Quality Portfolio Finishings ? Prof. Ali H. Fayadh (BA, MA, MLitt, PhDEd) English Language Education Services (ELES) Center Director- Muscat – Oman Abstract Oman Authority for Academic Accreditation (OAAA) is to audit all the Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) in the Sultanate of Oman by 2013. There are over 60 HEIs in the country and the number may go higher. So far 10 HEIs have been audited for the 1st stage of the Institutional Accreditation and there are two more stages to undertake before HEIs are fully accredited. The Quality Audit is a lengthy, comprehensive and challenging process that has been creating stress and anxiety to the sector. Unfamiliarity with this process and complexity of the Auditing Handbook underline HEIs' anxiety and stress. This endeavour critically evaluates Quality Audit Portfolio Writing in the Omani context to help the HEIs for better preparation. Key Terms: Quality, Quality Audit, Self Portfolio, Quality Assurance, Quality Enhancement I. Introduction Quality checks (audit, institutional or programme accreditation, etc.) demand that the checked HEIs (Higher Education Institutions) submit own portfolio (self-study report) outlining how their services (and institution) are quality-oriented. As a normal practice the checking authority regulates the process of checking (via handbooks, guides, plans, etc.) that are made known to the HEIs in advance. Oman is no exclusion: OAAA ( Oman Academic Accreditation Authority ) and, of course, the MoHE (Ministry of Higher Education) have been striving to ensure that every Omani HEI is accountable, i.e., the “assurance of a unit [HEI] to its stakeholders that it provides education of good quality”. (Cambell & Rozsnyai, 2002). In line with Quality Audit Manual (2008), the OAAA has scheduled institutional quality audits (as the first stage of the institutional accreditation process) to all HEIs; each HEI is to submit a Quality Audit Portfolio, which will be reviewed by a Panel of Reviewers. The outcome of the Audit Panel Report v6 is to publish (to the public) in the OAAA website (www.oaaa.gov.om). Ten HEIs have already undergone Quality Audit, others have been submitting (or queuing to submit) their portfolios. The term “Finishings” is the keyword in the title of this work. Other than to attract readers’ attention to the topic of the article, it is true that all producers/manufacturers give outstanding attention to the final shape of their goods, because customers’ purchasibility rely on how they (goods) look like, rather than anything else. A good product is undoubtedly one that its appearance (finishing) reflects its essence. To quote Swanson & MacBeth (1911) “Fitness of finish is the crowning completion of needlecraft, and often it is in the so-termed "finishings," the dainty conceits of construction, that the whole charm of a beautiful piece of work lies”. In other words, the portfolio submitted (by a HEI) should translate the actual (concealed essence) of the HEI. This implies that HEIs must give right and proper consideration to their final Portfolio, and avoid submitting an exaggerated and/or baggy report. In their attempts to respond to OAAA requirements (labeled as Optimal, i.e., what all must try to accomplish), HEIs try to fill a gap by their Portfolio (Actual), as shown here: Actual GAP Optimal The possible outcome of gap filling ranges over three types (1, 2 & 3 below): Type If Then Portfolio Portfolio incurs 1 Actual = Optimal meets requirements equal number of Commendations, Recommendations & Suggestions 2 Actual › Optimal exceeds requirements Commendations 3 Actual ‹ Optimal dissatisfies requirements Recommendations & Suggestions 2 To be commended by the Audit Panel (and the OAAA), type (2) must be sought, whereas type (1) is a mixture of Commendations, Recommendations & Suggestions; however, if a HEI undermines the process (type (3)) it ends up as a loser [The terms Commendations, Recommendations & Suggestions are the descriptive categories of the Panel Report]. Generally, type (1) is not only common and widespread, but it is also encouraged. However, to a certain extent the choice is the HEI's!!! Irrespective of the kind, frequency and domain of the quality checks, a portfolio submission stands as a vital component of the process. This work endeavours to shed light on an ignored portion of the portfolio, namely the final stage of the portfolio writing up (pre-submission stage), hoping to introduce effective exercises (and avoid harmful ones) in order to help HEIs’ senior managers (boards and their chairs, councils and their chairpersons and senior staff such as CEO, Chancellor, and Dean) and Quality Assurance Officers, to produce satisfactory self-studies. II. Pre-Portfolio Writing Stage This stage lays the foundation for the Quality Audit (QAdt) process; if the HEI works systematically according to a well-organized agenda, the expected outcome would be successful. Now, having all HEIs (private & public) to undergo auditing leaves no room to inattention and/or indifference. It is the survival of the HEI that is under scrutiny. Therefore, we have to take appropriate steps to steer our HEI safely amidst this course. To minimize the burden on HEIs in order to produce a valuable Portfolio, it is suggested to do the following: 1. Senior Management Involvement Senior managers have a central role in the implementation and operation of the QAdt process. All Stakeholders should be aware of the value (and risks) of the process, but the senior managers take utmost responsibility and decisive roles in its appropriate supervision and implementation. They will solely confront its outcome, positive or negative. This would make the heart of the whole process; therefore, they should act this way: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Self-informed about the process (will be interviewed) Set guidelines and clear priorities to guide the activities of staff involved Maintain a rigid follow-up policy (to avoid delays and inaccuracies) Secure all-staff’s compliance with planned actions Provide every necessary support Lead by example It should be noted that the process of involving all the employees of the institutions is both vital and challenging. It is compulsory in the QAdt process that all the staff get involved, i.e., Total Quality Management (TQM) approach. Involving all staff right from the beginning will ease the entire process and make the actual QA days straightforward and under control. However, making all the staff involved right from the beginning requires effective leadership, delegation and 3 empowerment. Organizations with poor leadership will face more difficult times than the others. Therefore, it is recommended that senior managers reflect on this issue and make necessary changes in their approaches so that by the time the QAdt visits start they have already paved the atmosphere with positive changes. This reflects positively on the staff and their responses to the panel. 2. Quality Office (QO) Role Every HEI should establish a coordinating or administrative office accountable for the overall QA (Quality Assurance) & QE (Quality Enhancement) management processes. The QO reports to the Vice Chancellor/ Dean, depending on the organizational structure of each HEI. The QO is responsible for overall coordination of internal and external QA activities, oversee formulation and implementation of policies, practices, and procedures at the HEI, keep copies of all the HEI’s policies, initiate inter-HEI activities geared towards promoting quality in education, be a link between the HEI and national regulatory body ( MoHE, DGPUCs, and OAAA), and international QA agencies, and advise the HEI on all matters and/or activities related to QA in HE. Therefore, the QO Organizational Structure should be set to fulfill the roles planned (a tentative Organizational Structure is suggested in Appendix 1). It is not within the scope of this endeavour to set a quality office framework; rather it is assumed here that all HEIs are aware of the fact that such an office is a prerequisite to initiating QAdt, or any other quality-oriented process (remember these processes are continuous: Institutional Accreditation Stage 2, Programme Accreditation, reapplied every 4 years, plus validation requirements, bilateral relation agreements, etc…). In addition, the establishment of such as this office proves to have positive consequences, relating to its leadership, competitiveness, and existence. Unfortunately, none of the state-owned HEIs has QO yet. This discrepancy between public and private HEIs sends wrong messages and creates inconsistency in the sector. Therefore, it is recommended that the Ministry of Higher Education (MoHE) in Oman should enforce all the state-owned HEIs to establish dedicated QO with sufficient staffing. 3. Disseminating Q-Culture The convenient steps to accomplish this are through: 1. Uplifting self-consciousness, especially in those engaged in the process closely, in a manner that enhances dedication and self-devotion. Their engagement usually comes in the form of extra responsibilities, added to their regular duties. Therefore, it is recommended that they are given rewards and encouragement. 2. The OAAA can provide support, and their staff usually are ready to deliver a speciallydesigned workshop to enlighten participants about details of QAdt Process. They are also securing open telephone inquiry assistance. 3. Seeking help from experts (of their affiliate universities and/or elsewhere) 4. Coordinating with other HEIs who have gone through the process. It is true that no two institutions share the same structure and values, but every two institutions have common grounds to meet. 5. Consulting (not COPYING) other available sources of Best Practice. 4 It must clearly be articulated here that HEIs should not commence the process without having established a quality momentum crucial to a true move. 4. Setting a Workable Timeline The first task for the HEI to accomplish is to designate a practical schedule of the actions to be taken in the form of a TIMELINE. It is suggested that the activities at this stage be arranged this way: Week 1 Task 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 2 9 10 11            Activity Workshop on QAdtM Nominate a Contact Person (CP) Nominate a Steering Committee (SC) Nominate Task Groups (TGs) Set Timeline Identify roles and tasks Senior management meet with CP, SC, TGs, Ed, and Quality Office Staff SC & TGs hold orientation meeting Workshop on ADRI Commence tasks assigned Nominate the Editor (Ed) As mentioned above the entire process of going through the preparation for the actual event is overwhelming, because the event is very important and crucial to the HEI's history. As a result of this intensity, senior management tends to overreact and creates state of anxiety and stress. Such atmosphere is not healthy and overwhelms other staff, and may cause hesitance, lack of confidence at a time everyone needs encouragement and motivation. For example, orientation and preparation sessions are crucial, but overdoing training sessions and bombarding staff with lots of information, warnings and precautions may cause problems and confusion among the staff themselves. Therefore, senior management team has to be aware of their behavior, enhance positive energy and create relaxing and supporting atmosphere. Managing people in a wise manner at this stage is an obligation. 5. Forming a Steering Committee The SC, comprised of HoDs, Quality Office Manager, portfolio Editor, and other enthusiastic members, is the central squad of stage (2) which guides subsequent Portfolio Writing. The SC collaborates to develop a more comprehensive plan that strategically integrates the HEI’s services, facilities, policies, as well as respective mission, vision, goals, and objectives. Special demands are placed on the SC: 1. Collect input from across the College 2. Prioritize the Portfolio Writing process 5 3. Ensure the authenticity of procedures, documents and actions 4. Choose TGs members 5. Make decisions concerning the TGs and their ideas and support implementation in any way possible 6. Guide the process of college-wide involvement in QAdt process in a timely manner 7. Coordinate TGs process and prevent duplicate efforts 8. Coordinate the implementation of TGs ideas so there is college-wide communication of ideas and implementation efforts to all related departments 9. Organize and coordinate the communications to the College and appropriate stakeholders 10. Provide the leadership and coordination of training relevant to QAdt process 11. Recommend action steps to the senior management, based on the results of TGs written submissions 12. Set off meetings with all stakeholders to discuss QAdt portfolio drafts openly and modify accordingly through TGs 13. Collect feedback of academic boards on final QAdt portfolio and submit final version to BoDs for approval. 6. Forming Task Groups TG members play a crucial role in the auditing process; they are chosen by the SC and distributed around the components of the portfolio, who: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Have knowledge of Quality Assurance philosophy and tools Attend all TGs meetings Support the development and completion of the TGs’ written report Exhibit professionalism Participate openly, honestly and supportively Each TG has its own leader (a SC member) whose role is to be outlined as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Help TG determine a feasible meeting schedule and project timeline Schedule TG meetings and complete agendas Facilitate meetings to ensure progress is made according to SC expectations Help identify possible additional TG members and/or resources are needed Communicate TG’s progress, needs, and status to the SC Help TG to define their task parameters Help the TGs create and maintain a positive and productive environment Facilitate the development of a team report, with points of strengths and weakness Encourage, lead and monitor progress. TGs preferably consist of both academic and non-academic members (unit managers/directors) to be distributed evenly across the various TGs, taking into consideration TG topic type, for instance, a “Finance Office Manager” should be a member in a group whose task is “Finance & Management”, a “Student Affairs Director” in TGs tackling Students Services and Facility Manager reflecting on the facilities and systems that manage their departments, communication methods and so on. 6 7. Task Distribution The nomination of competent committee members and productive distribution of tasks proves to be a complicated sensitive issue. The creditability of the whole QAdt process rests within the hands of these people. The two courses of action are dependent on objective variables (such as its staff size, HEI history), and subjective variables relating to nominees’ enthusiasm, professionalism. Of course, the bigger the TG is, the better its productivity will be; even those members who do not show professionalism or indifference, they will be absorbed and/or quit the group. Each TG may wish to further break up individual topics into their components and distribute them to individual members, or to assign each member/subgroup a major topic (eg, Governance & Management). This action is dependent upon group and their chair. However, the work of each TG must be followed-up, reviewed and modified (if necessary) by its TG Chair, CP or senior management members. Each TG should draw its own timeline, which should conform with the general Portfolio Timeline, and be approved by SC. Generally, every TG should hand in its final written report to SC at least TWO months prior to the scheduled HEI Portfolio submission to OAAA. In the process of nominating TG members, group dynamics and individualism phenomenon should be taken into consideration and managed wisely. Specially most of the HEIs in Oman are dominated by a certain social group. Thus, there is a strong tendency of one group or individuals who have informal power wish to work in isolation of the others. Also, few staff tries to lobby and lead the process. Some who have individual agendas try to dominate and create unfavorable climate. Unfortunately, sometimes it is very tempting to allow such behavior as the work gets done as scheduled and senior managements or SC could see progress. Besides, it is easy to control few staff than a large group. However, this informal grouping has to be monitored carefully so it does not spoil the bigger picture and the ultimate target of the process. 8. Portfolio Internal Editor This is an in-house Editor (Ed.) who constantly ensures that the portfolio drafts (as a hole or as parts) are presented “coherently” and “free of spelling, grammatical and formatting errors”. It is recommended to appoint one of the HEI's English native speakers (or a staff member well-versed in English) as the Portfolio Ed.; in addition, such a person is expected to: 1. have a successful career in the HEI 2. be familiar with the Omani Quality System and robust knowledge of the manual content 3. attend all training activities and SC meetings 4. be linguistically and communicatively competent 7 9. Appointing a Contact Person Once the CP and EO are nominated, the relation between the HEI and OAAA goes through them in a manner represented as follows: HEI CP + EO OAA A + SC Adt In other words, “all communication between the OAAA and the HEP about audit matters should be conducted through these contact people. No communication about the audit process will be permitted between the HEI (including its council, staff, students and external stakeholders) and any member of the Panel or OAAA Board until the audit is completed” (QAdtM:46). Except in certain cases (see Disputes & Appeals [§ 19, pp. 65-6]), a contact may be established directly between the OAAA Chairperson and Executive Director (the most senior staff member of the OAAA who plays an important role in the overall management and quality control of the process, but is not a member of the Audit Panel) with the HEI's Chairperson and/or Vice Chancellor, or Dean: 1.“The Preliminary Feedback session and the Quality Audit Report are, ordinarily, the only reports produced by the Audit Panel. However, on rare occasions an issue may arise during the Quality Audit which is so significant and so personally or commercially sensitive that it may need to be addressed outside of the normal reporting process. In such cases, the Chairperson of the Audit Panel and the Executive Officer shall discuss the matter with the OAAA Chairperson and Executive Director. Together, they may decide that it would be helpful for the Chairperson of the Audit Panel and the Executive Officer to meet privately and informally with the HEP Chairperson and/or CEO to verbally discuss the matter. Such confidential reporting is to be considered only as an exceptional circumstance and not as the norm. Its sole purpose is to assist the HEP with its ongoing improvement activities” (QAdtM: 64). 2.When the Executive Director seeks feedback from the HEI about the “value and effectiveness of the Quality Audit process”. 10. Quality Database The Chairperson/Vice chancellor/Dean, CP, and QO should work together to create a QAdt database whose setting facilitates the collection, creation, assessment, and monitoring of all data and processes administered. Nothing should be left to coincidence. The following documents are to be prepared (or revised if available) as they direct the HEI’s QAdt process: 1. Mission, Vision, Goals, and Objectives 8 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Strategic Plan (http://www.OAAA.gov.om/files/qe/training/slides/10v1.pps#2) Operational Plans (Departments and Units) Risk Management Plan (http://www.OAAA.gov.om/files/qe/training/slides/12v2.pps) All Regulations & Bylaws (Academic & Non-academic) Terms of Reference, Selection Criteria, and Tasks of ALL HEI’s Committees It should be noted that the QA Panel may ask for additional supporting materials (i.e., in addition to supporting materials provided earlier by the HEI as listed in the manual). This demanded by the panel members after the preliminary investigation of the portfolio. For instance, a HEI was asked to submit a list of 12 extra items as additional supplementary materials; another HEI was required to provide evidence of a committee meeting. However, this should not create panic to the HEI as such requests would be driven from the submitted portfolio. In other words, the extra supplementary materials consist of significant items that a HEI had mentioned in the portfolio but did not submit sufficient evidence to support the claims. The HEI may seek the help of the affiliate university, its internal staff or seek external expertise. However, appropriate reference should be clearly made to the source of data. Needless to say the HEI must provide infrastructure (buildings, people and regulations) on the ground matching: 1. Its Organizational Framework 2. MoHE & OAAA requirements HEIs must be aware that it is not in their credit neither to have people without work, offices without people, nor an ideal body of rules and handbooks without application; a balanced infrastructure should carefully be maintained. This issue should win the HEI’s top agenda due to its value to the credibility of the institution during auditing, accreditation, and normal day-today work; it relates to its being as a HE provider. III. Portfolio-Writing Stage This is the most important stage in the QAdt process since it ends up with the HEI’s self-study portfolio which will be submitted to the OAAA, and the appointed external audit panel will be guided (and influenced) by its content and structure. Therefore, HEIs should pay careful attention to this stage, and it is recommended that close monitoring by the Senior Management is to be duly given. The writing of the portfolio is a collective responsibility: it should never be a single individual/department’s responsibility; if the HEI goes through it safely or does not, it is the whole HEI that will be credited or discredited. This requires a HEI to: 1. Rely on team work 2. Apply continuous in-process proof-reading 3. Ask for clarification from OAAA, through EO, on ambiguous issues 9 4. Engage all its community in the process 5. Seek expert consultation before submission The portfolio is the HEI’s story, which needs to be verified (by the external Adt Panel). However, this story is not descriptive, rather it is evaluative; therefore:        Avoid redundancy (portfolio size is limited) Neither over-estimate nor under-estimate the process Avoid rhetorical style (exaggerated, emotional, etc…) Use statistics (figures, charts, comparisons, etc…) Provide strong evidence Outline points of strength Refer to points of weakness and state how the organization is going to improve or overcome such weaknesses. In other words, the portfolio is a document for current and future references. It states all the facts and behavior of the organization. After completion, it should work as a guiding document for the institution itself. In case the portfolio does not meet the above criteria, the panel may ask the HEI to submit additional documents. This is especially true if the provided evidence fails to identify areas of improvements and if it is descriptive in nature. There lie several threats that might redirect the portfolio to be up-to-standards; these may be caused due to unfamiliarity with report writing mechanisms, inexperienced working staff, ignorance of Senior Management, or due to unawareness of QAdt requirements. Therefore it is crucial that attention be paid to the following:       Require (all staff involved) to demonstrate personal commitment Review checklist (QAdtM) continually Get all writing processes documented- signed and dated (meetings, drafts, memos, etc...) Proof-read everything (by the Ed.) Get every document verified (by experts internally and externally) Make the teams (SC & TGs) co-responsible for the quality of the Portfolio As we have mentioned the entire process is a leadership challenge. Aligning personal objectives with the organization during this challenging and crucial period is not an easy task. Creating a committee and dedicated team would be very difficult. Therefore a HEI whose staff are neglected in the daily operations, and whose senior management refuse to delegate and empower others will suffer in the QA process. Thus, it would be difficult to convince staff that this process bring benefits to them if this was not demonstrated to the staff earlier. On the other hand, the QA process will be an enjoyable ride if the QA & QI systems are already in place and well practised. Since the portfolio focuses on output-related data and analysis, HEIs are invited to allow for the use of performance indicators (PIs) in a variety of ways in order to measure performance:  against a set standard (internal or external) 10     within and between different areas, departments, disciplines or schools of the same HEI against international or system (often national or regional based) data against comparator HEIs i.e. institutionally, administratively, academically or from a process perspective across time said another way, HEIs are required to train its SC & TGS on how to select appropriate PIs (http://OAAA.gov.om/files/qe/training/handout/03v8_handout.pdf) and utilize the tool of benchmarking (http://oaaa.gov.om/files/qe/training/handout/09v1_handout.pdf) to verify its statements within the portfolio. The Senior Management must assure “compliance” with polices and procedures; the creation of compliance-culture does not totally ignore “fear of the QAdt process”. Everyone should work seriously and be held responsible about every irresponsible action he/she might perform that harmed the production of the expected portfolio; in other words, the HEI should assure that those involved should work professionally and enthusiastically. The Senior Management must outline a reasonable reward system. Thus, keeping motivation at a high level throughout the process is a challenge. 1. The Self Study Method It is stated (QAdtM: 37) that “this section should outline the method that the HEI used to undertaking the self study and developing the findings reported in the Portfolio. The purpose of this is to provide the Panel with a level of confidence that the Portfolio will be sufficiently rigorous and comprehensive, and that the HEI practises quality assurance methods”. For most HEIs in Oman ADRI is a new concept or method of review. Introduction of this method created confusion and concern because of its comprehensiveness. Institutions need workshops and orientation on how to use ADRI. However, it is tempting that one may try to simplify this complex method so the sector can benefit from our experience with ADRI. Though the OAAA does not impose a prescribed method, but it looks as if they prefer to follow the ADRI framework of analysis. In other words, the QAdt portfolio should employ this method to evaluate all its quality aspects. The dimensions of QA arrangements thus cover the HEI’s Approach, Deployment, Results and Improvement (ADRI) (and/or Objectives first as well (OADRI)). External Panels base HEI’s audit on such a critical method which does not only aim to enable it to supply the information required by OAAA, but also to lead to future improvements. The purpose of having a single sound method of analysis is:     To attain consistency To check if a HEI is achieving its mission and objectives To provide evidence that the procedures are being used and are working To meet relevant requirements, or to have plans to tackle pitfalls 11 Remember it could undermine your portfolio if you:    examine an issue against one or some of these dimensions only because they are deeply integrated. According to AUQA Audit Manual (2006:8), it is for example “insufficient to audit only deployment because this is meaningless without considering what the deployment was designed to achieve and what it actually is achieving. Similarly, it is insufficient to audit only results because the stakeholders, and the organisation itself, need assurance that the results (and their consequential effects) are achieved by design rather than by accident. Moreover, even if results look impressive, perhaps they could be significantly better if the deployment was more effective”. think of either Processes or Outcomes; they both complement each other. assume that your portfolio has one QA internal or external side; they are both valuable. This diagram shows how these four dimensions are to be handled: ADRI PROCESS Approach OUTCOME Deployment Results Improvement Of course there are many methods a HEI can utilize in the writing of its portfolio, but it is better that we stick to a model that is favoured (by OAAA), and experimented in a number of Omani HEIs. It is also recommended to describe here in brief the process conducted towards the submission of the HEI’s portfolio, particularly the steps taken and the names and affiliations of each person who served on the SC, GTs, etc. in order to show the External Panel a tentative outline about the size, type, and quality of work invested in the preparation of the portfolio [it is recommended that the OAAA enforces HEIs to include in an Appendix "QAdt Committees Membership and Tasks"]. 2. The Portfolio Layout The framework of the portfolio is distributed around three complementary parts, namely:    Introductory Main Body (Substantive Contents) Concluding 12 Each part should be written in a manner achieving its objectives. Each topic in the main body must be explored with ADRI analysis format to secure consistency and credibility. To facilitate the flow of work, it is advisable that these three parts are distributed as follows: Portfolio Part Responsibility of Coordination with Introductory SC Main body TGs SC & QO Concluding QO All HEI’s Units CEO Dean The above is a suggestion based on our experience. However, the distribution of work and responsibilities varies from one organization to another. Thus, every HEI is a unique case and every organization can decide for themselves in this regard. It is recommended that the Portfolio database referred to earlier is to be subdivided accordingly; hard copies of all relevant data are to be saved in box-files as well. Also, documentary nexuses of all activity areas (teaching-staff research, seminars, conferences, etc...) are to be kept. IV. Sensitivity of Pre-Submission Stage It is expected that the Portfolio is the product of all major stakeholders: everyone is assumed to be aware of its contents. It is the responsibility of top administration to let staff (academic & non-academic), students (and their guardians) and graduates know of what has been written since they may be asked later about its facts (by the Visiting Panel). It is totally undesirable for HEIs or their top administration to seek external expertise to write the portfolio for them, or to ask one of its qualified [???] people to write the portfolio himself [ I was stunned listening to someone revealing pompously to me that he has himself prepared his institution portfolio more than a year prior to his OAAA scheduled date of submission and that he has been circulating it to different outside bodies for review and advice !!!]. Such a practice is categorically dishonest. Undoubtedly, such act can be easily discovered by the visiting panel as the triangulation method of data collection can unveil the truth easily. It should be borne in mind that there are piles of learning lessons in the various stages of the process, and a HEI who hires an external consultant/agency to prepare its portfolio or depend on 1 or 2 people in the organization will lose the opportunity of discovering itself. Quality agencies worldwide encourage the involvement of the stakeholders as it disseminates the culture of quality (best practices) amongst the participants and gives them impetus to “act with quality”. However we are confident that the overwhelming majority of our HIEs act professionally according to the book (Quality Audit Manual). Needless to say Quality requirements constitute a burden (some use the label Quality Industry to refer to the growing requirements (and costs) of the field). The checked HEI remains under mounting pressures as the time flies towards the submission date: enormous tasks, limited staff, 13 inadequate experience, etc. There are two negative positions surface: indifference or overconfidence. Both positions are to be carefully avoided because they lead to disappointing results. Indifference results in “fill-in-the-blanks” portfolio, or to “borrow-from-others” practice, whereas overconfidence blinds the HEI from seeing its own flaws. 1. "Law of Raspberry Jam" This law reads :"The broader you spread it the thinner it gets". The multiplicity of issues to tackle and details to cover make it important to do some sort of a "Sand Table". A HEI must have subjected itself to total disclosure in order to identify what to include, concentrating on: 1. Areas for Concern (Risks) 2. Areas for Improvement In the initial survey, senior managers must act swiftly and abruptly: they must find solutions for the problems of the HEI: if we assume that this survey is made 9-12 months ahead of scheduled submission, they should plan for solutions (permanent, not temporary); if there are problems that cannot be fixed within time, they must have a clear-cut plan to deal with them (Opportunities for Improvement (OFI), quoting QAdtM terminology). In all pre-submission attempts, a HEI must avoid protectionism (i.e., "motivation to omit or conceal areas where improvements are required or, when they cannot be concealed, to present them in a form that deliberately over exaggerates positive aspects and underplays problems"), and adhere to transparency (QAdtM: 48). Any cover-up can easily be identified by Panel members, who rely on many resources, in addition to the submitted Portfolio. Also, hiding a fact does not work in favor of the organization in a longer term. As mentioned above, if the portfolio is a true reflection of HEI, it can be used as a strategic document that will serve the organization for a longer time. 2. Plagiarism Detection Quality literature is underlined by the same notions which are expressed with different terminology. Though in different style (and somehow different terminology), the majority of quality manuals and guides have the same objective. But, cross references are not accepted; they are counted as "academic plagiarism". Therefore, HEIs should act independently, relying on themselves in the introduction of "their own business". Plagiarism is of many types; clear vs. hidden, direct vs. indirect, contextualized vs. noncontextualized, academic vs. non-academic, and so on. However, all these types of Plagiarism must be avoided as they amount to cheating and dishonest action, and as such considered immoral. 14 If plagiarism is identified in the portfolio, bitter consequences must then be expected, irrespective of everything else. Hence, we must avoid plagiarism, and: 1. Purchase and (train on) use of a reliable plagiarism detection software (they can be easily found in computer software shops or e-shopping). 2. Use the purchased software to identify all unattributed examples of plagiarism in every stage of portfolio writing, with due attention to final version of your report. 3. The scanning against plagiarism should cover all data a HEI dispatches to OAAA (including Portfolio and all kinds of Supporting Materials, and any other form of data enacted in the HEI, e.g., bylaws, criteria of reference, guidelines, handbooks, etc.). 4. In case of quoting from others, follow code (usually found in texts of Scientific Methods of Writing); however, it is recommended to reduce such quotations due size of portfolio and other reasons. 5. Draw a schedule for your plagiarism checks and append them to your portfolio [OAAA is to demand this appendix to be included as an SM]. Avoid these types of plagiarism: 1. Clear Plagiarism These two quotes are found in the literature; one of them is a plagiarized text, irrespective of who wrote them, what they represented, etc. In order to avoid plagiarism, one should refer clearly and chronologically to source (recent texts refer to earlier ones). Slide # 20: ADRI : The AUQA Audit Method (Session 1.5 Part B) Scenario #2 Staff Appraisal “All our new departments have adopted the staff appraisal policy. According that policy, all staff participate in an annual appraisal meeting with their HoS, with the option for informal sessions quarterly. They provide opportunities to constructively discuss workload, working conditions, personal competency, and staff development needs. The model is consistent with best practice according to Investors in People.” http://www.OAAA.gov.om/files/qe/training/slides/294,39,Slide 39 Workshop #2 Scenario Staff Appraisal “All our three new Faculties (made as a result of merging the previous five smaller faculties) have adopted the staff appraisal bylaw. According that bylaw, all staff participate in an annual appraisal meeting with their Associate Dean (head of faculty), with the option for informal sessions each semester. The meetings provide opportunities to constructively discuss workload, working conditions, personal competency, and staff development needs. The model is consistent with best practice according to Investors in People (an international HRM quality framework).” 15 2. "Bilingual" Plagiarism In bilingual HEIs, using Arabic and English, problems aggregate because the Panel members cannot easily identify the unattributed material. For instance, the Arabic version of the logo of a HEI was first approved (Dawman-nahwa-al-Tamayuz, Lit.: Always towards Excellence); but because its portfolio is to submit in English, the HEI, after consultations, decided to translate it into Ever to Excel. Later on it has been found out that its translated version belongs to another HEI. This has been classified as unjustified action. The same HEI has now changed its logo into (Ibdai-wa-Tamayuz, Lit.: Excellence and Innovation), which is a widespread logo for many organizations. In order to avoid misinterpretation, it is better carefully to identify such problems in advance by search the internet, or by detection software. 3. Professional Editor The OAAA strongly recommends "that the HEI submits its Portfolio to a professional editor prior to final production. A number of potential problems and misunderstandings during a Quality Audit can be prevented by ensuring that the Portfolio is accurate and understandable” (QAdtM:36). The HEI, the internal Ed., and other committees cannot see their own "mistakes"; therefore, an external specialist is required to review the final draft of the HEI's portfolio prior to submission. Some Quality experts and agencies provide this service (OAAA may provide assistance in this regard). This task must be scheduled for in the portfolio timeline, i.e., the HEI must in advance plan for its portfolio to be checked before final submission to the OAAA. Nonetheless, this does not mean that a HEI can not use their own expertise in editing its portfolio. On the contrary, if a HEI has the staff and resources to do it, it is recommended that they have it all "home-made". V. Conclusions 1. Portfolio Value Despite being the heart of the QAdt process, the portfolio submitted will continue to be very useful for the HEI in many ways, and should thus be carefully maintained because it has many advantages (QAdtM: 40-1):   it serves as an up to date tool for ongoing quality assurance activities within the HEI; it facilitates the development of trend information over time, which can lead to better analysis and decision making; and 16   the Portfolio will be much quicker and easier to prepare the next time the HEI is audited. It is a strategic document that describes the HEI practices, and its present and future directions, and structures of operational functions. The maintenance of a Quality Audit Portfolio means also that it can continue to bring other benefits. International experience shows that some of the most popular uses for the Portfolio, other than as the Submission document for the purpose of Quality Audit, include the following:  providing the basis for establishing a comprehensive set of key performance indicators for the institution;  induction material for new staff; and  institutional information for prospective institutional partners and affiliates.  can be used as a working or action document for institutional future directions. 2. Portfolio as a Preliminary Phase of Quality Journey It is important to take note of the following:     The portfolio itself is neither a "sole" means nor and end, in the sense that Quality Assurance and Enhancement is a composite continuous process. It is only one means for checking quality. Therefore, a HEI management must realize that the submission of the final version of their portfolio is the "start of their HEI quality race" to respond to requirements as perceived by OAAA. HEIs can make modifications (add, delete, and change) to their portfolio (until the last day of the Panel Visit). Of course, such modifications must be justified, reflecting real situation. However, a word of warning must be forwarded: try to submit a final comprehensive portfolio (evaluative, representative and objective). Do not get stressed, and remember that a successful portfolio is one with "pros and cons", i.e., whose final result (Panel Report v6) must include commendations, recommendations and suggestions (Type 1). The coming quality checks (Standards Assessment, Stage Two of Accreditation) will start from this portfolio and how you have dealt with its results (Panel Report v6). In other words, be ready to next quality check (checks are periodic) 17 REFERENCES Campbell, C. & C. Rozsnyai (2002) Quality Assurance and the Development of Course Programmes. Papers on Higher Education Regional University Network on Governance and Management of Higher Education in South East Europe Bucharest, UNESCO. Swanson, Margaret and Ann MacBeth (1911) Educational Needlecraft. London: Longmans, Green, and Co. Oman Academic Accreditation Authority (2008) Quality Audit Manual. Muscat. Australian Universities Quality Agency (2006) Audit Manual. Version 3.0. Melbourne Abbreviations Used ADRI ApprOAAAh, Deployment, Results and Improvement AUQA Australian Universities Quality Agency CEO Chief Executive Officer CP Contact Person Ed Editor EO Executive Officer HEIs Higher Education Institutions OAAA Oman Academic Accreditation Authority OADRI Objectives, ApprOAAAh, Deployment, Results and Improvement OFI Opportunities for Improvement OQN Oman Quality Network Q Quality QA Quality Assurance QAdt Quality Audit QAdtM Quality Audit Manual (2008) QE Quality Enhancement 18 QO Quality Office SM Supporting Material ST Steering Committee TGs Task Groups TQM Total Quality Management The Author Ali H. Fayadh (BA, MA, MLitt, PhDEd) Dr. Ali H. Fayadh is a Professor of Contrastive & Applied Linguistics (TEFL). He is currently ELES Muscat Branch Director in the Sultanate of Oman. He has been working in higher education institutions since 1979. He worked & studied in a number of Arab & foreign universities and colleges (Basrah & Baghdad (Iraq), Jerash (Jordan), Lancaster & Newcastleupon-Tyne (UK), and Muscat (Oman). He taught and supervised both undergraduates & postgraduates and served in a number of leading academic and administrative posts. He produced 35 researches, papers, translated 2 books, edited 2 books and wrote tens of articles on different topics (including Quality Assurance & Enhancement) in leading magazines and newspapers. He has worked as the Secretary of the Omani Quality Network (OQN). 19