Database of Precedents
-
2.2 Designing methodologies fit for purpose – AEQES – Compliance (2017) stakeholder involvement
AEQES
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 20/06/2017 Standard 2.2 Designing methodologies fit for purpose Keywords stakeholder involvement Panel conclusion Full compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “The review report demonstrated that, based on the national legislation as the main framework, AEQES has developed its own methodological framework, procedures and criteria in consultation with the key stakeholders”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.2 Designing methodologies fit for purpose – ANVUR – Compliance (2025) Fitness for purpose difficult to fully assess due to dispersed methodologies
ANVUR
Application Initial Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 14/03/2025 Standard 2.2 Designing methodologies fit for purpose Keywords Fitness for purpose difficult to fully assess due to dispersed methodologies Panel conclusion Compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “15. At the time of the review the methodologies were dispersed across different documents including ministerial decrees, other regulatory documents, and procedural guidelines, making it challenging to find information on each of the activities in a comprehensive manner. While the Register Committee could follow the panel’s conclusion that the agency complies with the standard it highlighted the panel’s recommendation that the agency should more explicitly define and consistently publish the purpose and aims of each of its external quality assurance activities.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.2 Designing methodologies fit for purpose – GAC – Compliance (2022) no ownership or full responsibility resting with a single actor, consequences for improvement
GAC
Application Initial Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 25/10/2022 Standard 2.2 Designing methodologies fit for purpose Keywords no ownership or full responsibility resting with a single actor, consequences for improvement Panel conclusion Substantial compliance Clarification request(s) Panel (05/10/2022)
RC decision Compliance “9. The panel noted that no actor had ownership or full responsibility for the entire accreditation system and process, since the specimen decree appoints specific responsibilities to both GAC and the agencies.
10. The Register Committee sought further clarification from the panel as to how that impacted continuous improvement and development. The panel noted that opportunities for improvements were discussed actively; the ongoing review of the Specimen Decree was an example of that. The panel, however, saw a lack of GAC itself assuming a more proactive, coordinating role and taking responsibility for the system as a whole; this would be reasonable given its unique and pivotal position.
11. The Register Committee concluded that continuous improvement seems to be ensured despite the distributed responsibilities and thus concurred with the panel's conclusion that GAC complies with standard 2.2; the issues related to GAC's role and strategy are considered under standard 3.1 below.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.2 Designing methodologies fit for purpose – AKKORK – Partial compliance (2020) Clarity of activities; lack of stakeholder involvement in the development of methodologies and criteria;
AKKORK
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 22/06/2020 Standard 2.2 Designing methodologies fit for purpose Keywords Clarity of activities; lack of stakeholder involvement in the development of methodologies and criteria; Panel conclusion Partial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “Considering the design of AKKORK’s methodology of external QA procedures, the panel noted that the aims of the different activities were not clearly differentiated and that there were inconsistencies between the different language versions of the AKKORK ‘s website (English and Russian). In its additional representation the agency responded that it has made revisions to the information on its website. While the Register Committee could verify the publication of the procedures, the Committee further noted that the agency also has ‘on offer’ the activity quality assurance of educational programmes on the level of higher education and remains to demonstrate that the activity has been defined and designed to achieve the objectives set for it, as required by the standard. The panel further commented on the lack of involvement of external stakeholders, apart from the representatives from its own bodies, in the design and continuous improvement of the offered procedures. The agency commented in its additional representation that it has developed a Regulation on collaboration with partners designed to be implemented in AKKORK’s daily routine. The Register Committee welcomed the thorough work in the development of a cooperation regulation with stakeholders, but could not confirm that the Regulation is already in effect as no evidence of the stakeholders' engagement was provided for in the recent substantive changes introduced by the agency. ”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.2 Designing methodologies fit for purpose – EVALAG – Partial compliance (2019) Involvement of students in developing the international accreditation and evaluation processes.
EVALAG
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 05/11/2019 Standard 2.2 Designing methodologies fit for purpose Keywords Involvement of students in developing the international accreditation and evaluation processes. Panel conclusion Substantial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “The Register Committee noted that the processes and criteria for evalag’s work outside of the German accreditation system are designed by the Foundation Board. Based on the analysis by the review panel the Committee understood that students have little involvement in designing evalag’s own processes and are also not involved in the Foundation Board (see p. 30).The involvement of students in developing the international accreditation and evaluation processes was a recommendation from the previous ESG review of evalag in 2014, but has not yet been addressed.While the Register Committee welcomed evalag’s commitment expressed in its statement on the review report, no changes have been made as yet. The Committee was therefore unable to concur with the panel’s conclusion of substantial compliance, but considered that evalag only partially complies with the standard.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.2 Designing methodologies fit for purpose – NEAQA – Partial compliance (2018) clarity and consistency of standards, decision-making procedure
NEAQA
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 06/12/2018 Standard 2.2 Designing methodologies fit for purpose Keywords clarity and consistency of standards, decision-making procedure Panel conclusion Partial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “The Register Committee shared the view that NEAQA’s standards would benefit from a revision to ensure full clarity, consistency and readability, in particular in what concerns the employment of site-visits in programme accreditation procedures. The Register Committee concurred with the panel's analysis as regards the arrangement whereby NEAQA’s members combine their decision-making function with that of external experts and with the recommendation to separate these functions. In its additional representation the agency stated that the inherited regulations, procedures and standards of CAQA were revised considering the panel’s concerns and the new by-laws. According to NEAQA particular attention was devoted to ensuring the broader inclusion of external reviewers and the separation of review experts from other member and staff positions in the organisation.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.2 Designing methodologies fit for purpose – ASHE – Compliance (2017) overlaping and duplication of processess
ASHE
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 20/06/2017 Standard 2.2 Designing methodologies fit for purpose Keywords overlaping and duplication of processess Panel conclusion Substantial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “In its decision to admit ASHE to the Register, the Register Committee had flagged the need to review ASHE's different processes with a view to avoiding duplication. The Register Committee noted that the review panel remained concerned about different ASHE processes addressing the same or very similar issues. Moreover, the panel appeared to be concerned that the new processes for re-accreditation of doctoral programmes and the possible future processes related to the Croatian Qualifications Framework (CROQF) might even lead to further duplication.The Register Committee therefore concluded that the flag was not addressed and remains a matter deserving the urgent attention of both ASHE and the Croatian Ministry of Science and Education, being responsible for the legal framework of the external quality assurance processes implemented by ASHE.
The Register Committee concluded that all processes deployed by ASHE in themselves are fit for purpose and were developed in line with the standard, while the overlap and duplication identified by the panel is primarily the result of the typology of external quality assurance processes prescribed by law, the Register Committee was nevertheless able to concur with the panel's conclusion that ASHE complies with the standard.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.2 Designing methodologies fit for purpose – IQAA – Partial compliance (2017) fitness for purpose of IQA’s methodology
IQAA
Application Initial Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 20/06/2017 Standard 2.2 Designing methodologies fit for purpose Keywords fitness for purpose of IQA’s methodology Panel conclusion Partial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “Considering the fitness for purpose of the agency’s metholodogy, the panel identified a number of shortcomings i.e. lack of a regular review of the agency’s methodology, blurring of boundaries between the agency’s different functions (such as the preliminary review processes and the post-accreditation monitoring process).
In the analysis the panel further underlined the need to shift the responsibility for quality from the agency towards the institution and that the current procedures might be impeding such development. While the Register Committee considered the agency’s statement to the review report, noting the phasing out of preliminary reviews and the clarification regarding post-accreditation reviews, the Committee concluded that the achieved fitness for purpose of IQA’s methodology needs to be externally reviewed.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.2 Designing methodologies fit for purpose – AI – Compliance (2016) stakeholder involvement
AI
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 03/12/2016 Standard 2.2 Designing methodologies fit for purpose Keywords stakeholder involvement Panel conclusion Partial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “While the panel finds that in general AI’s methodologies are designed to ensure quality and relevance for all higher education institutions, it underlined that the agency does not give recommendations following a positive programme accreditation or a negative decision for institutional accreditation.The panel further noted that “methods are defined and designed to ensure that the aims and objectives for external quality assurance are achieved methodologies are fit for purpose” and that “AI put more emphasis on the developmental dimension of external quality assurance.” Considering the analysis of the panel the Register Committee formed the view that the developmental dimension of external quality assurance has been sufficiently well integrated in AI’s external quality assurance procedures. The panel stated that AI doesn’t have a proactive role in the involvement of stakeholders in the design of new procedures. As stakeholder involvement is nevertheless ensured in the consultations on new procedures initiated by the Ministry and Accreditation Council, the Register Committee concluded that this requirement of the standard is met.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.2 Designing methodologies fit for purpose – MusiQuE – Compliance (2016) stakeholder involvement/students
MusiQuE
Application Initial Review Full, coordinated by NASM Decision of 06/06/2016 Standard 2.2 Designing methodologies fit for purpose Keywords stakeholder involvement/students Panel conclusion Full compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “The Register Committee noted that higher education institutions, teaching staff and professional musicians participated in the development of MusiQuE’s methodologies and processes through their representative organisations Association Européenne des Conservatoires, Académies de Musique et Musikhochschulen (AEC), European Music Schools Union (EMU) and Pearle*-Live Performance Europe.The Review Panel found that students and representatives of the broader society were not involved in the initial development of MusiQuE's procedures. The Register Committee learned from the clarififcation provided by MusiQuE (Annex 8) that a Student Working Group has been established as part of the EU-funded “FULL SCORE” project, which is now involved in the further development of MusiQuE's methodologies through MusiQuE’s annual calls for feedback.the Register Committee noted that it will require attention whether MusiQuE’s ways of consulting students are sustainable and permanent.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.2 Designing methodologies fit for purpose – ASIIN – Compliance (2017) student involvement; public information on criteria used
ASIIN
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by GAC Decision of 20/06/2017 Standard 2.2 Designing methodologies fit for purpose Keywords student involvement; public information on criteria used Panel conclusion Substantial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “The review report noted that ASIIN’s certification committee did not currently include a student member. The Register Committee therefore considered that the involvement of stakeholders in the design and decision-making process was not fully ensured as required by the standard. The review report noted that only criteria that comply with the ESG can be chosen for evaluations (type 1). The report, however, noted that this was not made clear to the public. The Register Committee further noted that it was not explained in detail how this is verified by ASIIN. The Committee therefore considered that the requirement of external quality assurance processes being defined and designed to ensure their fitness for purpose was not complied with as regards evaluations. The Register Committee was able to verify that a student member was appointed to the certification committee, as noted in ASIIN's additional representation. The Register Committee further noted that ASIIN had clarified in its public information that the criteria in type-1 evaluations, including those of third parties, must be compatible with the ESG.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.2 Designing methodologies fit for purpose – MFHEA – Partial compliance (2024) methodology
MFHEA
Application Initial Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 11/10/2024 Standard 2.2 Designing methodologies fit for purpose Keywords methodology Panel conclusion Partial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “15. The Register Committee learned that at the time of the site-visit the provider accreditation was a desk-based procedure conducted by the MFHEA’s staff. The Register Committee is concerned about the fitness for purpose of this procedure for regulating providers’ access to the higher education sector. As noted by the panel, the methodology differs for providers seeking university status and for other providers of higher education. The Committee noted that it was unclear for the panel which methodology is applied when.
16. In its statement on the report, MFHEA informed that these concerns have been further addressed in the revised manuals for programme and provider accreditation. Furthermore, MFHEA explained that all procedures now include a site-visit by a review panel (see more under ESG 2.3).
17. The Register Committee took note of the actions taken by the agency. The Committee could however not confirm whether and how the updated procedures are implemented in practice.
18. In its additional representation, the agency reaffirmed that it had addressed the panel’s concerns regarding the provider accreditation procedures in the new manual, which has been in use for all provider accreditation procedures as of January
2024. Furthermore, the agency reaffirmed this will also be addressed for all programme accreditation procedures when the new Programme Accreditation Manual will come into force as of January
2025.
19. The Register Committee welcomed the actions taken by the agency in order to address the concerns raised by the panel and the Register Committee. Nevertheless, the Committee could not confirm how these changes have been implemented in practice without a panel insight. Therefore, the Committee concurred with the panel’s conclusion that the agency complies only partially with the standard.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.3 Implementing processes – ASIIN – Compliance (2021) Implementation of procedures and transparency of CBQA procedures
ASIIN
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ASHE Decision of 15/10/2021 Standard 2.3 Implementing processes Keywords Implementation of procedures and transparency of CBQA procedures Panel conclusion Substantial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “In its last review the Register Committee noted that ASIIN's policies were not always followed in practice, i.e. use of on-site visits in evaluations and use of evaluation results in programme accreditations. In its current review, the panel stated that it did not find any evidence of deviations from the prescribed procedures and that policies are implemented consistently. The panel, however, remarked that ASIIN could provide better guidance about the site visit schedule and ensure more transparency in the processing of requests deemed potentially problematic from countries of higher education institutions outside of the European Higher Education Area (see also under ESG 3.1).”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.3 Implementing processes – UKÄ – Partial compliance (2021) Lack of on site visits; Lack of interviews with stakeholders
UKÄ
Application Initial Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 18/03/2021 Standard 2.3 Implementing processes Keywords Lack of on site visits; Lack of interviews with stakeholders Panel conclusion Substantial compliance Clarification request(s) Panel (15/03/2021)
RC decision Partial compliance “absence of any standard framework or guidance as to the use of site visits or interviews in thematic evaluations, makes it unclear whether the agency has sufficient approaches to validate the evidences provided by HEIsin this activity. In addition, the panel's report touched only briefly on the suitability of online interviews instead of regular site visits in the activities program evaluation and appraisal of applications for degree-awarding powers.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.3 Implementing processes – ACSUCYL – Compliance (2020) Lack follow-up procedures
ACSUCYL
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 22/06/2020 Standard 2.3 Implementing processes Keywords Lack follow-up procedures Panel conclusion Full compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “ In its previous decision of inclusion (05/06/2015) the Register Committee flagged for attention whether follow-up procedures were introduced for degree assessments between the first ex-post accreditation and consecutive periodic re-accreditations. ACSUCYL has since its last review introduced a new system of annual follow-up procedures. The panel also confirmed that it was convinced that the follow-up procedures are well and consistently implemented. ”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.3 Implementing processes – SQAA – Compliance (2019) Formal follow-up processes
SQAA
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 03/04/2019 Standard 2.3 Implementing processes Keywords Formal follow-up processes Panel conclusion Substantial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “The review panel considered there was a lack of a formal follow-up by SQAA to "touch base with HEIs” before the next cyclical re-evaluation/re-accreditation in case of unconditionally positive decisions. The Register Committee further took note of SQAA's response to the review report, setting out its approach to monitoring higher education institutions' internal quality assurance systems during the re-accreditation cycles.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.3 Implementing processes – NEAQA – Partial compliance (2018) consistent implementation of a follow-up procedure & site visits
NEAQA
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 06/12/2018 Standard 2.3 Implementing processes Keywords consistent implementation of a follow-up procedure & site visits Panel conclusion Partial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “The review panel’s analysis showed that the agency has made improvements, having also introduced follow-up procedure for its audits. The Register Committee found that while the panel was satisfied with this improvement, the approach to follow-up should allow higher education institutions to also report progress in the implementation of recommendations before all external review procedures. The Register Committee further noted that site-visits are not consistently carried out by NEAQA for programme accreditation.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.3 Implementing processes – ANECA – Compliance (2018) EQA processes that include: self-assessment, site visit,
ANECA
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 11/09/2018 Standard 2.3 Implementing processes Keywords EQA processes that include: self-assessment, site visit, Panel conclusion Full compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “In ANECA’s last review, the Register Committee flagged for attention the implementation of the key elements of the standard i.e. self-evaluation, site visit in the development and implementation of the ACCREDITA programme. The panel’s evidence and analysis show that since its last review ANECA has revised the ACREDITA procedure, which now includes: a self-evaluation stage, a revision by an assessment committee during a site-visit, and a report providing guidance for the actions taken by the institution.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.3 Implementing processes – HAKA – Compliance (2018) Consistency and transparency in decision making
HAKA
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 13/06/2018 Standard 2.3 Implementing processes Keywords Consistency and transparency in decision making Panel conclusion Full compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “ Having evaluated the procedures for decision making by Quality Assessment Council for Higher Education (HEQAC), the panel concluded that the standard for consistency and transparency in decision-making has received considerable attention and improvement since the last review.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.3 Implementing processes – HCERES – Partial compliance (2017) Lack of consistent follow-up procedures
HCERES
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 20/06/2017 Standard 2.3 Implementing processes Keywords Lack of consistent follow-up procedures Panel conclusion Partial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “In its decision of initial inclusion (18/05/2011) the Register Committee flagged the introduction of site visits as well as follow-up procedures undertaken by HCERES. The panel noted that since its last review HCERES did not ensure a consistent follow-up in its EQA activities due to a prolonged process of succeeding evaluations (that included the introduction of site evaluations). The agency replaced the follow-up with a progress report that higher education institutions would prepare as part of their self-evaluation so as to facilitate and speed up the process. Moreover, the panel noted that evaluations of programmes are carried out without site visits.”
Full decision: see agency register entry