Database of Precedents
-
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
-
2.2 Designing methodologies fit for purpose – THEQC – Compliance (2025) fitness for purpose of follow-up processes
THEQC
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 27/06/2025 Standard 2.2 Designing methodologies fit for purpose Keywords fitness for purpose of follow-up processes Panel conclusion Compliance Clarification request(s) Panel (13/06/2025)
RC decision Compliance “9. The Register Committee, noted that THEQC requires each higher education institution to perform self-assessment procedure and prepare a report (ISER) annually, regardless of the institution’s participation in the agency’s review procedures in that year. The Committee understood that these annual ISER are later considered as part of the review procedures when they take place (ESG 2.3 in review report).
10. While the Register Committee could follow the panel’s conclusion and judgement of the standard, the agency should consider that the requirement for higher education institutions in preparing and submitting ISER on an annual basis might create a heavy workload and might affect the fitness for purpose of its activities, taking into consideration also the maturity of higher education institutions’ internal quality assurance systems after having gone through several external quality assurance procedures.”
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 – HCERES – Partial compliance (2022) follow-up with limited value added, no students interviewed in site visits
HCERES
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 28/06/2022 Standard 2.3 Implementing processes Keywords follow-up with limited value added, no students interviewed in site visits Panel conclusion Substantial compliance Clarification request(s) Panel (14/06/2022)
RC decision Partial compliance “18. The panel noted that HCERES programme evaluation panels do not meet with students during review visits. The panel discussed the new follow-up process introduced for institutional evaluation only, but noted that some questions remained regarding the added value given that there is no analysis or feedback in direct response to follow-up reports.
19. The panel considered that HCERES made improvements since the last review, as site visits were not carried out for programme evaluations at all previously and given there was no follow-up process previously.
20. While the Register Committee acknowledged that significant progress has been made, it did not consider that HCERES complies with the standard yet in light of the limited added value of the follow-up process and the fact that students are not interviewed during site visits. The Committee therefore did not concur with the panel, but concluded that HCERES remains partially compliant with ESG 2.3.”
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
-
2.3 Implementing processes – AEQES – Compliance (2017) consistent follow up procedures
AEQES
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 20/06/2017 Standard 2.3 Implementing processes Keywords consistent follow up procedures Panel conclusion Full compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “The Register Committee noted that AEQES has acted on the recommendations made in the 2011 review and adopted reinforced follow-up procedures in 2015.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.3 Implementing processes – MusiQuE – Compliance (2016) consistent follow-up policy
MusiQuE
Application Initial Review Full, coordinated by NASM Decision of 06/06/2016 Standard 2.3 Implementing processes Keywords consistent follow-up policy Panel conclusion Substantial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “The Review Panel noted that the follow-up procedure is only compulsory for MusiQuE’s accreditation reviews at present.While the Register Committee acknowledged that it is more difficult to impose a follow-up procedure in a voluntary review than an obligatory one, the Committee underlined that MusiQuE is free to design the contractual conditions and requirements for institutions.The Register Committee thus noted the Review Panel’s recommendation that MusiQuE should implement a consistent follow-up policy for all different types of review.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.3 Implementing processes – THEQC – Compliance (2021) new accreditation programm, follow-up process not yet defined.
THEQC
Application Initial Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 18/03/2021 Standard 2.3 Implementing processes Keywords new accreditation programm, follow-up process not yet defined. Panel conclusion Substantial compliance Clarification request(s) Agency (09/10/2020)
RC decision Compliance “Compliance Compliance While the Register Committee noted – from the agency’s statement to the review report – that THEQC had introduced the new maturity levels for internal QA systems, the Committee was unclear whether any changes were made to the agency’s follow-up processes and has therefore sought further clarification from the agency.The agency explained in its clarification letter that an Institutional Follow-up Program (IFuP) was initiated at the beginning of 2020 and it is carried out for all institutions that have passed through an initial institutional external evaluation. The follow-up team performs a preliminary check of the institutional self-evaluation reports, performance indicators and other additional documents followed by a one-day online site-visit, which results in an Institutional Follow-up Report (IFuR) published by THEQC.
The Committee further noted that THEQC has only just initiated the Institutional Accreditation Programme (IAP); the follow-up process for this procedure has not yet been defined. new accreditation programm, follow-up process not yet defined.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.3 Implementing processes – AKKORK – Compliance (2020) Lack follow-up procedures
AKKORK
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 22/06/2020 Standard 2.3 Implementing processes Keywords Lack follow-up procedures Panel conclusion Partial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “In its decision of inclusion, the Register Committee noted that AKKORK’s follow-up procedures were not consistently implemented for all off the agency’s external quality assurance activities and therefore flagged this matter for future attention. In its 2019 review report, the panel showed that AKKORK had taken steps to address its flag by including follow-up processes as part of its contracts with higher education institutions. The panel found that - while follow-ups are not part of all contracts signed with the reviewed institutions, that they are nevertheless carried out after a conditional accreditation. The panel further underlined a number of shortcomings related to AKKORK’s independent accreditation reviews at institutional level and AKKORK’s IQAS procedures. Since these procedures are no longer on offer by AKKORK, the Register Committee found that the panel’s concerns were therefore addressed”
Full decision: see agency register entry