A MATURITY MODEL FOR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT IN

HIGHER EDUCATION
Moazzam Baig, Sidra Basharat, Manzil-e-Maqsood
National University of Computer and Emerging Sciences, Lahore, Pakistan

ABSTRACT

The need for a proper framework of quality has gained paramount importance due to
the growing demand for quality in higher education. The need for determining the existing
maturity of education, the government’s growing emphasis on spreading quality education
among masses and the increasing competition among educational institutions are some
important factors that have set quality demand in motion. In order to sustain educational
standards, efforts are being made in the international educational sector to employ different
quality frameworks, for example, ISO9000 and Total Quality Management (TQM). These
quality frameworks, however, are basically designed for industrial sectors and have to be
carefully customized to meet the needs of the educational sector. Hence there is a need of a
process model that improves the quality of educational level processes in a cost effective
way. In this paper we explore a process model suitable for educational sector to improve
educational level processes. We will focus on the development of a maturity framework for
higher educational sector that would enable education providers to improve quality of the
existing educational processes and also aid the cost-effective development of value-added
and practical processes that have been overlooked in the past. For this purpose we have
selected Capability Maturity Model (CMM) as our base model and People Capability
Maturity Model (P-CMM) and Capability Maturity Model Integrated (CMMI) as helping
models for quality improvement in higher education sector. The paper concludes with a
discussion of the implementation and translation issues of using an adapted version of the
CMM for the education sector.

Keywords: Quality Model, Higher Education, Capability Maturity Model.

INTRODUCTION

For better understanding of quality management in higher education one should be

familiar with its definition. There are several definitions of quality, which are available in
literature. According to ISO 9000 context, the standardized definition of quality refers to all
those features of a product (or service) which satisfy the customer’s requirements and comply
with any regulations applicable to those products or services [17]. Quality assurance refers to
the ‘planned and systematic actions which are considered necessary to provide adequate
confidence that a product or service will satisfy given requirements for quality [9]. From
these definitions we can conclude that quality is the extent to which a product or service
meets (or exceeds) a set of complex of requirements. In the context of higher education this
means defined and measurable criteria for the quality of education; policy and procedures for
quality assurance; monitoring and periodic review of programs and awards; assessments of
students; quality assurance of teaching staff; learning resources and student support;
information systems, and public information [18]. These requirements of quality assurance in
higher education necessitate that educational institutions demonstrate responsible actions in
their professional practices, be accountable for public funds received and demonstrate the
results they achieve with the available resources [11]. According to Becket and Brookes [8]
the growing emphasis on quality in higher education is due to cultural and environmental
forces. According to their assessment there are particular environmental forces in a specific
country that boost quality culture. Some of them are:

• A growing climate of increasing accountability.

• An expansion in the size of student population.
• Greater expectations of students as paying customers.
• An increase in collaborative provision between institutions.

Becket and Brookes [8] observed that the overall demand of all these forces is to
implement quality management programs in educational sector and that continual efforts are
made to enhance the quality of provision of services and products. Today many organizations
are changing their traditional ways to cop with the market demands and growing customer
needs and are striving to become the learning organizations. As Avdjieva and Wilson [12]
suggest, Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) are now required to become learning
organizations, where internal stakeholders also interpret and assess the quality of higher
education provision. As a result, many higher education institutions are looking towards the
adoption of ISO9000 standard [2] for quality improvement in higher education and total
quality management (TQM) practices in order to achieve quality goals. International
Organization for Standardization (ISO) published guidelines for the application of ISO9001-
2000 in education sector [2]

MATURITY FRAMEWORK

Maturity models are useful for the organizations that emphasize on process
improvements. In the higher education, maturity models can assist institutions in determining
where they are by improving a set of processes in given maturity level. According to Manford
and McSporran [4] Maturity models have the following characteristics and assumptions:

• The aspect of measurement ─ how long did the particular task take? How
much did the development cost the organization?
• A maturity matrix ─ a number of levels or stages are defined that represent
improved capability and performance in particular organizational processes.
Organizations proceed to the next level of maturity as they fulfill its
requirements.
• That, processes which are better defined, can lead to better products.

The best-known maturity model is the Software Capability Maturity Model (SW-
CMM) [16] from Carnegie Mellon university, although there are many CMM-like models
that exist in industry; System Engineering Capability Maturity Model (SE-CMM), Software
Acquisition Capability Maturity Model (SA- CMM), System Engineering Capability
Assessment Model, EIA/IS 731System Engineering Capability Model, System Security
Engineering CMM, FAA Integrated CMM, IEEE/EIA 12207, ISO/IEC 15288, ISO/IEC
15504 and ESI Project Framework [5].

Although these maturity models are not without their inherent limitations, they focus
on one particular area of knowledge and ignore the rest. For example SEI’s CMM focus on
improving processes in an organization but ignores the people and staff development. For
such related issues of staff, P-CMM was developed by Curits, Hefley and Miller [13] to
increase the skills and knowledge of workforce in an organization. A third model associated
with the CMM, the Personal Software process (PSP) proposed by Humphrey [15],
concentrates on the individual software engineer. This model recognizes that process
improvement can and should begin at individual level. The CMM is a framework that
characterizes an evolutionary process improvement path towards a more mature organization.
An organization can use CMM to determine their current state of software process maturity
and then to establish priorities for improvement. An organization’s current state of maturity
can be categorized as Initial, Repeatable, Defined, Managed, or Optimizing.

The five levels of Capability Maturity Model (CMM) can be described as [10]:

• Initial: The development process is characterized as ad hoc, and occasionally

even chaotic. Few processes are defined, and success depends mainly on
individual effort and heroics.
• Repeatable: Basic project management processes are established to track cost,
schedule, and functionality. The necessary process discipline is in place to
repeat earlier successes on projects with similar applications.
• Defined: Management and development activities are documented,
standardized, and integrated into a family of standard processes for the
organization.
• Managed: Detailed measures of the process and product quality are collected
so that the process and product are understood and controlled.
• Optimizing: Continuous process improvement is facilitated by feedback from
the process and from piloting innovative ideas and technologies.

The process focus at each level can be described as:

PROCESS FOCUS BY LEVEL

When an organization move in the hierarchy of CMM and go from one level to the
other level then each level has major process focus. The main process focus of each level is
given below:

Level 5: Continuous, measurement-driven process.

Level 4: Analyze measurements.
Level 3: Install defined process, using infrastructure.
Level 2: Establish infrastructure.
Level 1: Undefined (fire-fighting).

The improved version of Capability Maturity Model (CMM) [16] is Capability

Maturity Model Integrated (CMMI) [1].The reason why we prefer CMM over CMMI is that
CMM is simple and easy to understand and implement in education sector. Because
implementing maturity framework in higher education is in nascent stages, so we started with
the Capability Maturity Model (CMM) approach. Another model which is helpful in defining
our proposed capability maturity model for higher education is People Capability Maturity
Model (P-CMM), a well documented set of practices, developed by Curits, Hefley and Miller
[13] that enables the growth of organizational workforce competencies. The P-CMM
addresses people issues in software development and management. Before going to explain
our proposed maturity model, we deem it necessary to explain the issues like applicability of
a maturity model in higher education and its implementation scope in higher education.
APPLICABILITY OF CAPABILITY MATURITY MODEL FRAMEWORK IN
HIGHER EDUCATION

Organizations which give high value to their processes are adopting maturity models
to improve the performance of individuals and organization. Maturity models in areas
involving process and high-performance delivery are proving to be useful because they allow
individuals and organizations to self-assess the maturity of various aspects of their processes
against benchmarks [14].According to Marshall and Mitchell [7] the challenge facing
educational institutions in quality, is similar in many aspects as the challenge facing software
industry in developing quality software. The quality problem in software industry leads to
development of the Capability Maturity Models, especially CMM.

Research has shown that all the Capability Maturity Models assist organizations that
want answers to questions like [10]:

• Is the organization successful at learning from past mistakes?

• Is it clear that the organization is spending limited resources effectively?
• Does everyone agree which problems within the organization are the highest
priorities?
• Does the organization have a clear picture of how it will improve its
processes?

From educational point of view these questions are also very important. On this basis,
it seems reasonable to define a maturity model for education domain. Although many
maturity models, with particular reference to CMM and SPICE, are being implemented in
education sector but the main emphasis is on e-learning domain or to map the curriculum
design practices on some maturity ladder [3, 6, 7].So the need to implement a maturity model
in higher education to improve the key practices of educational processes can’t be neglected.

PROPOSED MATURITY MODEL FOR HIGHER EDUCATION (E-CMM)

The need for a new process model in educational sector is very important. We believe
that an effective maturity model will improve the educational level and management level
processes both in cost effective and efficient way thus to improve the overall quality of an
institution. On the basis of strengths and popularity of Capability Maturity Model framework
we have proposed an Educational Capability Maturity Model (E-CMM). Our proposed
Educational Capability Maturity Model in educational sector can lead to the following
opportunities:

• Educational Capability Maturity Model will improve the key education

processes, thus contributing to enhance the overall quality of higher education.
• A mature degree program and course design process, based on best practices,
is likely to enhance student learning outcome.
• Faculty and student performance can be continuously measured and improved
at multiple levels.
• Active teacher-student communication will be improved.
• An accepted model will help university administration in setting their long
term strategic planning thus providing a clear vision to the university.
 • Educational Capability Maturity Model will provide a clear insight to
benchmark current performance and look for improvements to the higher
levels.
• Technology is an ever changing phenomenon and best practices are correlated
with the technology and the highest maturity level will improve the quality of
higher education.
• By implementing the educational Capability Maturity Model will identify the
key activities, which are necessary to improve the overall institutional
performance.

We have customized the basic process areas of CMM and translated them into our
proposed E-CMM model. Because educational sector is quite different from other business
and service sectors and it has its own key process and practices, which are important for
quality education. So we have changed the nomenclature of some processes of CMM to make
them more meaningful for educational sector and dropped some process areas of CMM,
which were not appropriate in education domain, and instead include alternative processes,
which are comparable to the requirements of that level. Below is a brief description of basic
processes of CMM and our proposed E-CMM in tabular format.
 Table 2: Mapping of CMMI and Proposed E-CMM

Level Focus CMM E-CMM

1. Process Change
1. Defect prevention management
Continuous 2. Technology change 2. Technology Change
Optimizing Process management. Management
(5) Improvement 3. Process change management 3. Total Faculty
Involvement
4. Documented Feedback
5. Defect prevention

1. Institutional Process
Engineering Performance
process: 1. Software quality management. 2. Educational Quality
Management Use 2. Quantitative process Management
(4) infrastructure management. 3. Quantitative Process
Management

1. System approach of
1. Organization process focus institution
2. Organization process definition 2. Integrated Program
Product and 3. Peer reviews Management.
process 4. Training program 3. Documented Process
Defined quality 5. Intergroup coordination Management.
(3) measure 6. Software product engineering 4. Intellectual Property
7. Integrated software Management
management. 5. Faculty Training
6. Student-Support Process.

1. *Educational
Requirement
1. Requirements management Management
2. Software project planning 2. *Degree Program
Project 3. Software project tracking and Planning
management oversight. 3. Degree Program
Repeatable
Establish 4. Software subcontract mgt. Monitoring and Control
(2)
5. Software quality assurance 4. Solution Provider
6. Software configuration mgt. Management
5. Educational Quality
Assurance
6. Faculty hiring Program
Initial
(1)

* These process areas are explained in the appendix.

MATURITY LEVELS OF E-CMM

Our proposed E-CMM is five-staged model like every maturity model e.g.,
CMM/CMMI [1, 16] and P-CMM [13]. We have changed the nomenclature of each level
because the given nomenclature of CMM suits mostly the software industry and it does not
make much sense when applied to educational domain. Many authors, especially in e-
learning domain, devised a maturity model and proposed their own nomenclature for each
level, for example, Manford and McSporran [4] developed their own ECMM (E-Learning
Capability Maturity Model) a five staged model for e-learning and developed a separate
nomenclature for each stage which is different from CMM that suits the e-learning
community. In Table [3] we have revised the nomenclature of CMM stages and devised a
new name for each level.

Table 3: Revised Stages for E-CMM

Level Focus

Learning Organization becomes a learning organization and continuous process

(5) improvement is adopted.

Measured Detailed measures of educational programs are established and used

(4) organization wide

Coordinated
Processes are documented and coordinated.
(3)

Degree programs are established with objectives each is independent of other,

Independent
no coordination among processes.
(2)
Initial
An ad-hoc process
(1)

EXPLANATION OF MATURITY STAGES OF E-CMM

Level 1-Initial

At this level few processes are defined. Productivity and quality vary. Success
depends on individual effort. No formal plan for recourse creation. Identification of financial
requirements is not adequate.

Level 2-Independent

Policies and objectives exist for educational programs. Student and staff needs are
identified and recourses are created, but each program is operated independent of other. Plans
are developed for resources. Educational objectives are defined. Basic project management
practices are adopted. A common infrastructure for quality is established. Basic level
documentation exists for each degree program and course design. There are policies that
guide the degree programs in establishing the appropriate management processes. The
program planning and tracking are stable and earlier success can be repeated.
Level 3-Coordinated

A participatory culture is established and coordination of expertise among processes

and knowledge areas are encouraged. An organization’s vision and strategy for education is
developed. Processes at educational and management levels are properly documented and are
no more dependent on individuals. Staff development programs are implemented within each
area and their specialization needs are identified. A comprehensive student support program
exists at institutional level. A common database exists to save the intellectual property of
institution. Basic data from projects is collected which is used for planning, establishing
scope, providing resources and meeting commitments of future projects.

Level 4-Measured

The institution as a whole develops effective measurement practices. The major

characteristic of this level is that detailed measurement programs for educational and
management processes are established organization wide. A common database exists for the
institution. The institution adopts a common approach for quality assurance for each program.
Planning for each degree program is integrated at the institutional level.

Level 5-Learning

Here the organization becomes a learning organization. Continuous process

improvement is adopted organization wide. The data, which is collected in previous stages, is
used to analyze defects and their causes. Cost-benefit analysis is performed on new
technologies. Such technologies and process improvements are included as ordinary business
activities.

IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES

All the maturity models are meant for industrial or software sector. So they have their
limitations when we apply them in educational sector. We incurred the following difficulties
when tried to define CMM for educational sector:

• Every key process area in CMM has a set of goals and related activities. It is
very difficult to translate every goal and practices of the respective process
area for educational sector.
• Education sector is more complex and they have many objectives and
purposes. So it is very difficult for a single model to fit nicely into educational
sector.
• Some goals and activities of key processes present no added advantage for
educational domain and therefore create only unnecessary complications and
raise the cost.
• Emphasis on a lot of documentation is unnecessary in educational sector and
creates only a bureaucratic bottleneck.
• Translation of nomenclature and terminologies of CMM models to convert for
educational sector is not easy task.
TRANSLATION AND INTERPRETATION ISSUES

When we tried to translate the Capability Maturity Model for the educational sector
we came up with certain issues, which were confusing and cannot be resolved easily. For
example what is the final product of education? Is it learning, degree, student or qualification
delivered?

Some of CMM terminologies were very difficult to make proper sense in education
sector. For example size, effort, control, testing, data, typical work products, work packages,
in process testing. It is recommended that a comprehensive list should be developed which
should describe what each terminology is meant for in educational sense. In Table [4] we
tried to interpret some taxonomies of CMM .Our adopted interpretation is more meaningful
for education domain but it is incomplete and would be completed in our future work.

Table 4: Interpretation of Terminologies

Taxonomy Interpretation adopted Taxonomy Interpretation

adopted
Product Student, degree, learning. Peer Review Includes internal and
external assessment
Non- Any problem occurring
conformities during development and
delivery of education.

Training Training and

Professional
development of staff.

CONCLUSIONS

In this paper we have proposed a capability maturity model for higher education,
which helps in improving the practices of key educational processes and contribute to
enhance the overall quality education. For this we adopted CMM as our role model and
proposed a new Educational Capability Maturity Model (E-CMM). We have also defined the
applicability and translation issues of Capability Maturity Model (CMM) when it is
customized for higher education domain. Our future plan is to develop a complete
educational framework model targeting the higher education domain with detailed
explanation of each process area, respective relevant goals and practices.

REFERENCES
1. CMMI Team, Capability Maturity Model Integration, Version 1.1, CMMI for system
Engineering, Software Engineering, Integrated Product and Process Development,
and Supplier Sourcing (CMMI- SE/ SW / SS, V 1.1), Staged Representation, SEI,
CMU/SEI-2002-TR-012, SC-TR- 2002-012, March 2002.
2. International Organization for Standardization, ISO/IWA 2: Quality management
system-Guidelines for the application of ISO9001-2000 In education,
www.iso.org/iso/en/comcentre/pressreleases/archieves/2004.
3. Elmarie, E. (2003), “A look at e-learning: investing their value for developing an e-
learning strategy”, Bureau for Learning Development, Unisa.
4. Chris, M and Mae, M. (July 2003), “E-Learning Quality: Becoming a Level Five
Learning Organization”, Proceedings of the 6th Annual National Advisory Committee
on Computing Qualification (NACCQ), North New Zealand.
5. Maria, M. and Larrondo, P. (2004), “Towards an Engineering Education Capability
Maturity Model”, Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education
Annual Conference and Exposition, 2004.
6. Bruce, A. W; Herbert, E.; Paul, M.; John, H. and David, M. (2003), “Applicability of
CMMI to the IS Curriculum”, Proceedings of Information System Education
Conference (ISECON), USA.
7. Stephen, M. and Geoff, (2004), “Applying SPICE to e-learning: An e-Learning
Maturity Model”, Proceedings of the Sixth Australian Computing Education
Conference.
8. Nina, B. and Maureen, B. (2006), “Analyzing Quality Audit in Higher Education”,
Brooks eJournal of Learning and Technology, Volume1, Issue2.
9. Borahan, N. and Ziarati, R. (2002), “Developing Quality Criteria for Application in
Higher Education Sector in Turkey”, Total Quality Management, 13(7), pp.913- 926.
10. Stephen, M. and Geoff, M. (2002), “An E-Learning Maturity Model, Proceedings of
the ASCILITE”.
11. Jackson, N. (1998), “Academic Regulation in U.K Higher Education: Part1-Current
Practices and Conceptual Frameworks”, Quality Assessment in education, 6(1) Pp5-
18.
12. Avdjieva, M. and Wilson, M. (2002), “Exploring the Development of Quality in
Higher Education”, Managing Service Quality, 2 (6), pp. 372-383.
13. Bill, C; William, H; Sally, M; “Overview of the People Capability Maturity Model
(P-CMM)”, Carnegie Mellon University, Software Engineering Institute,
www.sei.cmu.edu/publications/ documents/95/reports/95.mm.001html.
14. Charlotte, N. (2004), “A Maturity Model: Does it Provides a Path for Online Course
Design?” The Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 3(1), Summer, www.ncolr.org.
15. Humphrey, W. (1995), “A Discipline for Software Engineering, Reading”, MA,
Addison-Wesley.
16. Carnegie Mellon University, Software Engineering Institute (1995), The Capability
Maturity Model: Guidelines for Improving the Software Process, Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
17. International Organization for Standardization, ISO,http://www/iso/en/iso9000-4000
understand/basics/general/basica 4.html.
18. [18] The European Association for Quality Assurance (EAQA)
http://www.enqa.net/files /ENQA Bergen Report. pdf.
 APPENDIX
EDUCATIONAL REQUIREMENT MANAGEMENT

INTRODUCTION

Educational Requirement Management is comparable to Software Requirement

Management process area of CMM. The purpose of Educational Requirements Management
is to manage the requirements of the degree programs and identify inconsistencies.

Educational Requirement Management has one goal supported by four specific

practices.

Note: Requirements of a degree program, in educational domain, are quite different.

It is not same as the software requirements in which customer is fully involved and often
changes are initiated from the customer side. In educational sense to establish requirements of
degree program are quite judgmental. Requirements of a degree program are set by institution
itself and it’s judgmental view vary from institution to institution. Here the customer has only
two options to accept the degree or reject it. This means to take admission in the required
degree program or switchover to another degree program.

GOAL 1 MANAGE REQUIREMENTS OF DEGREE PROGRAMS

Requirements are managed and inconsistencies are identified.

The basic functions to manage requirements are:

• Managing all changes to the degree program requirements.

• Identifying inconsistencies between the requirements, the degree program
plans, and educational work products.
• Taking corrective action

KEY PRACTICE 2.1-1 OBTAIN AN UNDERSTANDING OF

REQUIREMENTS

Both customer and provider must know what they agree for, for example, what are the
requirements of a degree program, what is title of a degree program and whether title is
conveying its intended meaning which is understood by the customer, what is entry criteria,
what is minimum CGPA required to achieve the degree.

TYPICAL WORK PRODUCTS

1. Lists of criteria for distinguishing requirements.

2. An agreed set of requirements

SUBPRACTICES

• Establish criteria for the program.

• Analyze requirements to ensure that the established criteria are met.
EXPLANATION

Some degree program titles imply a specialization within a broader educational area,
for example, MS degree in computer science with specialization in project management. If a
program title implies a specialization for which program criteria have been developed, the
program must satisfy the applicable program criteria in addition to the general criteria.

KEY PRACTICE 2.1-2 REVIEW THE REQUIREMENTS

Review the requirements of the existing programs and assess for any change.

• The suitability of existing courses and their contents.

• The availability of teaching staff and required skill level.
• The availability of resources.
• The feasibility of a proposed planning and schedule.

KEY PRACTICE 2.1-3 MANAGE AMENDMENTS TO THE

REQUIREMENTS

This applies to those degree programs where changes are made, for example, in a
certain degree program new requirements are added, or a certain degree program is cancelled
due to non- availability of skilled staff or certain accredited body does not accept the degree.
Changes are made in:

• Program Title.
• Faculty.
• Curricular Objectives.
• Curricular Content.
• Student Body.
• Administration.
• Institutional Commitment.
• Institutional Financial Status.

TYPICAL WORK PRODUCTS

1. Change status reports

2. Non-compliance reports

KEY PRACTICE 2.1-4 IDENTIFY INCONSISTENCIES BETWEEN

PROCESSES AND REQUIREMENTS

This specific practice finds the inconsistencies between the requirements and the
degree programs corrective action to solve them.
TYPICAL WORK PRODUCTS

Corrective actions report

SUBPRACTICES

• Review the degree program’s plans, for consistency with the requirements and the
changes made to them. For example the degree program duration is two years but it is
being completed in two and a half year, so what is the reason for this inconsistency.
• Initiate corrective actions.
 DEGREE PROGRAM PLANNING (DPP)

INTRODUCTION

Degree Program Planning is comparable with software project planning of the CMM
as a basic process area. Degree Program Planning has two goals along with Key Practice
activities.

Note: Degree program is not same as any software product. Degree program can’t be
measured as we measure software product size in FP or LOC, but rather to define ‘size ’and
‘effort’ estimation of degree program is meaningless and wastage of time. Such terminologies
do not fit properly when we try to define them for educational purposes. So we drop these
definitions and with them their related goals and practices. We define our own goals and
practices that we consider, from reviewing educational literature, most important to establish
degree program planning process.

GOAL 1 ESTABLISH REQUIREMENTS PARAMETERS OF DEGREE

PROGRAM

Degree program requirements parameters include the information that is needed by

the degree program to perform necessary tasks. Here ‘tasks’ mean degree program and its
related development activities, for example, curriculum development, design of course,
content development, training material, and responsibilities.

KEY PRACTICE 2.1-1 DEFINE DEGREE PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS

This includes:

• Title of program
• Duration of degree program.
• Total number of courses taught
• Credit hours required
• Total number of faculty and helping staff (e.g. lab staff, teaching assistant)
required.
• Budget.
• Student services in terms of library, journals, and periodicals.

KEY PRACTICE 2.1-2 ESTIMATE SCOPE OF THE DEGREE PROGRAM

The whole degree program is split into different sub processes and for each
subprocess scope is established:

• Curriculum Design.
• Faculty requirements for program.
• Student enrollment criteria.
• Timetable.
GOAL 2. DEFINE PROGRAM RESOURCES

KEY PRACTICE 2.2-1 PLAN FOR PROGRAM RESOURCES

Plan for necessary resources to perform the program. Define the degree resources:

• Required skilled staff.

• Availability of course material.
• Availability of student facilities.
• Availability of technical facilities.

KEY PRACTICE 2.2-2 IDENTIFY RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH PROGRAM

Identified risks related with degree program and its subprocesses are:

• Non-availability of required skilled faculty.

• Non-availability of funds.
• Non-availability of lab facilities.
• Under enrollment of students.

TYPICAL WORK PRODUCTS

1. Faculty list
2. Critical facilities/equipment list.

KEY PRACTICE 2.2-3 PLAN FOR NEEDED KNOWLEDGE AND SKILLS

Plan for knowledge and skills needed to perform the program. Plan for the needed
skills for faculty and students. Assess the availability of faculty skills. And make necessary
arrangements for the providence of skills.

TYPICAL WORK PRODUCTS

1. Skills needed for faculty and students

2. Staffing and new hiring plans.

KEY PRACTICE 2.2-4 PLAN STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT

Plan the involvement of all the stakeholders in developing the degree program.
Careful selection of relevant stakeholder is necessary for each major activity, e.g. Course
design, financing, providing of lab facilities, providing of books etc.

TYPICAL WORK PRODUCTS

Stakeholder involvement plan.