1. BEPIQUA PROJECT SURVEY RESULTS EMAIL & ON-SITE VISITS

2. PROJECT SURVEYS BEPIQUA PROJECT: Two surveys: Email questionnaire (26 replies out of possible 40) On-site visits (5 foreseen in project, 14 realised)

3. PROJECT SURVEYS – FIGURE 1

4. PROJECT SURVEYS – FIGURE 2

5. PROJECT SURVEYS - FIGURE 3

6. PROJECT SURVEYS – FIGURE 4

7. PROJECT SURVEYS – FIGURE 5

8. PROJECT SURVEYS – FIGURE 6

9. PROJECT SURVEYS – FIGURE 7

10. PROJECT SURVEYS – FIGURE 8

11. PROJECT SURVEYS – FIGURE 9

12. ON-SITE SURVEY OBJECTIVES To determine the extent of implementation of a QA system To assess whether the need for establishing a QA system is appreciated To evaluate whether there exists an institutional Quality Culture, which would facilitate the implementation of a QA system To ascertain the possibility of promoting the realisation of a QA system

13. EXTENT OF IMPLEMENTATION OF QA A lot of the basic requirements exist, particularly statistics and IT QA Concept known 10% of UNICA universities have a QA system National environment and Bologna process are driving implementation of QA systems Generally TQM NOT available International collaboration should be part of QA system (even where QA exists, IR not included)

14. LEVEL OF DESIRE FOR ESTABLISHING QA This is high, a lot of Universities already have a reporting of goals system Top management aware of QA and pertinent policy formulation forthcoming Desire for evaluating performance and facilitating decision-making

15. PREVAILING QUALITY CULTURE (QC) 90% of Universities reported that QC exists Actions (Bologna process, national regulations etc) in place which strengthen QC Why is there an existing QC?: because people believe in professionalism, have self confidence, wish to serve, want transparency, desire comparability

16. POSSIBILITY FOR ESTABLISHING QA SYSTEM Supported by big majority of institutions Realisation in the near future considered possible Has support of staff involved Acceptance of new working methods and approaches required Recognition of the need for improving performance

17. GENERAL CONCLUSIONS International collaboration no longer limited to mobility In most Universities IR centrally controlled IR funding exists as well as a reporting system IRO and VR/IR play a central role in formulating IR policy Need to redefine IRO core activities in order to meet new environment

18. GENERAL CONCLUSIONS EC funding for IR mainly from EU programmes IR performance is NOT measured The preconditions required for Quality Culture appear to exist Concept of Benchmarks and Performance Indicators are known but in the vast majority NOT used and particularly for IR