This study is about the comparison of distance and conventional education programs at the University of Pretoria, South Africa. It is assessed in terms of access, delivery modes and output. The purpose is to investigate and to compare the impact of distance and conventional education on the performances of learners in a postgraduate degree program (B.Ed. (Hons) with specialization in Education Management, assessed in terms of access, delivery and output. It explored documents that were both at the macro (Government Policy documents) and macro (University’s / Faculty documents) with the aim of answering the main research question, with other identified sub-research questions that have been raised.: What is the comparison between the impact of distance and conventional education on the performances of learners in a postgraduate BEd (Hons) degree program with specialization in Education Management, when assessed in terms of access, delivery mode and output? A review of relevant literature exposed and compared the essence of both modes of delivery. Data were collected from identified key role players on the program, which included administrators, module coordinators, course presenters, and tutors, some of the students on the program, and some of those that had discontinued their studies with the university. These were done using one-on-one semi-structured and focus group interviews, telephone interviews and questionnaires in order to obtain qualitative and quantitative data. A sample of 127 distance education students, 45 conventional students, 6 module coordinators, 10 course presenters, 4 tutors, 4 administrators, 1 instructional designer and 10 students that had discontinued their studies participated in the investigation. The data collected were analysed through the use descriptive and inferential statistics, and tabulation for the quantitative data, while the computer assisted qualitative data analysis software [CAQDAS] (Atlas.ti) was employed for the analysis of the transcribed interviews. From the data obtained, it was confirmed that there is a myriad of possible factors that may be responsible for the divergences in the performances, throughput and output rates of enrolled students on the BEd (Hons) Education Management, Law and Policy at the University of Pretoria. It was further revealed that South Africa has identified distance education as a tool of redressing past inequalities in higher education, a process, which the university was involved in by starting relevant programs to this end. However, even though equal access is the focus of the country, but it appeared as if little is being said about financially supporting distance education as for instance, there was no financial assistance to distance education students on the program. Due to the incursion of the university into areas, where the impact of university education had not previously being felt, its choice of the mode of delivery was limited to the print, the first generation, which was expected to bring all students on the program at par since all would have access to it. However, despite the efforts made by the university, it was discovered that there existed some gaps between the qualities of the learning experiences, which students from both modes were exposed to. Examples of those identified were lack of designated counseling unit for distance education students, and inadequate number of administrative staff to meet the needs of the ever increasing number of distance education students. However, it appeared that there were no prominent discrepancies that could be found between the two modes, and one could assume that both modes were guided by a similar underpinning philosophy, which drove the ethos of the programs that impacted on the instructional design. It was also found that there were challenges faced by the academic staff involved in the program under investigation, who felt that there might be the need for the institution to demarcate between academe interested in distance education, and those that were not, and the need for the institution to review its stand on rewards and incentives systems for staff involved in distance education. It was believed by them that this would be the way out of the dearth of research presently facing the university on this delivery mode. The study suggests that quality issues especially in relation to an African setting should be looked into, since a large percentage of the students involved in the program were from the rural areas. Finally, the study identified various limitations, and made suggestions for further research, and recommendations for improvement and immediate action. / Thesis (PhD (Curriculum Studies))--University of Pretoria, 2007. / Curriculum Studies / unrestricted

The quality of education in Botswana is not yet up to standard as there has been emphasis on attainment of Universal Basic Education. Quality in education encompasses a number of factors such as the development of the relevant curriculum, improvement of teacher preparation, development of appropriate learning materials, and improving the methods of assessing pupils (Grisay&Mählck, 1991, cited in Kellaghan&Geaney, 2003). The quality of what is going on in the classroom is judged by the processes and outcomes that are defined qualitatively. Assessment in Agriculture in Botswana senior schools comprises performance assessment and standardised paper-and-pencil tests. Performance assessment contributes only 20% (MoE&SD, 2001.p.6) yet it is allocated more time than paper-and-pencil tests. The aim of the study therefore was to understand and explore the characteristics and quality processes needed in the performance assessment of Agriculture Form Four students to ensure valid and reliable examinations in Botswana. The study was guided by two research questions. The first research question was: How valid and reliable are the performance assessment processes in Botswana schools? This research question sought to understand how performance assessment was conducted in Botswana schools, and how it compared with the international practice. The second research question was: How can quality assurance processes be developed in order to produce valid and reliable marks for BGCSE Agriculture performance assessment? The intention was to develop quality processes for performance assessment in the context of Form Four Agriculture in Botswana, to ensure valid and reliable marks for certification. A design research was employed in this study in which a baseline survey was conducted and based on the outcome, a quality assurance process was designed which included the development of standard tasks and assessment materials. During the baseline survey, teachers and school administrators completed a questionnaire and were also interviewed. Subsequently, prototypes of exemplar materials were developed iteratively in collaboration with practitioners and formatively evaluated. Feedback from evaluation was incorporated into the redesign and development of successive prototypes. Findings from baseline survey revealed that the conduct of performance assessment in schools was not standardised, primarily due to the absence of assessment policy and procedures to guide its conduct. Implementation of performance assessment was done by teachers who had insufficient training, in large classes with inadequate resources and received very little support from supervisors both internally and externally. Despite all these, insufficient time was allocated for conducting performance assessment, resulting in teachers forming groups most of the time during the conduct of tasks and assigning a single mark for the group based on the quality of the group’s product. However, findings from the intervention study revealed that entrenching quality assurance processes in the system produced valid and reliable performance assessment marks for certification. The characteristics of a quality assurance system for implementation of performance assessment were the presence of an assessment policy; training and accrediting teachers to assess; an efficient internal and external monitoring system; the provision of adequate resources; applying multiple modes of assessment; and multiple rating of the students. / Thesis (PhD)--University of Pretoria, 2011. / Science, Mathematics and Technology Education / unrestricted

In software development process, there can be misunderstandings, communication problems between individual members of the development team and mistakes when writing code or designing applications. These problems need to be resolved before the application is released into the production environment. To discover these errors it is necessary to properly test the software product. All these activities are engaged in discipline called Software Quality Assurance (SQA), which is an integral part of the software development process. The thesis discusses this discipline and procedures for software testing using the Microsoft Visual Studio 2008. The main objective of this work is to create comprehensive methodology for automated testing of web and Windows applications in Microsoft Visual Studio and to verify that procedures in practice. The reader will learn the theoretical basis of software testing at the beginning of the thesis. In next chapter, there are described various features that Microsoft Visual Studio 2008 offers for software testing. Following chapter describes the applications testing in IBM Rational Functional Tester, which is suitable for Windows applications testing (Microsoft Visual Studio 2008 does not support this kind of tests). In other part of the work -- Case Study -- the reader will learn web and Windows applications testing. Case study can serve as a basis for further methodological manual for teams engaged in software testing. The usage of instruments for testing is explained in real examples. At the end of the work there are set out recommendations for the team collaboration using Microsoft Team Foundation Server, and there are also compared the testing instruments and reviewed functions that will come up with Microsoft Visual Studio 2010.

M.Tech. / The South African Post Office or SAPO is the national postal service of South Africa and is owned by South African government. It employs 17000 people and operates more than 2400 postal outlets throughout the country. The history of SAPO can be tracked back to over 500 years. In 1994 South Africa was readmitted to the universal union following the end of apartheid. SAPO currently operates under a 25 year license granted by the Independent Communication Authority of South Africa (ICASA) and in terms of this must provide a universal service to all citizens of the country. The monthly service delivery performance target as set out by the postal regulator (ICASA) is 98%. With the current pressures of having to deliver services according to the license agreement with the regulator, it becomes imperative that SAPO has to improve its business process in order to enable it to meet and exceed set delivery standards with the aim of satisfying its customer’s needs. Throughout the 1990’s the South African Post Office (SAPO) has been offering communication system that was used even before cell phones were introduced and it is still one of the communications channels (SAPO history). As a result there has been increased interest in the application of total quality management (TQM) principles. The emergence of the revised ISO 9000 standard (9001:2008) now permits the South African Post Office gain advantages to improve their performance in a manner that can be measured and monitored precisely.

El texto completo de este trabajo no está disponible en el Repositorio Académico UPC por restricciones de la casa editorial donde ha sido publicado. / In this paper, we proposed a method that allows us to formulate and evaluate process mining indicators through questions related to the process traceability, and to bring about a clear understanding of the process variables through data visualization techniques. This proposal identifies bottlenecks and violations of policies that arise due to the difficulty of carrying out measurements and analysis for the improvement of process quality assurance and process transformation. The proposal validation was carried out in a health clinic in Lima (Peru) with data obtained from an information system that supports the surgery block process. Finally, the results contribute to the optimization of decision-making by the medical staff involved in the surgery block process. / Revisión por pares

No description available.

The subject of this thesis is the selection and implementation of new quality management tools in the selected engineering company INOX SERVIS s.r.o. The theoretical part deals with the different tools and methods of quality management and the analysis of current situation. Obtained information were used in the application of tools in the manufacturing process. Implementation was evaluated and other variants of possible process improvements were established.

In zwei sächsischen Betrieben, die selbst erzeugte Rapssaat in einer Pflanzenölmühle zu Rapspresskuchen und Rapsöl verarbeiten, wurde ein Qualitätssicherungssystem (QSS) für Ölsaaten verarbeitende Betriebe in Sachsen erarbeitet. Der in den beiden Betrieben erzeugte Rapsölkraftstoff zeigt eine für dezentrale Anlagen gleichbleibend hohe Qualität. Die Betriebe zeichnen sich durch ein spezielles Reinigungsverfahren und eine umfassende Qualitätssicherung aus. Das bereits vorhandene QSS des Technologie- und Förderzentrums Straubing (TFZ) bildete die Grundlage für die Entwicklung des universell anwendbaren QSS. Es wurde um Fragen zum Anbau, Einsatz des Rapsölkraftstoffs, Umrüstung der Fahrzeuge, Wartung der Fahrzeuge inkl. BHKW und Einsatz des Presskuchens in der Tierfütterung erweitert und in den beiden Betrieben erprobt. Das entwickelte QSS besteht aus Modulen und ist leicht an die betrieblichen Gegebenheiten vor Ort anzupassen. Das QSS inklusive Handbuch und Kalkulationsmodul zur Berechnung der Wirtschaftlichkeit aller Stufen der Verwertungskette steht im Internet unter http://www.landwirtschaft.sachsen.de/landwirtschaft/7211.htm zur Verfügung.

25 Jahre nach dem Zusammenbruch der Sowjetunion sind aus einem unitären Hochschulsystem 15 einzigartige nationale Systeme hervorgegangen. Deren Entwicklung wurde von je eigenen ökonomischen, kulturellen und politischen Kräften beeinflusst und geprägt, sowohl nationalen wie internationalen Ursprungs (Johnstone and Bain 2002). Die vorliegende Doktorarbeit untersucht die Veränderungen der Governance von Hochschulsystemen der drei postsowjetischen Staaten Russland, Kasachstan und Moldau über den Zeitraum von 1991 bis 2015, analysiert, zu welchem Grad diese Entwicklungen einem Prozess der Konvergenz hin zu einem „globalen Modell“ oder einem „postsowjetischen Modell“ folgen und formuliert Hypothesen über die treibenden Kräfte und Pfadabhängigkeiten, welche auf nationalem, regionalen und globaler Ebene diese Entwicklungen befördert, gehemmt oder auf idiosynkratische Art und Weise geprägt haben. Die Ergebnisse zeigen, dass global propagierte Governanceinstrumente – wie z.B. Globalbudgets, erweiterte Befugnisse der Hochschulleitung, externe Qualitätssicherung, Stakeholdergovernancegremien – in allen drei untersuchten Ländern Verbreitung finden und ein Prozess der Konvergenz hin zu einem „global Modell“ der Hochschulgovernance stattfindet. Gleichzeitig zeigen die Ergebnisse, dass die spezifischen Eigenarten der nationalen Governancearrangements durch die Einführung dieser neuen Instrumente in der Regel nicht ersetzt werden und dem Bestehenden stattdessen als zusätzliche Ebenen hinzugefügt werden. Wo die Logiken der neuen mit den alten Strukturen kollidieren, zeigt sich, dass sich die tradierten Strukturen und Prozesse in der Regel durchsetzen. Zudem zeigt sich, dass die Governancearrangements der drei untersuchten Länder eine große Zahl spezieller Eigenschaften teilen, durch die sie sich systematisch von jenem propagierten globalen Modell abheben. Jenes „Postsowjetische Modell“ der Hochschulgovernance zeichnet sich durch dominante Rolle des Staates, Hierarchie als primäre und legitime Form der Governance sowie einen geringen Grad an Vertrauen zwischen den zentralen Akteuren des Hochschulsystems aus. Zuletzt illustriert die Dissertation die Divergenzen und Besonderheiten der Governancemodelle in Russland, Kasachstan und Moldau. Die vorliegende Dissertation leistet somit einen Beitrag zum Verständnis der Entwicklung der Governance der Hochschulsysteme in einer sich dynamisch entwickelten Weltregion, welche in der akademischen Literatur bislang nur wenig Aufmerksamkeit erhalten hat.:Table of Contents Table of Figures ............................................................................................................................. 5 Preliminary remarks and acknowledgements .................................................................................. 6 Glossary ........................................................................................................................................... 8 1 Abstract ........................................................................................................................................ 11 2 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 13 2.1 Research Topic ...................................................................................................................... 13 2.2 Starting point and personal research interest ......................................................................... 14 2.3 Research approach ................................................................................................................. 15 2.4 Relevance to research and practice ........................................................................................ 16 2.5 Structure ................................................................................................................................ 16 3 Steps towards a framework of analysis ........................................................................................ 17 3.1 The Governance of Higher Education Systems ..................................................................... 17 3.1.1 Higher Education systems ............................................................................................. 17 3.1.2 Governance in higher education .................................................................................... 23 3.1.3 Summary: Making sense of higher education governance ............................................ 32 3.2 The changing governance of higher education systems ........................................................ 33 3.2.1 Conceptualizing forces of change in the governance of higher education systems: The ‘Glonacal’ agency heuristic ........................................................................................................... 33 3.2.2 Global trends and the emergence of a “global model” of higher education governance36 3.2.3 Instruments of Governance of Higher Education Systems ............................................ 49 3.2.4 Conclusion: A global model of HE governance? .......................................................... 66 3.3 State of research on the governance of higher education in post-Soviet countries ............... 67 3.3.1 European Integration in the post-Soviet space .............................................................. 70 4 Framework of Analysis and Research Design .............................................................................. 73 4.1 Research Questions and Scope of Analysis ........................................................................... 73 4.2 Research Methodology, Case Study Design, and Data Collection ........................................ 74 4.2.1 Case Studies and data collection ................................................................................... 74 4.2.2 Comparing the governance of higher education systems and assessing convergence .. 77 4.2.3 Discussion of validity and reliability of the chosen case study design .......................... 78 4.3 Limitations of the study ......................................................................................................... 79 5 The Point of Departure: The Soviet Union ................................................................................... 80 5.1 Introduction - Key features of the Soviet Higher Education system ..................................... 80 5.2 Structure of the HE system .................................................................................................... 83 5.3 The governance of higher education in the Soviet Union ..................................................... 85 5.3.1 Actors and their capabilities .......................................................................................... 85 5.3.2 Educational Standards and Quality Assurance .............................................................. 86 page 3 5.3.3 Regulation of admission into higher education ............................................................. 88 5.3.4 Institutional governance, decision-making and institutional autonomy ........................ 89 5.3.5 Financing of HEIs.......................................................................................................... 90 5.4 The HE Reforms of 1987 ...................................................................................................... 91 5.5 The break-up and transition of the Soviet higher education system ...................................... 94 6 The Russian Federation ................................................................................................................ 99 6.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 99 6.2 The development of the governance of the higher education system in Russia .................... 99 6.2.1 De-regulation and marketization of higher education (1991-2000) ............................ 100 6.2.2 Renaissance of state control, internationalization and renewed investment into higher education (2000-2004) ................................................................................................................ 105 6.2.3 Asserting state control and promoting differentiation of the higher education system (2004-2012) ................................................................................................................................. 110 6.2.4 Differentiated state steering (2012-2016) .................................................................... 119 6.3 The governance model of the Russian HE system by 2015 ................................................ 128 7 The Republic of Kazakhstan ........................................................................................................ 134 7.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 134 7.2 The development of the governance of the higher education system in Kazakhstan .......... 135 7.2.1 Establishing statehood and institutions (1991-1999) ................................................... 136 7.2.2 Curbing corruption and saddling the market (1999-2004) .......................................... 139 7.2.3 Preparing to join the Bologna Space (2005-2010) ...................................................... 146 7.2.4 Differentiation and expanding autonomy (2011-2017) ............................................... 153 7.3 The governance model of the Kazakh HE system by 2015 ................................................. 171 8 The Republic of Moldova ............................................................................................................. 173 8.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 173 8.2 The development of the governance of the higher education system in Moldova .............. 176 8.2.1 Experimentation and laisser-faire after independence (1991-1994) ............................ 177 8.2.2 Attempts to establish impartial instruments to regulate quality (1994-2001) ............. 178 8.2.3 Re-Centralization of powers in the Ministry of Education (2001-2006) ..................... 181 8.2.4 Creation of dysfunctional public structures (2006-2009) ............................................ 183 8.2.5 The long struggle for a new system of governance (2009-2015) ................................ 184 8.3 The governance model of the Moldovan HE system by 2015 ............................................ 194 9 Cross-National Comparison of Developments and Discussion of Results ................................... 197 9.1 How has the governance of higher education systems changed between 1991-2015? ....... 197 9.1.1 Common challenges and similar answers .................................................................... 197 9.1.2 Diverging paths ........................................................................................................... 200 9.1.3 Two-track state steering system in Russia ................................................................... 203 9.1.4 Marketization and expanding state-overseen stakeholder governance in Kazakhstan 205 page 4 9.1.5 Imitation of “European” institutions in Moldova ........................................................ 207 9.2 Is there a convergence towards a “post-Soviet” or global model of governance of higher education systems? .......................................................................................................................... 208 9.2.1 Quality Assurance ....................................................................................................... 208 9.2.2 Institutional Governance and University Autonomy ................................................... 210 9.2.3 Regulation of access .................................................................................................... 211 9.2.4 Financing ..................................................................................................................... 212 9.2.5 Conclusion: Is there a common model of governance? ............................................... 213 9.3 The interplay of national, regional and global factors on the development of the governance of higher education .......................................................................................................................... 218 9.3.1 Global and European forces ........................................................................................ 218 9.3.2 Regional forces ............................................................................................................ 224 9.3.3 National-level: Governments and Ministries responsible for higher education .......... 225 9.3.4 National-level: Stakeholder organizations................................................................... 232 9.3.5 National-level: Higher Education Institutions ............................................................. 234 9.3.6 National-level: Institutional factors of path dependence ............................................. 235 10 Discussion and Outlook .............................................................................................................. 244 10.1 Concluding reflections on the contribution of this study to the field of research ................ 246 11 References .................................................................................................................................. 247 12 Annexes ...................................................................................................................................... 269 12.1 Annex 1: Russia - The governance of the higher education system .................................... 269 12.1.1 Russia: Structure of the higher education system ........................................................ 269 12.1.2 Actors and their capabilities ........................................................................................ 273 12.1.3 Instruments of higher education governance in Russia ............................................... 283 12.1.4 Competitive programs for investment and differentiation of higher education........... 295 12.2 Annex 2: Kazakhstan – The governance of the higher education system ........................... 299 12.2.1 Kazakhstan: Structure of the higher education system ................................................ 299 12.2.2 Actors and their capabilities ........................................................................................ 302 12.2.3 Instruments of higher education governance in Kazakhstan ....................................... 310 12.3 Annex 3: Moldova – The governance of the higher education system ............................... 322 12.3.1 Moldova: Structure of the higher education system .................................................... 322 12.3.2 Actors and their capabilities ........................................................................................ 325 12.3.3 Instruments of higher education governance in Moldova ........................................... 328 12.4 Annex 4: The European “infrastructure” of quality assurance ............................................ 336 / After 25 years of transformations of higher education systems in post-Soviet countries, the single Soviet model of higher education has evolved into fifteen unique national systems, shaped by economic, cul-tural, and political forces, both national and global (Johnstone and Bain 2002). International agencies such as the World Bank and the OECD have lobbied for a set of policies associated with the Washington Consensus (Neave, G. R. & van Vught, 1991). The Bologna Process has created isomorphic pressures, supported by EU policies and funding. Many post-Soviet States have responded to these influences, albeit with different motivations and unclear outcomes (Tomusk, 2011). Comparative research on these developments, however, is scarce and has primarily discussed them in terms of decentralization, mar-ketization and institutional autonomy (Heyneman 2010; Silova, 2011). This PhD thesis aims to 1) reconstruct the developments of governance of higher education systems, 2) analyze to what degree the developments represent a convergence towards a “global model” or a “Post-Soviet model” and 3) formulate hypotheses about driving forces and path dependencies at national, regional and global level which have driven or impeded these changes. Following work by Becher & Kogan (1992), Clark (1983), Jongbloed (2003), Paradeise (2009); Hood (2004); Dill (2010) and Dobbins et al. (2011), the research analyzes the object of analysis, the govern-ance of higher education systems, on five dimensions: 1. Educational Standards, quality assessment, and information provision; 2. Regulation of admissions to higher education; 3. Institutional structures, decision-making, and autonomy; 4. Higher education financing and incentive structures; and 5. The relationship of higher education and the state. Explanatory approaches draw upon perspectives of path dependence and models of institutional change drawing on work by North (1990), Steinmo (1992), Weick (1976), Pierson (2000) and Witte (2006). Three post-Soviet, non-EU, Bologna signatory states were selected to represent a diverse geographical sub-sample of the 15 post-Soviet States. The three countries studied in-depth are Russia, Moldova and Kazakhstan. The period of analysis comprises the changes taking place over a 25-year period between 1991 and 2015. Methodologically, the study rests on extensive literature analysis of previous academic publications, reports by international organizations such as the World Bank, OECD, and the EU, and national strategy papers. Building on this document analysis, over 60 semi-structured expert interviews were conducted with representatives of State organizations, HEIs and other stakeholder groups engaged in the govern-ance of higher education. The outcomes of interviews were used to situate developments in the particular page 12 social-political and societal contexts and to triangulate policy documents with various stakeholder per-spectives, in order to reconstruct how and why specific policy changes came about, were implemented or abandoned. The results show a differentiated picture: The governance instruments promoted by OECD, WB and EU are clearly recognizable in the 2015 governance arrangements in all three case countries. On this instru-ments-level “surface”, a process of convergence towards the “global model” is clearly taking place. While these new instruments are being adopted, however, the specific national governance arrangements persist and continue to matter. Only in isolated instances are old instruments fully displaced. More com-monly, new structures are added as additional layers to existing governance arrangements. The three countries continue to share a number of unique characteristics which sets them apart from the Anglo-Saxon higher education systems, which have inspired the “global model”. The dominating con-trolling role of the state has remained in place in all countries. This is strongly reinforced by national-level institutions and mental models which affirm hierarchy as the legitimate principle in governance and a lack of trust between actors in the system. In all case countries, the mutual expectation of state and HEIs alike remains that the state should be steering the higher education sector. This it does (Russia and Kazakhstan) or attempts to do (Moldova). Clearly, the adoption of governance instruments which are inspired by the “global model” does in no way equate with a retreat of the state. While the elements of university autonomy and stakeholder governance are slowly expanded, even this very process of loosening the reigns of the state is in great measure overseen and steered by the state. Shared character-istics, such as centralized control over admission; a state claim to steer and, in many cases, control the system; a hierarchical, authoritarian, personalized style of governance, management, leadership, as well as accountability form the discernable core of a common “post-Soviet” model of HE governance. The shared institutional past of the Soviet era, as well as common challenges, have facilitated and maintained these commonalities. As time passes, however, these post-Soviet commonalities are getting weaker. Divergent national-level forces and actors are driving or impeding reforms: While in Moldova, political volatility and underfund-ing have repeatedly undermined substantial reforms, Russia and Kazakhstan have each adopted govern-ance and management practices from New Public Management in new idiosyncratic ways: Kazakhstan has embarked on an authoritarian-driven decentralization program. Russia has created a two-tier system of state steering through financial incentivization and evaluation on the one hand, and tight oversight, control and intervention on the other. This dissertation sheds light on the developments, driving forces and mechanisms behind the convergence and divergence of approaches to higher education governance in an under-studied region of the world.:Table of Contents Table of Figures ............................................................................................................................. 5 Preliminary remarks and acknowledgements .................................................................................. 6 Glossary ........................................................................................................................................... 8 1 Abstract ........................................................................................................................................ 11 2 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 13 2.1 Research Topic ...................................................................................................................... 13 2.2 Starting point and personal research interest ......................................................................... 14 2.3 Research approach ................................................................................................................. 15 2.4 Relevance to research and practice ........................................................................................ 16 2.5 Structure ................................................................................................................................ 16 3 Steps towards a framework of analysis ........................................................................................ 17 3.1 The Governance of Higher Education Systems ..................................................................... 17 3.1.1 Higher Education systems ............................................................................................. 17 3.1.2 Governance in higher education .................................................................................... 23 3.1.3 Summary: Making sense of higher education governance ............................................ 32 3.2 The changing governance of higher education systems ........................................................ 33 3.2.1 Conceptualizing forces of change in the governance of higher education systems: The ‘Glonacal’ agency heuristic ........................................................................................................... 33 3.2.2 Global trends and the emergence of a “global model” of higher education governance36 3.2.3 Instruments of Governance of Higher Education Systems ............................................ 49 3.2.4 Conclusion: A global model of HE governance? .......................................................... 66 3.3 State of research on the governance of higher education in post-Soviet countries ............... 67 3.3.1 European Integration in the post-Soviet space .............................................................. 70 4 Framework of Analysis and Research Design .............................................................................. 73 4.1 Research Questions and Scope of Analysis ........................................................................... 73 4.2 Research Methodology, Case Study Design, and Data Collection ........................................ 74 4.2.1 Case Studies and data collection ................................................................................... 74 4.2.2 Comparing the governance of higher education systems and assessing convergence .. 77 4.2.3 Discussion of validity and reliability of the chosen case study design .......................... 78 4.3 Limitations of the study ......................................................................................................... 79 5 The Point of Departure: The Soviet Union ................................................................................... 80 5.1 Introduction - Key features of the Soviet Higher Education system ..................................... 80 5.2 Structure of the HE system .................................................................................................... 83 5.3 The governance of higher education in the Soviet Union ..................................................... 85 5.3.1 Actors and their capabilities .......................................................................................... 85 5.3.2 Educational Standards and Quality Assurance .............................................................. 86 page 3 5.3.3 Regulation of admission into higher education ............................................................. 88 5.3.4 Institutional governance, decision-making and institutional autonomy ........................ 89 5.3.5 Financing of HEIs.......................................................................................................... 90 5.4 The HE Reforms of 1987 ...................................................................................................... 91 5.5 The break-up and transition of the Soviet higher education system ...................................... 94 6 The Russian Federation ................................................................................................................ 99 6.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 99 6.2 The development of the governance of the higher education system in Russia .................... 99 6.2.1 De-regulation and marketization of higher education (1991-2000) ............................ 100 6.2.2 Renaissance of state control, internationalization and renewed investment into higher education (2000-2004) ................................................................................................................ 105 6.2.3 Asserting state control and promoting differentiation of the higher education system (2004-2012) ................................................................................................................................. 110 6.2.4 Differentiated state steering (2012-2016) .................................................................... 119 6.3 The governance model of the Russian HE system by 2015 ................................................ 128 7 The Republic of Kazakhstan ........................................................................................................ 134 7.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 134 7.2 The development of the governance of the higher education system in Kazakhstan .......... 135 7.2.1 Establishing statehood and institutions (1991-1999) ................................................... 136 7.2.2 Curbing corruption and saddling the market (1999-2004) .......................................... 139 7.2.3 Preparing to join the Bologna Space (2005-2010) ...................................................... 146 7.2.4 Differentiation and expanding autonomy (2011-2017) ............................................... 153 7.3 The governance model of the Kazakh HE system by 2015 ................................................. 171 8 The Republic of Moldova ............................................................................................................. 173 8.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 173 8.2 The development of the governance of the higher education system in Moldova .............. 176 8.2.1 Experimentation and laisser-faire after independence (1991-1994) ............................ 177 8.2.2 Attempts to establish impartial instruments to regulate quality (1994-2001) ............. 178 8.2.3 Re-Centralization of powers in the Ministry of Education (2001-2006) ..................... 181 8.2.4 Creation of dysfunctional public structures (2006-2009) ............................................ 183 8.2.5 The long struggle for a new system of governance (2009-2015) ................................ 184 8.3 The governance model of the Moldovan HE system by 2015 ............................................ 194 9 Cross-National Comparison of Developments and Discussion of Results ................................... 197 9.1 How has the governance of higher education systems changed between 1991-2015? ....... 197 9.1.1 Common challenges and similar answers .................................................................... 197 9.1.2 Diverging paths ........................................................................................................... 200 9.1.3 Two-track state steering system in Russia ................................................................... 203 9.1.4 Marketization and expanding state-overseen stakeholder governance in Kazakhstan 205 page 4 9.1.5 Imitation of “European” institutions in Moldova ........................................................ 207 9.2 Is there a convergence towards a “post-Soviet” or global model of governance of higher education systems? .......................................................................................................................... 208 9.2.1 Quality Assurance ....................................................................................................... 208 9.2.2 Institutional Governance and University Autonomy ................................................... 210 9.2.3 Regulation of access .................................................................................................... 211 9.2.4 Financing ..................................................................................................................... 212 9.2.5 Conclusion: Is there a common model of governance? ............................................... 213 9.3 The interplay of national, regional and global factors on the development of the governance of higher education .......................................................................................................................... 218 9.3.1 Global and European forces ........................................................................................ 218 9.3.2 Regional forces ............................................................................................................ 224 9.3.3 National-level: Governments and Ministries responsible for higher education .......... 225 9.3.4 National-level: Stakeholder organizations................................................................... 232 9.3.5 National-level: Higher Education Institutions ............................................................. 234 9.3.6 National-level: Institutional factors of path dependence ............................................. 235 10 Discussion and Outlook .............................................................................................................. 244 10.1 Concluding reflections on the contribution of this study to the field of research ................ 246 11 References .................................................................................................................................. 247 12 Annexes ...................................................................................................................................... 269 12.1 Annex 1: Russia - The governance of the higher education system .................................... 269 12.1.1 Russia: Structure of the higher education system ........................................................ 269 12.1.2 Actors and their capabilities ........................................................................................ 273 12.1.3 Instruments of higher education governance in Russia ............................................... 283 12.1.4 Competitive programs for investment and differentiation of higher education........... 295 12.2 Annex 2: Kazakhstan – The governance of the higher education system ........................... 299 12.2.1 Kazakhstan: Structure of the higher education system ................................................ 299 12.2.2 Actors and their capabilities ........................................................................................ 302 12.2.3 Instruments of higher education governance in Kazakhstan ....................................... 310 12.3 Annex 3: Moldova – The governance of the higher education system ............................... 322 12.3.1 Moldova: Structure of the higher education system .................................................... 322 12.3.2 Actors and their capabilities ........................................................................................ 325 12.3.3 Instruments of higher education governance in Moldova ........................................... 328 12.4 Annex 4: The European “infrastructure” of quality assurance ............................................ 336

För att försäkra sig om den slutliga kvaliteten på maskinbearbetade komponenter måste tillverkande företag mäta och verifiera de geometriska och dimensionella egenskaperna på komponenter innan dem skickas vidare nedströms till den mer värdeskapande monteringen. Det är idag vanligt att den geometriska och dimensionella mätningen och verifieringen uppstår varje gång då en maskin ställs om, när man startar om eller startar upp en ny produktionslina eller då en produktionsprocess ändras. Produktionsteknisk mätteknik och resultat från utförda mätningar används sedan som indata för statistisk processtyrning och övervakning av produktionsprocesser. Syftet med vår forskning har varit att först ta fram en nulägesbild av mätteknisk beredning inom fordons- och flygindustrin och utifrån den identifiera framtida trender med behovsanalys och gap. Utifrån analysen har vi sedan utforskat och utvecklat en modell och metodik för mätteknisk mät- och styrbarhetsberedning. I denna licentiat avhandling har vi utforskat området geometrisk och dimensionell mät- och styrbarhetsberedning (GMCP - Geometrical and dimensional Measurement and Controllability Planning). Vi presenterar en nulägesanalys av området och vi presenterar en teori med modell och ramverk för GMCP. Vidare har vi utforskat en metodik och verktyg benämnd kvalitetssäkringsmatris (QAM - Quality Assurance Matrix) och som vi lyfter fram i denna avhandling. I slutet av avhandlingen presenteras och diskuteras dem hittills uppnådda resultaten från forskningen och i det sista kapitlet dras slutsatser och den fortsatta forskningen inom ”SIMET-GICP” projektet presenteras. / In order to ensure final product quality on machined components, manufacturing enterprises must measure and inspect the geometrical and dimensional characteristics of components before they go into higher-value assemblies. Commonly, the geometrical and dimensional measurement and inspection occurs every time at machine tool set-up, when a line is restarted or if the production process is changed. Production metrology and results from production measurements is used as input data for statistical process control and monitoring of production processes. The purpose of our research has been to firstly perform a state of the art analysis in the area of measurement planning applied in the automotive and aerospace industry. The output from the state of the art study has then been used to identify future trends and needs including a gap analysis. Then we used the analysis to explore and develop a model and methodology for measurement and controllability planning.   In this licentiate thesis we have explored the area of GMCP (Geometrical and dimensional Measurement and Controllability Planning). As a major result in this thesis a state of the art survey on GMCP is presented. Based on the state of the art study a theory and model framework for GMCP has been explored and a methodology and tool called QAM (Quality Assurance Matrix) is highlighted in this thesis. In the end of the thesis we present and discuss the present research results we have accomplished and in the final chapter we draw conclusions and outline the continued research within the SIMET-GICP project. / QC 20111027 / SIMET 1