Precedents database

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	22/06/2020
Standard	3.5 Resources
Keywords	Allocation of resources; Financial sustainability
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“In its last decision of inclusion the Register Committee flagged AAC-DEVA’s ability to acquire and consolidate the resources required to organise site-visits as part of its periodic re-accreditation procedures. As AAC-DEVA has been able to carry out site-visits within its procedures, the flag has been addressed. The Register Committee noted that AAC-DEVA acknowledged in its SWOT analysis that it did not achieved what it aspired it set out to do in the past five years. These concerns were mainly due to the current organisational structure of the agency and lack of strategic planning which has lead to difficulties in the proper allocation of resources and development of prospective units for the full implementation of thematic analysis. In its additional representation AAC-DEVA stated that it had been able to provide all the necessary resources to set up and maintain its external QA activities and that its budget has been approved without any reductions. Concerning the problems related to the structural organisation of the agency, AAC-DEVA explained that this are addressed in the development of its Strategic Plan. ”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by NASM
Decision of	06/06/2016
Standard	3.5 Resources
Keywords	financial sustainability
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“The External Review Report reported that the initial costs for the setup of MusiQuE were borne by AEC, as its main founder. At the time of the review – MusiQuE did not have a sufficient amount of contracts or firm agreements with higher education institutions that would fully assure its ability to achieve self-sustainability.MusiQuE submitted the statement “Information on the financial sustainability of MusiQuE”, which included an update on the number of reviews planned and contracted for the years 2016 and 2017, as well as a financial commitment by AEC, EMU and Pearle*, for the years 2016 and 2017, applicable in case MusiQuE will not achieve self-sustainability. Beyond that, further support would be at the discretion of the organisations’ boards.The Register Committee considered that the financial commitment ensured MusiQuE’s equipment with sufficient resources for 2016 and 2017, while sustainability from 2018 onwards remained dependent on the number of reviews MusiQuE was able to carry out in practice.The Register Committee further underlined that MusiQuE is expected to make a Substantive Change Report (see §6.1 of the EQAR Procedures for Applications) in case its resource situation changes materially.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	13/10/2023
Standard	3.5 Resources
Keywords	resources, financial independance
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“26. The panel noted that the main challenge for NEAA remains the fact that it cannot manage its own finances in a manner that will enable NEAA to ensure the best quality of its activities. Even if the majority of the funding comes from its external quality assurance activities i.e., mostly accreditation fees, due to the strict regulations and rules defined on national level, NEAA cannot access these revenues. The Committee concurs with the panel that this could have a negative impact on the sustainability and the quality of its processes.

27. The panel underlined that despite the improvements and increase of staff members since its last review, from 8 to 19 staff members, NEAA still had a high number of vacant positions.

28. The Committee emphasised the panel’s recommendations on the need for the agency to pursue with the Ministry changes in its financial management and to continue the recruitment of new staff to ensure optimal workload and implementation of external QA processes on time.

29. In its representation, NEAA reported of a further increase in its staff (i.e., from 19 to 23 employees), with recruitment for some of these positions currently underway. The Committee noted that the agency has taken active steps addressing specific proposals to increase pay rates to the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Finance and the Prime Ministers office. Similar efforts are directed towards the Council of Rectors. Further, the agency stated that there are constant efforts made towards the responsible national authorities with a request to increase the budget of the agency.

30. The Register Committee welcomed the actions taken by NEAA. The Register Committee, however, noted that despite the improvements in NEAA’s permanent staff, the agency’s financial independence, due to external factors, remains constrained, and while the limitations in resources may not pose an immediate concern as to the sustainability of the agency, it may negatively impact the scope and quality of the activities undertaken by NEAA.

31. The Register Committee therefore concurred with the panel’s conclusion that NEAA complies only partially with ESG 3.5.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	13/12/2021
Standard	3.6 Internal quality assurance and professional conduct
Keywords	Weak management of staff development and not addressing earlier flags
Panel conclusion	Full compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“Partial compliance due the need for a more structured management of the professional development of the staff and the lack of a comprehensive response to the issues raised in the previous external reviews (i.e. instances of partial compliance from the previous renewals of the registration: the training of experts (ESG 2.4) is still weak (a concern raised in 2011) and the publication of thematic analyses (ESG 3.4) remains not systematic (a concern raised in 2016).)”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	15/10/2021
Standard	3.6 Internal quality assurance and professional conduct
Keywords	Informal approach to IQA; Not addressing flags from previous review
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“AI has adopted an overall framework for internal QA, which is publicly available. The panel, however, found that agency’s approach to internal QA is often informal and flexible. This was reflected in the self-evaluation report,

which the panel found to be lacking self-reflexivity and deeper analysis of agency’s internal needs. The Register Committee noted that the agency has not addressed the issues that led to a partially compliant conclusion in the

previous decision for renewal of registration (namely ESG 2.7 and ESG 3.1).”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	05/11/2019
Standard	3.6 Internal quality assurance and professional conduct
Keywords	Efectiveness of internal QA
Panel conclusion	Full compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“The development of QQI's internal quality assurance system was flagged for attention when QQI was admitted to the Register in 2015.The Register Committee noted that the panel described QQI's internal quality assurance instruments as effective. They cover all its external quality assurance processes and thus respond to the recommendation made in the last external review of QQI.While the panel noted that some future adjustments might be necessary once further external QA processes are rolled out, the Register Committee considered that the flag has clearly been addressed.The Register Committee therefore concurred with the panel's conclusion that QQI complies with the standard.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	16/03/2020
Standard	3.6 Internal quality assurance and professional conduct
Keywords	formalisation of QA processes
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“44. The panel analysed that AHPGS has a system describing the internal QA processes, but given the agency's small size some processes were not formalised and relied on “informal procedures and tacit knowledge”.

45. The Register Committee noted the publication of AHPGS’ comprehensive internal quality assurance reports for the years 2009-2013 and 2013-2017 on its website.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	05/11/2019
Standard	3.6 Internal quality assurance and professional conduct
Keywords	Efectiveness of internal QA
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“In its previous decision of inclusion, the Register Committee noted that the internal quality assurance system have been recently put in place, and therefore has flagged this matter for the next external review of the agency. According to the 2019 external review report of AQ Austria, the agency has clearly defined processes for all its activities and consolidated its work as a result of its internal quality assurance processes.The Register Committee therefore concluded that the flag has been addressed.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	03/04/2019
Standard	3.6 Internal quality assurance and professional conduct
Keywords	Effectiveness of agency’s IQA
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“When admitting SQAA to the Register, the Committee noted the 2013 panel's recommendation that SQAA systematise its internal quality assurance processes. According to the panel's report, SQAA has further systematised its internal quality assurance system.The Register Committee, however, also noted the review panel's critical appraisal of SQAA's interaction with the different stakeholders from different types of higher education institutions, and the question raised whether its quality policy was shared by all stakeholders. ”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	06/12/2018
Standard	3.6 Internal quality assurance and professional conduct
Keywords	Implementation of processes for IQA
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“The Register Committee noted that while CAQA/NEAQA has a number of mechanisms to ensure internal quality [...] that the agency lacks formal mechanisms to act upon the external and internal feedback on a regular basis and thus foster continuous improvement. In its additional representation NEAQA stated its plans to improve communication among all stakeholders in quality assurance processes; to introduce software to support its information management processes and ensure transparency in the work of the agency.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by GAC
Decision of	20/06/2017
Standard	3.6 Internal quality assurance and professional conduct
Keywords	Formalisation and efectiveness of Internal quality management system
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	Coordinator (24/11/2024)
RC decision	Compliance

“In its additional representation, ASIIN noted that it had formalised its internal quality management system and fully implemented its new QM manual. The Register Committee sought and received clarification from the German Accreditation Council (GAC), as the coordinator of the external review of ASIIN. GAC confirmed that it had assessed the implementation of ASIIN's QM structure as part of assessing fulfilment of a condition. In doing so, GAC found that the QM system was appropriately formalised and implemented effectively.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	28/06/2022
Standard	3.6 Internal quality assurance and professional conduct
Keywords	feedback system not fully integrated, regression since last review
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“40. The panel noted that the representatives of institutions and reviewers gave different opinions on the possibilities for feedback.

41. The Register Committee agreed with the panel's analysis that this indicates that the feedback system might not yet be fully implemented and that there was a need to systematise and make more coherent the available feedback instruments.

42. The Register Committee further noted that the only partial compliance with ESG 2.1 and 3.4 is a regression since the last review and thus does not reflect positively on the agency's internal quality assurance arrangements.

43. In light of these reservations the Committee was unable to concur with the panel's conclusion, but considered that HCERES only partially complied with the standard.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	18/03/2021
Standard	3.6 Internal quality assurance and professional conduct
Keywords	Effectiveness of the internal QA system
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“The Register Committee noted THEQC’s recent development of an internal quality assurance system, in line with the results of the Plan-Do-Check-Act methodology and the 2019-2023 Strategic Plan. While the panel commended the use of platforms and on-line tools for the implementation of the internal quality assurance system and the dissemination of relevant information, the panel found a number of issues that remained to be addressed in order for the quality assurance system to foster continuous improvement: existing confusion amongst experts, consultants and staff regarding their responsibilities in internal quality assurance matters, the lack of any corrective measure if an evaluation team were to fail to complete its task with the production of a satisfactory report. THEQC explained in its additional representation that it had prepared a chart clarifying the roles of staff, council and commission representatives (see Annex 9). THEQC further added that higher education institutions have a chance to comment on factual issues before reports are finalised, which then have to be addressed by the review panel. The Register Committee welcomed the clarification provided but underlined that the effectiveness of THEQC’s internal quality assurance system to foster continuous improvement in its processes is still to be reviewed in practice as the current improvements are not a result of the agency’ internal QA system but a result of an external feedback. The Register Committee further considered that the internal QA system should be designed so as to further support the successful implementation of the agency’s activities in particular considering THEQ’s newly launched Institutional Accreditation Programme (IAP).”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by NASM
Decision of	02/11/2020
Standard	3.6 Internal quality assurance and professional conduct
Keywords	publication of critical friend reviews
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“The panel reported that MusiQuE has recently introduced critical friend reviews as a modified version of MusiQuE’s quality enhancement reviews. The new addition includes annual visits by ‘critical friends’ to various departments and programmes which result in specific reports; these feed into the agency’s self-evaluation and final quality enhancement review report.

The Register Committee noted that the agency does not publish the specific reports resulting from the critical friend review, neither separately nor together with the final quality enhancement review report. The Committee has therefore asked the panel to clarify its stance on this practice considering the requirement of the standard 2.6.

In its clarification letter, the Panel explained that the critical friend review report was one element of the review process and one of the documents informing the quality enhancement review report. The panel did not find it necessary to publish the outcomes of critical friend reviews as maintaining the report in confidence gave the “critical friends” the liberty to be more straightforward and explicit.

The Register Committe, underlined that the agency is expected to publish full reports prepared by the experts. In the Committee's understanding, these need to cover the full evidence reviewed and the full analysis made. Hence, where several reports are produced within one procedure, such as the critical friend reports, all reports should be published.

The Register Committee added that it would be sufficient to publish the critical friend reports together with the final external review report, rather than separately.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Focused, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	19/06/2019
Standard	3.6 Internal quality assurance and professional conduct
Keywords	Internal quality policy
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“ The panel confirmed that the agency had some procedures and processes in place aiming to support, reflect and improve its own day-to-day operations (i.e. Quick Reference Guide, annual reports, bi-weekly staff briefings, evaluation of assessments). The panel found that QANU did not have an internal quality assurance policy or an integrated quality management system (related to i.e. human resources, briefing of panels, collegial feedback on draft reports). In its additional representation the agency argued that the necessary components of a quality policy are in place and described briefly in QANU’s Quick Reference Guide. In terms of a cohesive and integrated quality plan the agency stated that it had started developing such a plan that will be an integration of the processes and procedures QANU has in place. Given the commendations by the panel on the internal quality assurance processes, e.g. good procedure for monitoring and improving the quality of the staff, good quality of assessment reports, QANU stated it did not understand the Committee’s conclusion of partial compliance.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	22/06/2020
Standard	3.6 Internal quality assurance and professional conduct
Keywords	not clear how agency ensures ESG compliance when using non-registered QAAs’ results
Panel conclusion	Full compliance
Clarification request(s)	Panel (24/11/2024)
RC decision	Partial compliance

“The panel pointed out that it was “assured by the agency that the same criteria and guidelines were applied”. The panel noted it had discussed the issue with the madri+d Accreditation Commission, which “confirmed its focus on being assured that meeting the ESG standards are a key focus of such accreditations”.

The external review report and the panel’s clarification did not refer to any evidence or further details to support this assurance. The Register Committee noted that at least two actual cases (accreditation based on ABET accreditation, https://data.deqar.eu/report/8971/ and https://data.deqar.eu/report/9129/) raised concerns insofar as the ABET reports, forming the basis for these decisions, are not published as required in ESG 2.6.

The rather generic statements, combined with these two examples, did not demonstrate sufficiently how ESG compliance is assured for reports by other, non-registered agencies. The Register Committee was therefore unable to concur with the panel's conclusion, but considered that madri+d only partially complied with standard 3.6.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	22/06/2020
Standard	3.6 Internal quality assurance and professional conduct
Keywords	Lack of sufficient and fit for purpose IQA processes; Inconsistency of presentation of internal structures;
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“The Register Committee noted that while the responsibilities in internal quality assurance are defined in the ‘AKKORK Internal Regulations’, the main tool of the agency for internal quality assurance of its activities are the regular staff meetings. The panel’s analysis showed a number of concerns related to the agency’s internal workings, i.e. inconsistencies in the information presented on the agency’s website, the information regarding the publication of the reports or information available on external QA activities on the Russian and English parts of the website; inconsistency in the presentation of the agency’s organizational chart in ‘AKKORK Internal Regulations’ and the structure outlined in the review report, etc.. Considering the above examples, the panel considered that not all outcomes of the agency’s work, especially not the production of documentation, are covered by the existing QA cycles. ”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	22/06/2020
Standard	3.6 Internal quality assurance and professional conduct
Keywords	Lack of sufficient and consistent IQA processes
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“In its previous decision of inclusion, the Register Committee flagged the effectiveness of AAC-DEVA’s internal quality assurance arrangements. In May 2018, AAC-DEVA established an Internal Quality Assurance Commission to review its own internal quality assurance methodology, but at the time of the site-visit the agency was still reviewing its internal documentation. The panel saw insufficient evidence of a pattern of continuous improvement in the internal quality assurance of AAC-DEVA. While there has been a spur of activity in preparation for the external review the panel did not consider this was sufficient to achieve meaningful results. In its additional representation the agency reasserted its commitment for improving its internal QA system and that it was in the process of reviewing its Services Charter and setting up a web application designed to support continuous improvement and facilitate the management of the agency’s activities. ”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	03/04/2019
Standard	3.6 Internal quality assurance and professional conduct
Keywords	Implementation of the processes for external feedback mechanism
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“The Register Committee noted from the review panel’s analysis that [...] internal and external feedback mechanisms are not entirely in place within the agency and the processes for examining data and collecting feedback are not systematic and formalised (Review Report p. 30). In its additional representation, HAC explained that internal quality assurance practices that are in place i.e. internal regulations for professional conduct and integrity, code of ethics, by-laws laying down the responsibilities for all activities of external members and staff, handbook for programme officers etc. The agency added that the surveys carried out with evaluated institutions were discussed in staff meetings and by the HAC Board and actions have been taken to improve procedures. The Register Committee further took note that HAC’s Quality Assurance and Development Committee has scheduled further activities to revise and develop surveys on accreditation procedures.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	04/04/2019
Standard	3.6 Internal quality assurance and professional conduct
Keywords	IQA processes are not fit for purpose
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“The review report noted an improvement in the agency’s internal quality assurance process [...] but stressed the need for ARACIS’s internal QA to be improved so as to support the work of its speciality commissions, responsible for the consistency check of evaluation reports and for preparing the Council’s decisions. The panel found that the members of Permanent Speciality Commissions do not have access to the searchable digital copies of evaluation reports, and that they are provided with a pile of reports the day before the meeting, thus being prevented in making their own judgements on the findings of individual reports.

While the panel stated that ARACIS newly introduced comprehensive IQA procedures and new staff member will provide the agency with a sound basis for reviewing and improving the effectiveness with which it works, the Register Committee found this has not been implemented at the time of the review, in particular in supporting the internal activity of its speciality commissions.

ARACIS explained in its additional representation that the procedure to fill in the positions for the Internal public audit department has been delayed due to a temporary staff hiring interdiction in the public sector. As the interdiction has been lifted the agency started to fill in these positions.

The agency further stated that the Permanent Speciality Commissions are supported in their work by the experts and speciality inspectors for accreditation and quality assurance (permanent staff of the agency) providing all the logistics and necessary material. After the site visit each member of the Permanent Speciality Commission receives by e-mail, for analysis, the documents drafted by the visit panel. The panel coordinator of the site visit also presents the results in front of the Permanent Specialty Commission who takes the final decision.[…]. The Committee also noted that the agency has made little progress in making its reports machine-readable (p. 5) since its last review..”

Full decision: see agency register entry