Report of the Programme Evaluation Panel

Provider’s Name: / IBAT Ltd T/a IBAT College Dublin
Address: / 16-19 Wellington Quay
Dublin 2
QA procedures agreed on:
QA procedures reviewed on:
Programme()s submitted for approval: / Leading to the award of:
  1. Three-year 180-credit ab initio Level 8 programme
/ Bachelor of Arts (Honours) in Computing and Business Information Systems
Date submitted to QQI:
Date of Evaluation: / 2nd June 2016
Date of Report:

Membership of the Programme Evaluation Panel:

Role / Name / Area of Expertise / QQI Peer Review Reference Listing
Chairperson / Danny Brennan / Quality Assurance in Higher Education
External Specialist / Patricia O’Byrne / Computing
External Specialist / Dr John McAvoy / Business Information Systems
External Specialist / Martin Nolan / Business, Accounting, Auditing
Industry/Employer Perspective / Ian Doyle / Software Development/ Management
Secretary / Hugh Mc Bride / Business, Accounting, Finance
  1. Profile of provider:

IBAT College Dublin was established in May 2004. The College is a privately-funded, independent, for-profit college, with one major shareholder and a number of smaller Institutional and private shareholders.The College offers programmes in business, information technology, accountancy, marketing, management and English language. IBAT College Dublin currently has over 1,300 full-time and part-time learners, on undergraduate, postgraduate, Springboard+, short/professional and English language programmes at its Temple Bar Campus.

1.1.Provider

Name / IBAT Ltd T/a IBAT College Dublin
Address / 16-19 Wellington Quay, Dublin 2, Ireland

1.2.Contact for Validation

Name: / Mary Doyle
Title: / Academic Registrar
Address: / IBAT College Dublin, 16-19 Wellington Quay, Dublin 2
E-mail: /
Phone: / +353 1 2461 519

1.3.Programme Leader

Name: / Rory Byrne
Title: / Head of School
Address: / IBAT College Dublin, 16-19 Wellington Quay, Dublin 2
E-mail: /
Phone: / +353 1 2461 558
Provider Type / Private Commercial Enterprise – private third-level education provider
CRO: 385326 PAYE/RSI Number: 6405326P
  1. Planning:

Programme development since agreement of QA procedures/the last review

The proposed programme is an extension and development of IBAT’s offerings at undergraduate level. The College does not currently offer a programme of the nature now proposed. The proposed programme is a new departure for the College.

2.1.Purpose of the award

Does the proposed programme address a clear market demand?YesNo

There is a clear demand for the type of graduate proposed. However, the Panel do not consider that the proposed programme will produce the type of graduates envisaged at Level 8 standard.

2.2.Avoidance of duplication

Has the Programme Development Team identified the availability of similar programmes locally, regionally, nationally?

YesNo

The Programme Development Team has identified some similar programmes. However, the Panel do not consider the scope of the benchmarking/comparison exercise undertaken by the Team, as evidenced in the programme document, to have been adequate. Similar programmes on offer have not been referenced, and there is scant analysis or concrete detail.

2.3.Stakeholder consultation

Was the level of stakeholder engagement satisfactory?YesNo

The programme document contains information about stakeholder engagement and consultation, which was also referenced in the discussions with staff. However, the Panel does not consider that the level of engagement and consultation was satisfactory.

A particular gap is the apparent lackof consultation withmajor management consulting companies who area significant stakeholder in the industry and a potential employer of graduates.

Support for the programme (industry/business/community)YesNo

The Panel consider that there would be industry support for the type of graduate proposed but not for the programme as proposed.

2.4.Efficient and effective use of resources

Does the proposed programme represent both efficient and effective use of the provider’s resources?

YesNo

The College consider that the proposed programme would represent both effective and efficient use of their existing resources.

The Panel understand, however, that the full staffing resource required to deliver the proposed programme has not yet been recruited.

The Panel does not consider it would be an effective use of resources as the Minimum Intended Programme Learning Outcomes (MIPLOs) would not be achievable.

2.5.Resource development over last 5 years (or in direct support of this programme)

Specific Comments:

Staff:The full staff complement required to support the proposed programme has not yet been recruited. Many staff are recruited on a part-time contract basis.

The College encourages academic staff development through engagement in further study relevant to their discipline area; attendance at conferences and seminars; attendance at a number of planned workshops and seminars organised, and collaboration with other Higher Education Institutions. The College is committed to strengthening support in this area.

Accommodation:The building is state-of-the art and fit-for-purpose. The city centre location is a strategic advantage.

Information technology:The College has three IT labs that are fit-for-purpose in support of the proposed programme.It has excellent broadband connectivity.The Panel believe, however, that an additional dedicated IT laboratory would be required for the award stage of such a programme.

Library: Administration:The College has library provides access to hard copy and online information sources. Administration and student-support services for the proposed programme will be carried out with existing resources, which appear adequate to support the programme.

Publicity/public information:The primary tool to communicate the mission and objectives of the College to relevant stakeholders is the website ( The College also communicates public information via printed promotional material. The College has appointed a full-time Marketing Manager to assure the integrity of public information and communication.

2.6.Planned development over the coming 5 years?

Have the QQI award standards been explicitly referred to in the programme and does the programme meet those standards at the specified level?

YesNo

The QQI award standards have been explicitly referred to in the programme document. The Panel are of the opinion that the proposed programme does not meet those standards at the specified level.

Has the Provider complied with Protection for Enrolled Learner requirements?

YesNo

2.7.Access

Is the expected minimum and maximumnumberof all learners entering the programme explicitly stated?

YesNo

The proposed minimum and maximum enrolment numbers are provided for a period of 5 years.

Have any/all prerequisite knowledge, skills or competence or any other specific entry requirement been articulated?

YesNo

The College intends to offer the programme through the CAO to Irish students. It also plans to recruit within the EU and globally. For foreign students, IELTS 6.0 will be the language standard required in addition to normal academic requirements.

The Panel had concerns about retention particularly in the context of the challenge of reaching Level 8 standard in a three year programme.

Assumptions about some of the priorcompetencies of entrants onto the programme are not clearly articulated. The College indicated plans to address deficits in entrant competencies through induction and targeted support programmes. However, these are not clearly and adequately explained in the programme document.

  1. Quality Assurance
  2. Application of agreed quality assurance procedures for development of programmes

Were the agreed quality assurance procedures for programme development followed?

YesNo

Has the programme team demonstrated how programme delivery will be monitored in accordance with agreed QA procedures?

YesNo

Are programme management arrangements adequate and coherent?

YesNo

  1. Programme structure and content

Is the programme structure well designed, coherent and fit for its stated purpose?

YesNo

The Panel are of the opinion that there are significant weaknesses in the programme design, that it lacks coherence and integration, and that it is not fitfor its stated purpose. The Panel does not consider that the learning outcomes are achievable within the three-year delivery period, that the programme is overly ambitious for the time-frame, that there are gaps in the breadth and depth of content, and that there would be deficits in graduate knowledge, skill and competence.

4.1.Programme learning outcomes

Do the programme learning outcomes comply with national standards for the level of award proposed?

YesNo

Are module descriptions adequate and relevant?YesNo

Some module descriptors are both adequate and relevant, others are not. Refer to comments below on the modules.

Are modules relevant and current?YesNo

Some module descriptors are both relevant and current, others are not. Refer to comments below on the modules.

Does the combination of modules chosen have the coherence to support the proposed award?

YesNo

The Panel are of the opinion that there is insufficient integration of modules, and of the diverse and separate strands, and that the programme lacks the necessary cohesion to support the proposed award.

4.2.Learning Modes

Can the teaching and learning strategies proposed support achievement of the required learning outcomes?

YesNo

The Panel are of the opinion that the design of the proposed programme is too condensed and that the proposed teaching and learning strategies, particularly in this context, would notsupport achievement of the learning outcomes at the Level 8 standard. Essentially, too much would be demanded in terms of delivery and learning in the three-year time-frame to produce the type of graduate envisaged.

The claim that there is ‘an integrated teaching, learning and assessment strategy for the programme’ is not adequately supported in the programme document.

Recommended text books and reading lists should be current.

Are the delivery mechanisms proposed adequate to the needs of the programme and the proposed learner cohorts?

YesNo

The Panel have concerns about the pedagogical soundness of the proposed delivery model, in the particular context of the proposed programme.

Some of the modulesare shared across a number of programmes. The programme team clarified that in these cases, the modules will be delivered separately to each programme cohort but that the assessment will be the same.

4.3.Assessment strategies

Are assessment processes and methods adequately described?YesNo

Assessment processes and methods for individual modules are, for the most part, adequately described (refer to comments on individual modules below). However, there is little evidence of an integrated assessment strategy for the programme.

The Panel consider that there is need for clarity and consistency in the policy and practice regarding repeat opportunities. There is inconsistency in the information provided.

The Panel had concerns about the range and expertise of External Examiners to be appointed to the programme.The Panel consider that the proposed external examining team would need to be strengthened with appropriate subject experts.

Are these strategies appropriate to this type of award, in terms of type, frequency and volume?

YesNo

Is assessment explicitly linked with intended learning outcomes?YesNo

Does the assessment strategy underpin the achievement of the relevant standard of knowledge, skill and competence?

YesNo

The Panel does not consider this to be the case.

4.4.Duration

What is the intended duration of the Programme?

Three-years (full-time).

What is the lifespan of the programme (e.g. single cohort intake to satisfy limited local demand; multiple intakes over the following 5 years etc.?)

There is a proposed student cohort intake in each year over the next 5 years, and beyond. It is intended to facilitate two entry cohorts per academic year (September and January), and it is also proposed to have a part-time cohort intake.

Does the Panel believe this to be realistic?YesNo

Are there flexible modes of participation?YesNo

Full-time and part-time delivery is planned.

4.5.Credits

Is credit allocation in accordance with national and international guidelines?

YesNo

Considering the level, outcomes and volume of each module, is the number of credits attached to each appropriate?

YesNo

See comments on individual modules below.

Considering the stated objective of the programme is the number of credits attached to the award appropriate?

YesNo

The Panel are of the view that 240 credits would be appropriate in the context of the stated nature and objectives of the proposed programme and award.

4.6.NFQ Level

Is the proposed level of the programme in accordance with institutional policy/national norms?

YesNo

The Panel does not consider that the programme as presented is to Level 8 standard.

4.7.Programme titles and award

Is the title consistent with national policy, is it informative and is it fit for purpose?

YesNo

The Panel are of the view that the proposed title does not match the design and content of the programme, that it is potentially misleading and that it is not fit-for-purpose. The inclusion of the word ‘Computing’ in the title is considered particularly problematic.

The rationale for proposing a ‘Bachelor of Arts’ award is unclear and the Panel are unconvinced by the explanations offered.

4.8.Transfer and Progression

Has the Programme Development Team identified realistic transfer and progression opportunities/possibilities that learners may avail of following achievement of this award?

YesNo

The Panel are of the view that the design and content of the proposed programme would result in significant knowledge, skills and competence deficits that would compromise progression to a higher level and that would compromise graduate employability.

  1. Module Titles, Content and Assessment Strategy

Module Title: Programming Fundamentals

Is the title informative and is it fit for purpose?YesNo

The title is informative and the title is fit for purpose.

Are the specific learning outcomes a) properly stated, b) sufficient and c) achievable?

YesNo

Three of the documented learning outcomes would be sufficient and achievable as is, but the third one requires extra content in program design, algorithms and data structures, mathematics and problem solving that are not part of the syllabus. Without these, learners will be shown how to implement techniques, without knowing where to use them or understanding the concepts behind them. Learning outcomes such as problem-solving, program design and algorithms must be recognized and assessed. As this is the only algorithmic module in year one, the content in this module could not be expanded to include them and be achievable in the time frame.

Is the content sufficiently informative and is it fit for purpose?YesNo

The indicative syllabus is appropriate for a programming module that would be required in a Computing degree, where other support modules provide learning outcomes such as problem-solving, program design, and algorithms. No such modules are available, and MLO3 indicates that these skills should be acquired in this module.

Does the Assessment Strategy align sufficiently with the intended learning outcomes?

YesNo

As indicated, there is no content that will provide MLO3.

Is the required reading and supplementary reading appropriate, current and realistic?

YesNo

Module Title: Financial Accounting Fundamentals

Is the title informative and is it fit for purpose?YesNo

Recommend ‘Introduction to Accounting’ as a more appropriate title.

Are the specific learning outcomes a) properly stated, b) sufficient and c) achievable?

YesNo

Is the content sufficiently informative and is it fit for purpose?YesNo

Does the Assessment Strategy align sufficiently with the intended learning outcomes?

YesNo

The final examination will also assess learning outcomes 2 & 3.

Is the required reading and supplementary reading appropriate, current and realistic?

YesNo

Latest editions of texts should be used.

Module Title: Business Mathematics and Statistics

Is the title informative and is it fit for purpose?YesNo

Are the specific learning outcomes a) properly stated, b) sufficient and c) achievable?

YesNo

Is the content sufficiently informative and is it fit for purpose?YesNo

This module is primarily focused on business and is not insufficient for computing /BIS. There are gaps, e.g. matrices, set theory, which will impact on student preparedness for computer science and follow-on computing modules. These gaps would need to be covered extensively in another module, as the missing content cannot be “shoehorned” into this module.

Does the Assessment Strategy align sufficiently with the intended learning outcomes?

YesNo

Is the required reading and supplementary reading appropriate, current and realistic?

YesNo

Module Title: Computer Applications

Is the title informative and is it fit for purpose?YesNo

The Panel feels that the title is misleading, as this is really an introduction to Office tools. The title does not relate sufficiently to the learning outcomes or explain the value of the module.

Are the specific learning outcomes a) properly stated, b) sufficient and c) achievable?

YesNo

For the most part; however, they are a little lacking in detail. For example, ML05 is unclear, e.g. it is not clear how much database / data analysis knowledge is expected at the end.

Is the content sufficiently informative and is it fit for purpose?YesNo

Does the Assessment Strategy align sufficiently with the intended learning outcomes?

YesNo

The Panel would expect to see a case study so that students can get some practical skills in the area of presentation and real world implications of how software affects businesses. Without a real-life study, the module would risk being very academic without much practical value.

Is the required reading and supplementary reading appropriate, current and realistic?

YesNo

There should be more on the theory side in the required reading.

Module Title: ICT (Information and Communications Technology) for Business