Below you will find directions and guidance regarding the production of a Self Assessment Report (SAR). This is meant for any Education and Training Facility undertaking the process of (re)-accreditation.
Self-Assessment Report. The applying ETF, is required to submit a SAR no later than 4 weeks before the On-Site Visit (OSV), which describes how it meets each of the 31 NATO Quality Standards as described in Annex E of the Bi-SC 075-007. If possible, receiving the SAR a little earlier would be helpful. This would enable us to read through it, and any supporting documentation, and provide some feedback during the Preparatory VTC, before the OSV.
Producing the SAR. The QA HUB contains a SAR Template and an Evaluation Report template (both linked), which will assist you with producing the SAR. The “QA Self-Assessment Report (template)” provides sound general direction and guidance on the production of a SAR. This document will be the foundation for evaluating the ETF during the scheduled on-site visit (OSV). Therefore, it needs to demonstrate an effective Quality Management System, describe/explain how the ETF meets the NATO Quality Standards contained in Annex E of the Bi-SC 075-007 and highlight strengths, as well as areas of improvement for each of the 3 broad areas of the NATO Quality Standards (i.e., Leadership and Management, Education and Training, and Contribution to NATO). I offer the following additional guidance for your consideration:
What is the expected size (ie, number of pages) of the SAR? Each education training facility (ETF) is unique, organized differently, has subtly different working practices and different sized training outputs. Therefore, one size does not fit all. As a general rule of thumb, the main body (ie, excluding enclosures, annexes and appendices (if required)) should not exceed 40 pages. That being said, we have received perfectly acceptable SARs with the following characteristics:
Main Body: Ranging in size from 22 pages to 80 pages, with an average size of approx. 30 pages.
Enclosures, Annexes and Appendices: Ranging from none to 106 pages.
Structure of the SAR. Most ETFs start with a title page. This is followed by a table of contents, detailing on which page each of the 31 NATO Quality Standards and the strengths and areas of improvement for each of the 3 broad areas can be found; it also lists any enclosures and annexes. I will address each component of the SAR separately.
Introduction. The length of the introduction is entirely up to the ETF. A rough order of magnitude would be between one and 5 pages; the average length is generally 3 pages.
Content of Introduction. The aim of the introduction is to set the scene and provide context for the main body of the SAR. It orientates the NATO QA Team of Experts (ToE) conducting the OSV. Therefore, it is useful to provide general information about the organization, including a brief historical overview of the unit, its roles and tasks, its mission and vision, main/significant achievements, and its organizational structure/wiring diagram. The provision of key statistical data/useful facts and figures, such as the following, can help set the scene:
The names of the commanding officer/commandant/director and quality manager.
Key partners and stakeholders.
Web address (and social media addresses, if appropriate).
Number of courses provided, including the student throughput.
Manning details, including total establishment, number of posts filled, number of instructors, number of guest speakers per year.
ETF’s infrastructure, particularly that used to support/provide training (including classroom facilities) - note: this can also be addressed under one of the NATO Quality Standards (e.g. 1.3.4).
Main Body. The main body is where the ETF explains/describes how each of the 31 NATO Quality Standards is met as well as any strengths and areas of improvement. When describing how the standards are met, please consider the following:
Type of Data. Use a combination of quantitative and qualitative data, as required.
Address each standard separately. Address each standard (as outlined in Annex E of the Bi-SC 075-007) separately and in numerical sequence, starting with 1.1.1, then 1.1.2, followed by 1.1.3, 1.1.4, 1.2.1 until you reach the thirty-first standard (ie, 3.3.1).
Do not try and address multiple standards at the same time and in the same paragraph. It is confusing for the reader and often leads to key information being omitted from the report.
Clear and unambiguous. Make sure that it is clear to the reader what standard is being addressed.
It may seem obvious, but clearly identify the standard being addressed with the paragraph title and/or number under which it is being described. Some ETFs like to use the same paragraph numbering as the standard being described, others use the standard as a paragraph title.
What we definitely do not want to receive is, for example, an explanation of the four standards under 1.2 - Personal Management - as a whole, where we have to decide which part of the narrative describes each of the individual standards.
Please help us help you; keep things clear and simple.
How much detail to include:
Include sufficient information to describe how your organization meets the standard. Assume that the reader is someone who is unfamiliar with your unit but is someone who understands the NATO Quality Standards.
The amount of information provided does not need to be exhaustive; however, it should provide sufficient detail to stand by itself and provide assurance that the standard is met. Further detail can be provided as an enclosure or annex or by cross referring to an SOP. If you wish, and it is appropriate, include relevant SOPs as enclosures/annexes to the SAR.
Do not state, “see SOP 701” and expect that to be sufficient explanation of how, for example, standard 2.2.1 “Student progress is monitored and supported throughout the course.”
List of Acronyms/Glossary. Please include a list of acronyms; it makes reading and understanding the SAR much easier for the NATO QA ToE conducting the OSV.
List of SOPs. Please provide a list of your SOPs (either as part of the SAR main body or an annex). Once we have reviewed the SAR, we will be able to identify those SOPs that we need to read ahead of the OSV and ask for them to be forwarded to us.
Supporting Documentation. Each ETF is different and organizes itself and its working practices differently. Therefore, the supporting documents that we ask to see tend to vary and are not always apparent until after a review of the SAR. That being said, as a minimum, we ask for copies of the SAR, the Quality Assurance Policy, the Strategic/Long-term Plan and the Communication Plan. We also ask for a list of your SOPs so that we can decide which ones to ask for, if any, to support the OSV.
Hopefully, the D&G above will give you some indication of what to expect. The process does not need to be (and should not be) conducted in isolation; we are here to help you.
If you have any questions, please get in touch and we can email or talk over the telephone. The main thing to remember is that we are not here to try and catch you out. You have an established ETF and QMS. All you need to do is explain and show how the ETF meets the NATO Quality Standards and has a continuous improvement process.
Detailed D&G