Assessment and Improvement Unit (UEMC).
  • To approve the University's Final Reports, proposed by the UEMC, linked to the evaluation processes of the degrees, research, services and administration of the University, as well as to analyze their results and make them known to the Governing Council and the University Senate.
  • To propose to the Governing Council the University Quality Improvement Programs derived from the Final Evaluation Reports.
  • To coordinate, through the UEMC, the development of the University Quality Improvement Programs.
  • To ensure the coordination of university bodies responsible for quality assessment.

Vice-Rectorate for Faculty and Teaching Quality. The Vice-Rectorate for Faculty and Teaching Quality strongly supports the implementation and development of Quality Assurance Systems, as they reinforce the quality assurance and continuous improvement of its degree programs, facilitating their accreditation process. The Rector's Team provides support through the Quality Assessment and Improvement Unit (UEMC) of the University of La Laguna, which supplies the necessary documentation, collaborates in the review and planning of implementation, and monitors the Quality Assurance Systems. It will also provide the necessary information (reports, surveys, etc.) for the ongoing analysis of results.

Center Management Team. The Center's Management Team, and in particular its Dean/Director, assumes responsibility for establishing the Center's quality policy and objectives proposal, will appoint a Quality Coordinator to represent it in all matters relating to the monitoring of the SGIC, and will propose to the Center Board the review of the composition and functions of the Center Quality Commission (CCC).

Quality Coordinator. To assist the Dean/Director in the design, implementation, maintenance, and improvement of the Quality Management System, a Quality Coordinator will be appointed. Regardless of the responsibilities specified in their appointment or assigned to them, the Quality Coordinator has the responsibility and authority to:

  • Ensure that the processes necessary for the development of the SGIC are established, implemented and maintained.
  • Inform the Center's Management Team about the performance of the SGIC and any improvement needs required by the Center.
  • Ensure that awareness of stakeholder accountability is promoted at all levels of the Center.

Center Quality Commission (CCC). The CCC is a body that participates in the planning and monitoring tasks of the SGIC, also acting as one of the vehicles for internal communication of the policy, objectives, plans, programs, responsibilities and achievements of this system.

The functions of the CCC are:

  • Design the SGIC.
  • Receive information from the Dean/Director about the proposed changes to the organizational chart and take a position on them.
  • Be informed by the Dean/Director regarding the Center's Quality Policy and General Objectives and be responsible for disseminating this information throughout the rest of the Center.
  • Verify the SGIC planning.
  • Monitor the SGIC.
  • Develop processes for reviewing and improving training programs.
  • Monitor the effectiveness of processes through the indicators associated with them.
  • To study and, where appropriate, approve the implementation of the SGIC improvement proposals suggested by the other members of the Center.
  • Control the execution of: corrective and/or preventive actions, actions derived from the review of the system, actions in response to suggestions, complaints and claims.

The Quality Committee is composed of the Dean/Director, who will act as Chair, the Quality Coordinator, one representative from each degree program (undergraduate and postgraduate), one representative from each department with at least 7% of the teaching load or from the departments with the highest teaching load in the Center's degree programs, two representatives from the Administrative and Service Staff (an administrator and another), and one student representative (preferably a graduate or doctoral student). The Center's Secretary will act as Secretary of the Quality Committee.

The CCC will meet at least quarterly, upon the Secretary's call. The Secretary will prepare minutes for each meeting, which will be sent to all CCC members, who will have one week to propose corrections. If no corrections are made, the minutes will be considered approved, and they will be published on the Center's website so that they are available to the entire university community.
Evaluation and/or improvement committees. There may be different committees related to the review and improvement of other bodies and/or organizational units, services, etc.

Center Quality Policies and Objectives

The quality objectives of the degree are subject to the quality policy and objectives considered by the Center, therefore, below is how the Center defines and establishes them.

1) Object:
The purpose of this procedure is to establish the systematic approach to be applied in the development and review of the Center's Quality Policy and Objectives.

2) Scope:
This procedure will apply both to the initial definition of the Quality Policy and Objectives and to their periodic modifications, which will be carried out annually.

3) References/Regulations:

  • Decree 89/2004, of July 6, approving the Statutes of the University of La Laguna. BOE. no. 272, of November 11, 2004.
  • Organic Law 15/1999 of 13 December on the Protection of Personal Data (LOPD). Official State Gazette no. 298 of 14 December 1999
  • Criteria and Guidelines for the Implementation of Degrees
  • University's Global Policy
  • If they exist, the following should be taken into account, among others:
  • University strategic plan
  • Labor market studies
  • Results of previous evaluations (degrees, departments, services…)

4) Definitions:

  • Guideline: A set of instructions that help to understand an aspect of a model or system.
  • Quality Policy: A set of guidelines that define an organization's intentions and direction with regard to Quality.
  • Quality Objective: List of aspects, proposals and intentions to be achieved with the purpose of improving the institution, training offer, unit or services that are being evaluated.

5) Development:
The Center's Quality Coordinator will prepare a draft of the Center's Quality Policy and Objectives annually, or more frequently in situations of change. This draft will be based on elements considered at the institutional level, as well as an analysis and verification of the objectives within the Center. The Quality Committee will review this draft, and it may subsequently be sent to the Quality Assessment and Improvement Unit (UEMC) for review. If the Quality Committee deems the document unsuitable, it will return it to the Center's Quality Coordinator for revision, incorporating the suggestions received. The revised document must then be approved by the Center's Board, or it will be returned to the Center's Quality Coordinator for further revision. Once approved, the Management Team will disseminate the document publicly according to the established procedure (Public Information, section 9.5.4).

6) Review, improvement and follow-up:
The established quality policy and objectives will be evaluated annually by the Quality Assurance Committee (QAC), resulting in a report with the findings and proposed improvements. These proposals will be considered in the Center's annual planning, both in general and specifically for each degree program. The QAC will be responsible for monitoring the implementation of these proposals, assessing the extent to which they have been incorporated into the new planning to improve teaching and support activities, as well as the outcomes of the educational process.

7) Evidence and file:
The documents generated in this procedure will be archived by the Quality Coordinator

Record identification File support Responsible for custody Storage time
Quality Policy and Objectives Paper or computer Quality Coordinator of the Center 6 years
Document with amendments and suggestions regarding the inadequacy of the draft Quality Policy and Objectives Paper or computer Coordinator of
Center Quality		 6 years
Minutes of the approval of the Quality Policy and Objectives by the Center Board Paper or computer Coordinator of
Center Quality		 6 years
Justification for the dissemination of the Quality Policy and Objectives Paper or computer Coordinator of
Center Quality		 6 years
Report with review results and improvement proposals Paper or computer Coordinator of
Center Quality		 6 years
Justification for the dissemination of results of the Quality Policy and Objectives Paper or computer Coordinator of
Center Quality		 6 years

8) Responsibilities:

  • Center Quality Commission (CCC)Review and validate the draft quality policy and objectives presented by the Quality Coordinator. Follow up on the established improvement proposals.
  • Quality Coordinator: Prepare and propose the draft Quality Policy and identify the objectives. Send it to the CCC.
  • Center Management Team (MT): Disseminate the document containing the Center's quality policy and objectives.
  • Center Board: Approve the draft of the quality policy and objectives.
  • Quality Assessment and Improvement Unit (UEMC)Review the documents.

Quality Manual

The Quality Assurance System (QAS) in university institutions is one of the fundamental elements upon which the construction of the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) is based. In accordance with the guidelines emanating from the EHEA and pursuant to the provisions of Organic Law 6/2001 of December 21, on Universities, as amended by Organic Law 4/2001 of April 12, and Royal Decree 1393/2007 of October 29, 2007, which establishes the Organization of Official University Education, Quality Assurance is considered an essential aim of university policy.

In accordance with Royal Decree 1393/2007 and the process designed by the National Agency for Quality Assessment and Accreditation (ANECA), Quality Assurance is a central axis around which other quality criteria are articulated, which are fundamental for the accreditation of official undergraduate or postgraduate studies:

  • Goals
  • Student Admission
  • Teaching planning
  • Development of teaching and assessment of learning
  • Student Orientation
  • Academic staff
  • Material resources
  • Services
  • Results

This situation has led the centers of the University of La Laguna (ULL) to design and develop the aspects that make up their own Internal Quality Assurance System (SGIC), in order to demonstrate that a systematic approach has been established that allows them to analyze deviations from the plan and identify areas for improvement. It also enables them to define and implement proposals for the continuous improvement of their training programs.

The MSGIC document is structured into 10 chapters and 4 annexes. Chapters 1 to 3 define the SGIC, and Chapters 4 to 10, together with Annexes 1 to 4, elaborate on it. .

Procedures

Reports and results

Summary tables of satisfaction surveys by sector

Teacher Evaluation Results

TRENDS
Degree in Technical Architecture
Verification Memory Data Course 10-11 Course 11-12 Course 12-13 Academic Year 13-14 Academic Year 2014-2015
Graduation rate 15 14
Dropout rate 25 28,9 41,9 42,7 35,0
Efficiency rate 60 96,7 82,9 76,7
Rate of return 53,8 56,2 62,5 62,8 56,7
Title success rate 72,3 76,5 81,9 82 75,5
LEVEL OF SATISFACTION OF STAKEHOLDER GROUPS
Degree in Technical Architecture Course 12-13 Academic Year 13-14 Academic Year 2014-2015
Overall student satisfaction with the degree 2,95 2,71 2,93
Level of student satisfaction with the teaching staff 2,90 2,74 2,98
Level of student satisfaction with the resources 2,65 2,45 2,74
Level of teacher satisfaction with the degree 3,76 4,00
Graduate satisfaction level with the degree 2,81 2,86
Employer satisfaction level with the degree 4,00
EVOLUTION OF INDICATORS
Degree in Technical Architecture
Course 10-11 Course 11-12 Course 12-13 Academic Year 13-14 Academic Year 2014-2015
New students 114 117 89 40 28
Average entry grade 6,208 6,268 6,264 6,27 6,148
Total number of students enrolled 977 980 800 556 428
Number of graduating students 73 152 189 106 92
Number of graduating students (excluding adapted students) 6 18 36
Average duration of studies 3,667 5 5,167