Item 3 is a report on the Scottish Qualifications Authority. I invite Barbara Hurst, on behalf of the Auditor General, to brief the committee on his report entitled "Performance management in the Scottish Qualifications Authority".
The report comments on the extent to which the SQA has recovered from the difficulties that it faced in 2000. The committee will remember that that was when problems in processing exam results led to incomplete and inaccurate results affecting around 17,000 candidates. We found that, not only has the SQA recovered from 2000, it has gone well beyond that and is demonstrating a clear commitment to continuous improvement. The confidence of key stakeholders in the SQA, such as schools and colleges, has been successfully restored as a result. The report covers two main areas: developments in the SQA since 2000, including expenditure trends; and the SQA's performance management framework and its use of performance information.
I am sorry; I have not been initiated into some of these terms. What is a balanced scorecard approach?
I apologise for using such jargon. A balanced scorecard approach attempts to get a rounded picture of performance not by focusing on only one set of indicators, such as cost, but by taking in a whole range of indicators that might also include service quality and customer satisfaction.
That is okay. I did not mean to be critical.
The report says that there is a need for "strategic level thinking"—in other words, the SQA has not been able to see the wood for the trees. However, its management has needed to be hands on in order to solve specific problems. You seem to be saying that although the SQA is doing its overall business better, it is still not clear about its overall direction. Who should oversee the organisation's overall direction and how should that happen?
I hope that my team will bear me out on this, but I think that what has happened is understandable. The SQA faced significant problems in 2000 and, as the board wanted to get things right, it took a very hands-on approach. We now feel that the board should take a step back, take a more strategic view and try to formulate a vision for the organisation. That is not to say that it should take its eye off the ball with regard to the processes, but that is a job for managers rather than for the board.
It is worth stressing that, in the past few months, the board has issued papers in which it recognises that it needs to take a more strategic approach. We need to encourage it to have the confidence to move further in that direction, even though we appreciate that its response in 2000 was understandable and necessary.
Given that the SQA's chief executive has now moved on, is it fair to expect the board to step back? Instead, would we not expect it still to keep a close eye on how the organisation is managed until a new chief executive takes up the post and beds in?
The organisation is in a very much stronger position and is certainly not dependent on one individual. As all the systems are in place and operating effectively, we are not at all concerned about the change in chief executive.
I should also point out that an interim chief executive, who was part of the original management team, has been put in place.
That is reassuring.
I find it very encouraging that, for once, a board saw that it could play a role in turning round an organisation. Are you satisfied that, once the board cuts its ties with the day-to-day operation of the organisation, an abundance of senior managers will continue to guide it properly and link aspects such as performance management back to the board's key objectives?
The point that we were making is that the day-to-day running of the business is so much more secure than it was in 2000 that specific individuals are less critical to it. Part of the issue in 2000 was that the processes were very dependent on those individuals. Now the business is able to operate successfully without key individuals. Leadership is important, but the body of the organisation runs itself and processes are much more effective.
It is fair to say that 2000 was a traumatic experience, both for the students and for the organisation. I do not think that the SQA would willingly put itself back in that situation.
It is a new board, much reduced in size.
I heard one of you use the word "modernisation". My question is about forward thinking and change. How well equipped is the SQA to meet the needs of wider society and the economy by providing new subjects for examination, for example?
Nick Hex will deal with that question, as he knows more about the detail of the subjects on offer.
In the report, we point out that the increased expenditure relates partly to modernisation of the processes and partly to the fact that an expanded range of qualifications is on offer to schools and colleges in Scotland. We have reported that there is confidence among stakeholders and users of the qualifications that the SQA is providing a good service and is able to address their needs.
We have referred to the portfolio of qualifications. It is not always a question of adding qualifications—the SQA also examines whether all the existing qualifications need to be delivered. There are opportunities for savings, if qualifications are no longer considered necessary. The SQA is also looking at new ways of delivering services. Radical options that are being considered include online assessment.
We have no further questions on the SQA. Under item 8, the committee will decide how it intends to dispose of the issue. I thank the team from Audit Scotland for answering our questions.