Faculty of Organisation Studies Novo mesto

Fakulteta za organizacijske študije v Novem mestu

Basic information

  • Identifiers
    • DEQARINST2362
    • SI0055
    • SI-ETER.BAS.NATID: 38
    • Erasmus: SI NOVO-ME10

      • Erasmus Institution Code

      Identifier assigned by the European Commission to higher education institutions participating in the Erasmus+ programme - data harvested from ETER/OrgReg

      Read more...

    • SCHAC: fos-unm.si

      • SCHema for Academia

      Internet domain (DNS)-based identifier of institutions, used in several European initiatives for data exchange in the education and research sector, e.g. Emrex - data acquired using the European University Foundation (EUF) HEI API

      Read more...

    • Erasmus-Charter: E10129692

      • Erasmus Charter for Higher Education (ECHE)

      Application number related to the ECHE, required for higher education institutions participating in the Erasmus+ programme - data acquired using the European University Foundation (EUF) HEI API

      Read more...

    • EU-PIC: 943692340

      • Participant Identification Code (PIC)

      A PIC is assigned to legal entities participating in EU-funded programmes - data acquired using the European University Foundation (EUF) HEI API

      Read more...

    • EU-VAT: SI26727439

      • EU VAT number

      Identifier of economic operators for value-added tax (VAT) within the EU system, assigned by their national authority - data acquired using the EU participant register API

      Read more...

  • Provider type
    higher education institution
  • Legal seat(s)
    Novo Mesto, Slovenia
  • Website
    http://www.fos.unm.si/en/
  • Founding year
    2010
  • QF-EHEA levels
    third cycle, second cycle, first cycle
  • Permalink
    https://data.deqar.eu/institution/2362

National External Quality Assurance Requirements

  • Accreditation of a study programme
    is granted for an indefinite period or the application is denied.
  • Re-accreditation of a higher education institution
    is granted for a period of maximum five years (or less) or, if quality standards are not meet the accreditation is denied.
  • Initial accreditation of a higher education institutions
    is granted for a period of five years or, if quality standards are not meet, the application is denied.
  • Accreditation of changes of higher education institutions
    Changes to another type, merger by acquisition, merger by the formation of a new entity or division of higher education institutions, changing the location in Slovenia
  • Further information on external quality assurance in Slovenia

External Quality Assurance Reports and Decisions

Filter reports

Clear all
Search programmes

Institutional level

This report is not currently valid but part of the historic record.
Part of the obligatory external QA system Decision: positive
Institutional re-accreditation
Part of the obligatory external QA system Decision: positive with conditions or restrictions
Institutional re-accreditation
  • DEQAR Report ID
    115246
  • Agency
    Slovenian Quality Assurance Agency (SQAA)
  • Type
    • Re-accreditation of higher education institutions
  • Status
    part of obligatory EQA system
  • Formal decision
    positive with conditions or restrictions
  • Date
    21/12/2023
  • Valid until
    30/09/2027
  • Summary

    Report summary

    In the evaluation process, we evaluated the Faculty according to 17 standards in the procedures for reaccreditation of higher education institutions. We have identified strengths in three of the seven standards in the field of operation of higher education institutions, and opportunities for improvement in all seven standards. We have identified major deficiencies or inconsistencies in three standards. In the case of the standard 2, this refers to the great lack of substantive and active involvement of the majority of internal and external stakeholders (except management) in the management and development of the activities of the higher education institution in the years before 2023, in the case of standard 3 to the fact that the institution does not meet the minimum research standards required for doctoral study programs, in terms of research or development or otherwise academically relevant projects obtained in the last five years. In the case of standard 6, we identify three major shortcomings or inconsistencies, which relate to the need to encourage the active substantive participation of stakeholders in self-evaluation processes, to the need to be aware of the importance and role of the internal quality system and quality culture among stakeholders, and to the completion of the quality circle. For both standards in the field of human resources, we identified advantages and opportunities for improvement, for standard 8 and two major shortcomings or inconsistencies regarding the violation of the criteria for appointment to the titles of higher education teachers in one case and the unguaranteed abilities to mentor doctoral students in four cases. We identified strengths in three out of four standards in the area of students, opportunities for improvement in three, and partial fulfillment of quality standards in standard 13. Among the four standards in the field of material conditions, we identify strengths in one, and opportunities for improvement in one.
    In the evaluation process, we evaluated the Faculty according to 17 standards in the procedures for reaccreditation of higher education institutions. We have identified strengths in three of the seven standards in the field of operation of higher education institutions, and opportunities for improvement in all seven standards. We have identified major deficiencies or inconsistencies in three stand...
  • Report and decision
  • Permalink
    https://data.deqar.eu/report/115246
  • Agency's identifier
    6031-6/2022/9 - PA FOŠ
  • Verifiable Credential

Programme level

This report does not have a validity period, but it is older than 6 years and thus considered part of the historic record.
Part of the obligatory external QA system Decision: positive
Menedžment kakovosti (first cycle degree)
  • Qualification/award
    • Bachelor (visokošolski)
  • Level
    first cycle (NQF 7. raven (7))
  • Programme type
    Full recognised degree programme
This report does not have a validity period, but it is older than 6 years and thus considered part of the historic record.
Part of the obligatory external QA system Decision: positive
Menedžment kakovosti (second cycle degree)
  • Qualification/award
    • Master
  • Level
    second cycle (NQF 8. raven (8))
  • Programme type
    Full recognised degree programme
This report does not have a validity period, but it is older than 6 years and thus considered part of the historic record.
Part of the obligatory external QA system Decision: positive
Menedžment kakovosti (third cycle degree)
  • Qualification/award
    • Phd
  • Level
    third cycle (NQF 10. raven (10))
  • Programme type
    Full recognised degree programme
Part of the obligatory external QA system
Menedžment kakovosti (third cycle degree)
  • Qualification/award
    • Doctorate
  • Level
    third cycle (NQF 10)
  • Programme type
    Full recognised degree programme
  • DEQAR Report ID
    89681
  • Agency
    Slovenian Quality Assurance Agency (SQAA)
  • Type
    • Extraordinary evaluation of study programmes
  • Status
    part of obligatory EQA system
  • Formal decision
    not applicable
  • Date
    15/09/2022
  • Valid until
    not applicable
  • Summary

    Report summary

    In this sample evaluation we assessed the doctoral study programme of Quality Management at the Faculty of Organizational Studies (FOS) in Novo mesto. Internal assurance and improvement of the quality of the study programme, its modification, development and implementation are appropriate and meet the requirements of all 5 standards. Although it is a full-time study, it largely has the characteristics of parttime study, as all students are full-time employees. A specificity are also small study groups (enrolment of approx. 5 new students per year) and a lot of individual work. Therefore, a form of combined study (combination of inclass and distance learning), which was developed and introduced by the Faculty during the COVID crisis, is very appropriate and well-accepted. Among the noticed advantages we would highlight the well-designed and consistently managed quality management system, which is very transparent and ensures the 29 conclusion of the quality cycle, active involvement of all stakeholder groups and good information on current issues. The engagement of the entire faculty staff from top to the bottom is equally (or perhaps even more) remarkable advantage. Linked to it the key advantages are the culture of cooperation, the connectedness and personal approach of the faculty staff to each other and to all stakeholders, especially students. In addition to the acquired knowledge of the students, the highlighted positive atmosphere at the faculty is a recognizable competitive advantage of FOS compared to large faculties. It makes students feel good at the study and attracts them to study there and promote the Faculty and the study programme. For employers, the key recognized advantage of their employees finishing doctoral degree of Quality Management at FOS is the acquired broad mind and academic freedom of thinking and work, as well as the ability to combine knowledge of various fields and topics (interdisciplinarity). FOS is constantly developing and updating study programmes, including doctoral study programme of Quality Management. The programme is planned and monitored in the long term with a view to 5 years ahead within the faculty strategic planning. Scientific research, which was a weak point in previous years, has also been strengthened significantly and is planned to continue to develop. FOS expands and deepens cooperation with the business and public environments through engagement of their doctoral students and doctors working there. Relationships with them are being kept even after graduation (doctorate). Among the opportunities for improvement, we emphasize the provision of greater selectivity of study content or greater offer of elective courses in order to enable students who haven’t studied Quality Management and Organization at previous levels of study to learn the basics of Quality Management. In the summary below only the significant identified strengths and opportunities for improvement based on the assessed areas are listed. The full list of findings is in the report. No non-compliances were identified.
    In this sample evaluation we assessed the doctoral study programme of Quality Management at the Faculty of Organizational Studies (FOS) in Novo mesto. Internal assurance and improvement of the quality of the study programme, its modification, development and implementation are appropriate and meet the requirements of all 5 standards. Although it is a full-time study, it largely has the characteris...
  • Report and decision
  • Permalink
    https://data.deqar.eu/report/89681
  • Agency's identifier
    6034-13/2022/5
  • Verifiable Credential
Part of the obligatory external QA system
Menedžment kakovosti (first cycle degree)
  • Qualification/award
    • Bachelor
  • Level
    first cycle (NQF 7)
  • Programme type
    Full recognised degree programme
  • DEQAR Report ID
    115247
  • Agency
    Slovenian Quality Assurance Agency (SQAA)
  • Type
    • Extraordinary evaluation of study programmes
  • Status
    part of obligatory EQA system
  • Formal decision
    not applicable
  • Date
    21/12/2023
  • Valid until
    not applicable
  • Summary

    Report summary

    In the process of external evaluation of the study programs Quality Management - Professional Bachelor's Degree Program, Quality Management - Master's Degree Program, and Quality Management - Doctoral Degree Program, we evaluated the study programs according to the five standards of Article 23. We identified strengths in three standards, such as the Project Office of the institution being a highly effective support for the entire project work, and good recognition of all three study programs in the local economy, among other advantages mentioned in the report. We identified opportunities for improvement in four standards (standards 1, 3, 4, and 5), which are also listed in the report. In standards 2, 3, and 5, we identified major deficiencies or inconsistencies, which include the following: although we acknowledge the institution's awareness of the importance of improving the content aspect of self-evaluation and the efforts made for improvement in 2023, we found that in previous years there has been a lack of active involvement of stakeholders in the self-evaluation processes; the closure of the quality loop can only be positively evaluated from a procedural ("technical") perspective, while there is a significant lack of active involvement of stakeholders in the content aspects of self-evaluation processes; inadequate level of competence in scientific research methodology, particularly at the doctoral level of study; duplication of mandatory study literature in subjects of the same study program; outdated mandatory study literature; inappropriate and insufficient mandatory study literature in some cases; ; the institution does not meet the minimum research standards required for third-level study programs, considering the research or development projects obtained in the last five years, which should be led by the course instructors of the third-level study program; violation of criteria for the appointment of university teachers in one case - concerning inadequate references for subject leadership by the same lecturer; scientific and research references provided by one of the lecturers in the doctoral program are inadequate regarding the research field, and in some cases, the references do not meet high standards and relevance.
    In the process of external evaluation of the study programs Quality Management - Professional Bachelor's Degree Program, Quality Management - Master's Degree Program, and Quality Management - Doctoral Degree Program, we evaluated the study programs according to the five standards of Article 23. We identified strengths in three standards, such as the Project Office of the institution being a highly...
  • Report and decision
  • Permalink
    https://data.deqar.eu/report/115247
  • Agency's identifier
    6031-6/2022/9 - FOŠ programi
  • Verifiable Credential
Part of the obligatory external QA system
Menedžment kakovosti (second cycle degree)
  • Qualification/award
    • Master
  • Level
    second cycle (NQF 8)
  • Programme type
    Full recognised degree programme
  • DEQAR Report ID
    115247
  • Agency
    Slovenian Quality Assurance Agency (SQAA)
  • Type
    • Extraordinary evaluation of study programmes
  • Status
    part of obligatory EQA system
  • Formal decision
    not applicable
  • Date
    21/12/2023
  • Valid until
    not applicable
  • Summary

    Report summary

    In the process of external evaluation of the study programs Quality Management - Professional Bachelor's Degree Program, Quality Management - Master's Degree Program, and Quality Management - Doctoral Degree Program, we evaluated the study programs according to the five standards of Article 23. We identified strengths in three standards, such as the Project Office of the institution being a highly effective support for the entire project work, and good recognition of all three study programs in the local economy, among other advantages mentioned in the report. We identified opportunities for improvement in four standards (standards 1, 3, 4, and 5), which are also listed in the report. In standards 2, 3, and 5, we identified major deficiencies or inconsistencies, which include the following: although we acknowledge the institution's awareness of the importance of improving the content aspect of self-evaluation and the efforts made for improvement in 2023, we found that in previous years there has been a lack of active involvement of stakeholders in the self-evaluation processes; the closure of the quality loop can only be positively evaluated from a procedural ("technical") perspective, while there is a significant lack of active involvement of stakeholders in the content aspects of self-evaluation processes; inadequate level of competence in scientific research methodology, particularly at the doctoral level of study; duplication of mandatory study literature in subjects of the same study program; outdated mandatory study literature; inappropriate and insufficient mandatory study literature in some cases; ; the institution does not meet the minimum research standards required for third-level study programs, considering the research or development projects obtained in the last five years, which should be led by the course instructors of the third-level study program; violation of criteria for the appointment of university teachers in one case - concerning inadequate references for subject leadership by the same lecturer; scientific and research references provided by one of the lecturers in the doctoral program are inadequate regarding the research field, and in some cases, the references do not meet high standards and relevance.
    In the process of external evaluation of the study programs Quality Management - Professional Bachelor's Degree Program, Quality Management - Master's Degree Program, and Quality Management - Doctoral Degree Program, we evaluated the study programs according to the five standards of Article 23. We identified strengths in three standards, such as the Project Office of the institution being a highly...
  • Report and decision
  • Permalink
    https://data.deqar.eu/report/115247
  • Agency's identifier
    6031-6/2022/9 - FOŠ programi
  • Verifiable Credential
Part of the obligatory external QA system
Menedžment kakovosti (third cycle degree)
  • Qualification/award
    • Doctorate
  • Level
    third cycle (NQF 10)
  • Programme type
    Full recognised degree programme
  • DEQAR Report ID
    115247
  • Agency
    Slovenian Quality Assurance Agency (SQAA)
  • Type
    • Extraordinary evaluation of study programmes
  • Status
    part of obligatory EQA system
  • Formal decision
    not applicable
  • Date
    21/12/2023
  • Valid until
    not applicable
  • Summary

    Report summary

    In the process of external evaluation of the study programs Quality Management - Professional Bachelor's Degree Program, Quality Management - Master's Degree Program, and Quality Management - Doctoral Degree Program, we evaluated the study programs according to the five standards of Article 23. We identified strengths in three standards, such as the Project Office of the institution being a highly effective support for the entire project work, and good recognition of all three study programs in the local economy, among other advantages mentioned in the report. We identified opportunities for improvement in four standards (standards 1, 3, 4, and 5), which are also listed in the report. In standards 2, 3, and 5, we identified major deficiencies or inconsistencies, which include the following: although we acknowledge the institution's awareness of the importance of improving the content aspect of self-evaluation and the efforts made for improvement in 2023, we found that in previous years there has been a lack of active involvement of stakeholders in the self-evaluation processes; the closure of the quality loop can only be positively evaluated from a procedural ("technical") perspective, while there is a significant lack of active involvement of stakeholders in the content aspects of self-evaluation processes; inadequate level of competence in scientific research methodology, particularly at the doctoral level of study; duplication of mandatory study literature in subjects of the same study program; outdated mandatory study literature; inappropriate and insufficient mandatory study literature in some cases; ; the institution does not meet the minimum research standards required for third-level study programs, considering the research or development projects obtained in the last five years, which should be led by the course instructors of the third-level study program; violation of criteria for the appointment of university teachers in one case - concerning inadequate references for subject leadership by the same lecturer; scientific and research references provided by one of the lecturers in the doctoral program are inadequate regarding the research field, and in some cases, the references do not meet high standards and relevance.
    In the process of external evaluation of the study programs Quality Management - Professional Bachelor's Degree Program, Quality Management - Master's Degree Program, and Quality Management - Doctoral Degree Program, we evaluated the study programs according to the five standards of Article 23. We identified strengths in three standards, such as the Project Office of the institution being a highly...
  • Report and decision
  • Permalink
    https://data.deqar.eu/report/115247
  • Agency's identifier
    6031-6/2022/9 - FOŠ programi
  • Verifiable Credential
This report does not have a validity period, but it is older than 6 years and thus considered part of the historic record.
Part of the obligatory external QA system Decision: positive
Menedžment v turizmu (first cycle degree)
  • Qualification/award
    • Bachelor (visokošolski)
  • Level
    first cycle (NQF 7. raven (7))
  • Programme type
    Full recognised degree programme

Verifiable Credentials

A Verifiable Credential (VC) is a digitally-signed and thus tamper-evident document containing information on a subject (e.g. personal information, entitlements of an individual, degrees held by an individual or accreditation of a higher education institution). Quality assurance results recorded in DEQAR can be downloaded as W3C-compatible Verifiable Credentials.

Currently, two types of credentials can be issued:

EBSI Verifiable Accreditations (VA) can be used by a higher education institution in the context of the EBSI Early Adopters programme.

  • The VA allows the institution to prove its external quality assurance on the Trusted Issuer Registry (TIR). EBSI VAs are only issued for external quality assurance results with an official status in a national system (“part of obligatory EQA system”).
  • At present, the higher education institution’s EBSI DID needs to be communicated to EQAR and recorded in DEQAR manually at the moment. If you are a higher education institution participating in EBSI, please contact us to register your DID.
  • EBSI VAs are issued by EQAR under its DID did:ebsi:zk4bhCepWSYp9RhZkRPiwUL.

DEQAR Format Verifiable Credentials primarily serve as a proof of concept and public demonstrator currently.

  • DEQAR Format VCs are based on the plain W3C Recommendation and our own data model. While they closely follow the EBSI Schema, no EBSI-specific or EU-specific elements or data types are used.
  • The higher education institution is identified by its DEQAR URI in this case.
  • DEQAR Format VCs are issued by EQAR under its DID did:web:data.deqar.eu.

Please note: this is an experimental feature.