Precedents database

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by GAC
Decision of	03/12/2016
Standard	3.6 Internal quality assurance and professional conduct
Keywords	Efectiveness and clarity of agency’s IQA
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“The Register Committee noted that ZEvA has a formalised and binding system for internal quality management that is addressed by the “Guidelines for Internal Quality Assurance”. In its analysis the panel identified a number of gaps in the agency’s quality assurance system in particular out-dated aspects within the Guidelines for Internal Quality Assurance as well as insufficient presentation of the (newer) internationally oriented procedures. For instance the agency’s new external quality assurance activities (i.e. audit and certification procedures) are not fully integrated into the quality handbook; or the newly developed rules for system accreditation are not represented in the Guidelines for Internal Quality Assurance.the Register Committee noted that quality assurance processes primarily focus on the programme accreditation activities and that there is little mention of how the outcomes of the processes are used for improvement of the agency’s work and communicated to the users.In its response to the review report analysis the agency (of 30/5/2016) stated that it has provided the panel with a non-revised version of the Guidelines, which in fact have been updated and has incorporated all procedure offered by the agency.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	13/10/2023
Standard	3.6 Internal quality assurance and professional conduct
Keywords	internal, internal QA system,
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“32. The panel noted that NEAA started developing its internal quality assurance system introducing, some new mechanisms and procedures. However, the panel underlined that the elements of the procedures are fragmented and not fully structured, integrated and connected in a systematic way. The panel also noted the lack of transparency of the mechanisms and their results.

33. Despite NEAA’s efforts to develop its own internal quality assurance system, the Register Committee found that the process is still in a developmental phase. The Committee underlines the panel’s recommendation that all the elements of the internal QA system needs to be better connected, regularly implemented with the involvement of all internal and external stakeholders.

34. In its representation, NEAA informed that in 2023, the agency undertook an internal audit to identify the weaknesses and bottlenecks in its own internal processes and review procedures. The agency also provided details of the internal audit process and the series of recommendations that were outlined to correct the issues. NEAA further stated that necessary measures are being implemented to improve the functioning of the agency.

35. While the Register Committee welcomed the steps taken by NEAA, the Committee underlined that the issues outlined before remain to be considered and reviewed by an external review panel to determine the improvement in the functioning of NEAA’s internal QA system.

36. The Register Committee therefore concurred with the panel’s conclusion that NEAA only partially complies with ESG 3.6.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	12/12/2023
Standard	3.6 Internal quality assurance and professional conduct
Keywords	internal management system, feedback mechanisms
Panel conclusion	Compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“33. The Register Committee understood from the panel’s analysis that AIC has set up an internal management system to support the daily work of the agency and the collection of feedback from different sources to inform improvements.

34. The Committee however noted AIC’s internal quality assurance system faces a number of issues and limitations: no major changes/ improvements can take place without government regulation or legal change; the informal nature of the feedback limits the ability of the agency to measure objectively “the outputs of the system”; no sufficient evidence that experts are getting acquainted with additional requirements or obligations set by Study Quality Commission after the accreditation procedure.

35. The Register Committee therefore finds that AIC has yet to consolidate its internal quality assurance system, including internal and external feedback mechanisms for continuous improvement.

36. The Register Committee could not conclude that, as it stands, the agency’s internal quality assurance processes are fully sufficient to assure and enhance the quality and integrity of its activities and therefore could not follow the panel’s conclusion, but found that AIC complies only partially with the standard 3.6.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Targeted, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	04/04/2024
Standard	3.6 Internal quality assurance and professional conduct
Keywords	internal QA,
Panel conclusion	Compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“41. In its Change Report Decision (of 2022-11-25), the Register Committee considered the reported change on the newly established body, the Quality Council, and expressed concern with the current proposal of an open-ended regulation that would affect the operability and independence of the Quality Council.

42. While the panel was unable to address concerns with the current proposal of an open-ended regulation that would affect the operability and independence of the Quality Council, it noted that the PKA’s President maintains a supervisory role in the internal quality management system of the agency (by being responsible for supervision of the internal quality management system (IQMS) and in appointing a Quality Management System.

43. The Register Committee found that the current proposal for Quality Council (based on Statutes articles 11a & 15a) could have far reaching consequences, while also noting the organisational issues highlighted under ESG 3.3.

44. The Committee was also made aware of possible conflict of interest scenarios (1) where the Chairs of Section may participate in the discussion of the Presidium, even if they have been part of assessments they have previously prepared and (2) where the Chair of the Appeals Body may vote on resolutions adopted by the Presidium which may be later considered by the Appeals Body. The Register Committee found that this setup lacks the appropriate checks and balances and may affect the integrity of PKA’s activities. The Committee could not understand why PKA has not set up a system that would allow the recusal from the discussion or the possibility for restricting the participation (to no voting rights) of those that could be in a conflict of interest scenario.

45. In its additional representation, PKA informed that the responsibility for establishing the Quality Council will be with the Presidium and no longer solely with the President.

46. Furthermore, PKA committed to introduce provisions stipulating that members of the Presidium participating in programme evaluation procedures or preparing a review in the opinion-giving processes, shall be excluded from voting on those procedures.

47. In its additional representation, PKA clarified that the participation and voting rights of the Chair of the Appeals Body in the Presidium is based on the provisions of the Higher Education Act and PKA’s Statutes. PKA clarified that the Chair of the Appeals Body participates only in the part of the meetings where motions for reconsideration of assessment of opinions are discussed and votes only on this matter.

48. Furthermore, PKA clarified that the Chair of the Appeals Body does not take part in the proceeding assessments of opinions that may become object of applications for reconsideration, nor do they vote on such matters.

49. In the additional documentation (of 2024-03-28), PKA reported that the following statutory changes have been made: (a) The responsibility for establishing the Quality Council will be with the Presidium rather than solely with the President; (b) The members of the Presidium participating in the programme evaluation procedures or preparing a review in the opinion-giving processes, shall be excluded from voting on the decisions resulting from those procedures.

50. While the Register Committee welcomed the changes taken by PKA, it underlined that the issues outlined before remain to be addressed and subsequently to be considered and review by an external review panel in order to determine their implementation in practice.

51. The Register Committee therefore could not follow the review panel’s judgment of compliance and found that PKA complies only partially with ESG 3.6.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	12/12/2023
Standard	3.6 Internal quality assurance and professional conduct
Keywords	internal quality assurance, mechanisms
Panel conclusion	Compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“17. The Register Committee, noted in the analysis by the panel the gaps and shortcomings in the implementation of the agency’s Internal Quality Assurance (IQA) Regulations.

18. Furthermore, the Committee underlined that the mechanisms for fostering continuous improvement within the agency are weak and unsustainable on the long-term, i.e., the heavy responsibility of AKAST administrator for all of the IQA processes, the lack of systematic approach in gathering feedback and lack of evidence and example of enhancement based IQA.

19. The Register Committee further noted the lack of commitment in timely addressing the issues previously noted under ESG 3.3 and ESG 3.4 which impacts the overall effectiveness of the agency’s internal quality assurance arrangements.

20. In light of these concerns, the Register Committee could not follow the panel’s judgement of compliance and found that AKAST complies only partially with ESG 3.6.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Targeted, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	12/12/2023
Standard	3.6 Internal quality assurance and professional conduct
Keywords	internal quality assurance (IQA) system not implemented
Panel conclusion	Compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“15. In its past decision the Register Committee found that the internal quality assurance (IQA) system had not been implemented at that time. In particular it found that the IQA had yet to prove its role in supporting the internal activity of its speciality commissions and in providing the agency with a sound basis for reviewing and improving the effectiveness with which it works.

16. The Register Committee noted from the detailed analysis of the review repot that ARACIS has set up a functional internal QA system including relevant documentation, structures and personnel. Having considered the evidence presented, the Committee can follow the panel’s conclusion that ARACIS now complies with the requirements of standard 3.6.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	27/11/2024
Standard	3.6 Internal quality assurance and professional conduct
Keywords	internal quality asssurnace system
Panel conclusion	Compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“23. In its last decision, the Register Committee found the agency to be partially compliant due to the lack of development and proper implementation of its internal quality assurance system.

24. The Register Committee understood, from the panel analysis, that the agency has made a significant progress, by introducing a number of internal mechanisms, reviewing policies, procedures and guides. The panel noted that, however, the agency does not yet have a full internal quality assurance system in place, but intends to work on this in the coming period.

25. While the Register Committee welcomed the progress made by the agency. The Committee noted that, however, a well-rounded internal quality assurance system that synchronises the newly introduced tools is yet to be set. Therefore, the Register Committee could not follow the panel’s judgement and found the agency to be partially compliant with the standard.”

Full decision: see agency register entry