Database of Precedents
-
2.4 Peer-review experts – AI – Compliance (2016) Involvement of external experts
AI
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 03/12/2016 Standard 2.4 Peer-review experts Keywords Involvement of external experts Panel conclusion Full compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “In its decision of inclusion Register Committee flagged the involvement of external experts in initial accreditation.The Register Committee noted that the accreditation panels of AI now include at least three members and consist of professional experts with higher education experience and a student for each procedure. ”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.6 Reporting – AI – Compliance (2016) readibility and usefulness of reports
AI
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 03/12/2016 Standard 2.6 Reporting Keywords readibility and usefulness of reports Panel conclusion Substantial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “In its decision of inclusion the Register Committee flagged the readability and usefulness of accreditation reports for students and general audiences.The review panel noted that the agency still needs to improve the readability of reports and while the structure and format of AI reports are in general clear and concise they mostly serve the purpose of the accreditation decision.While the agency is compliant in terms of accessibility and publication of reports, the Register Committee noted that the readability of reports is limited to a specialised audience. ”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance – AI – Partial compliance (2016) Stakeholder involvement
AI
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 03/12/2016 Standard 3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance Keywords Stakeholder involvement Panel conclusion Partial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “The Register Committee flagged in its decision of inclusion the effectiveness of the Accreditation Institution’s activities to engage with its stakeholders.The Committee noted that the involvement of stakeholders is generally ensured trough consultations by the Ministry and the Accreditation Council (Review Report, p. 29), while AI’s only formalised form of stakeholder involvement is related to the thematic analysis of reports. The Committee concurred with the panel’s conclusion that AI should further develop stakeholder involvement in its governance and work in order to meet the agency’s objectives of enhancement and further development of quality assurance.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
3.3 Independence – AI – Compliance (2016) Operational independence/limited ability in defining its own rules of procedure and criteria
AI
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 03/12/2016 Standard 3.3 Independence Keywords Operational independence/limited ability in defining its own rules of procedure and criteria Panel conclusion Full compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “In its decision of inclusion of 18/11/2010 the Register Committee noted that “the Ministry defines in detail the criteria applied by the Accreditation Institution” and that the “independence-related impact of this situation in the long term should receive particular attention”. The panel commented that even though the minister lays down the rules of procedure for both institutional and programme accreditation, the level of detail and number of criteria has improved allowing AI to further elaborate on its own criteria.The panel stated that the Executive Director of AI is appointed by the minister following the recommendation of the Accreditation Council. The panel’s view is that this is an appropriate solution since AI does not have any governing board or other bodies to fulfil this function.The outcomes of AI’s quality assurance processes are the responsibility of the Accreditation Council. The panel noted that the members of the Accreditation Council are appointed by the minister of Higher Education on the basis of recommendations from relevant organisation. The minister also appoints the Executive Director of AI on the recommendation of the Accreditation Council. The review panel considered that similarly to AI, the Accreditation Council is not subject to the power of instruction from the Minister of Higher Education concerning accreditation and therefore the minister cannot affect or reverse any of the Councils accreditation decisions. ”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
3.5 Resources – AI – Compliance (2016) human resources capacities
AI
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 03/12/2016 Standard 3.5 Resources Keywords human resources capacities Panel conclusion Full compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “The Register Committee flagged in its decision of inclusion (ESG 2005: standard ESG 3.4) AI’s capacity to sustain and develop the capacities and qualifications of its professional staff. The panel’s findings showed that human resources have steadily increased and that AI offers seminars and courses for staff members.The panel also commended the yearly individual meetings with staff whereby considerations are given to workload and possible needs for competence development.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.1 Consideration of internal quality assurance – IAAR – Compliance (2017) Standards for accreditation
IAAR
Application Initial Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 20/06/2017 Standard 2.1 Consideration of internal quality assurance Keywords Standards for accreditation Panel conclusion Substantial compliance Clarification request(s) Panel (20/04/2025)
RC decision Compliance “The Register Committee was unclear on whether IAAR used specific sets of standards for the above-mentioned accreditations and, if so, whether the panel had addressed their compliance with Part 1 of the ESG. The Committee therefore requested the panel to clarify this matter (letter of 25/04/2017). In its clarification letter (of 06/05/2017) the panel stated that IAAR had developed detailed sets of standards that follow a similar framework as in the case of IAAR’s regular accreditation procedure. The panel added that while the review did not permit a full enquiry into the variations of the field specific standards the panel was satisfied that the procedure was similarly implemented across all sets of standards and that they were published.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.2 Designing methodologies fit for purpose – IAAR – Partial compliance (2017) involvement of stakeholders (students)
IAAR
Application Initial Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 20/06/2017 Standard 2.2 Designing methodologies fit for purpose Keywords involvement of stakeholders (students) Panel conclusion Substantial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “The panel’s analysis showed that while IAAR involved a range of stakeholders in the ongoing review of the agency’s methodology, the panel found no evidence that student representative bodies had been consulted. The panel added that student involvement in IAAR’s relevant consultative and decision-making bodies was minimal.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.7 Complaints and appeals – IAAR – Partial compliance (2017) Conflict of interest: same members in the Appeals Commission and Accreditation Council
IAAR
Application Initial Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 20/06/2017 Standard 2.7 Complaints and appeals Keywords Conflict of interest: same members in the Appeals Commission and Accreditation Council Panel conclusion Partial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “The panel noted that IAAR established a commission to handle appeals and complaints in late 2015 that consists of a number of members representing national representatives of employer bodies. The review panel formed the view that the membership of the Commission was not well aligned with its role and purpose, having the focus almost exclusively on employer representatives. The panel further added the potential conflict of interest considering the overlapping membership of the Appeals Commission that of the Accreditation Council. The panel recommended the broadening of the Commission’s membership and a separation from the members of the Accreditation Council”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance – IAAR – Compliance (2017) Separation of consultancy and accreditation procedures to avoid conflict of interest
IAAR
Application Initial Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 20/06/2017 Standard 3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance Keywords Separation of consultancy and accreditation procedures to avoid conflict of interest Panel conclusion Substantial compliance Clarification request(s) Panel (20/04/2025)
RC decision Compliance “The panel noted that IAAR carries out consultancy activities to assist institutions in the development of their internal quality assurance and to prepare them for accreditation (review report p. 8). While the panel stated that such activities were separated from the external quality assurance activities of IAAR (review report p. 10), no further analysis was provided on how that separation is ensured. The Committee therefore asked the panel to further elaborate on this issue. In its response (letter of 06/05/2017) the panel explained that consultancy activities take the form of seminar-trainings initiated at the request of the institution. According to the agency’s regulation on the External Expert Commission, the staff and external experts involved in the training cannot be part of the accreditation process at the same institution.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
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
-
2.3 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
-
2.4 Peer-review experts – AEQES – Compliance (2017) student involvement
AEQES
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 20/06/2017 Standard 2.4 Peer-review experts Keywords student involvement Panel conclusion Full compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “The review panel confirmed that students are now engaged in all AEQES evaluation panels, as full members of the panels, except for follow-up evaluations.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
3.3 Independence – AEQES – Compliance (2017) organisational and operational independence
AEQES
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 20/06/2017 Standard 3.3 Independence Keywords organisational and operational independence Panel conclusion Full compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “The review panel was satisfied that the 2014 decree on AEQES and the current organisational status and structure sufficiently demonstrate and safeguard AEQES independence. In particular, AEQES gained the ability to hire staff from its own budget, independently of the Ministry”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
3.5 Resources – AEQES – Partial compliance (2017) financial sustainability
AEQES
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 20/06/2017 Standard 3.5 Resources Keywords financial sustainability Panel conclusion Partial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “Apart from the greater autonomy in staff appointments that AEQES gained, the financial resources available to the agency have not changed since
2012. The review panel noted that an increase is not foreseeable in the near future and that AEQES might face a negative financial balance in 2020.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.1 Consideration of internal quality assurance – ACQUIN – Compliance (2016) Criteria applied
ACQUIN
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by GAC Decision of 03/12/2016 Standard 2.1 Consideration of internal quality assurance Keywords Criteria applied Panel conclusion Full compliance Clarification request(s) Panel (20/04/2025)
RC decision Compliance “While clearly addressing how ACQUIN's criteria for programme accreditation and system accreditation address the elements described in ESG 1.1 – 1.10, the review report did not discuss in detail how the criteria used in ACQUIN’s other activities within the scope of the ESG correspond to ESG Part 1. Since there was no explicit mapping provided by ACQUIN or the review panel, the Register Committee sought clarification from the review panel chair. The Register Committee considered the panel's explanation (letter of 16/11/16) that the panel had reviewed in detail the criteria applied in ACQUIN's various activities, and established that ESG Part 1 was reflected in them.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.3 Implementing processes – ACQUIN – Partial compliance (2016) Not clearly defined processes for institutional audits offered in Austria
ACQUIN
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by GAC Decision of 03/12/2016 Standard 2.3 Implementing processes Keywords Not clearly defined processes for institutional audits offered in Austria Panel conclusion Substantial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “The review report demonstrates that ACQUIN's external quality assurance processes are clearly defined in public documents, except for institutional audits offered in Austria. The Register Committee concurred with the panel's view that the process should be clearly defined and published despite the low demand. The Register Committee took note of ACQUIN's statement on the external review report, which states that audits in Austria follow the same procedure as system accreditation in Germany. The Register Committee, however, understands from the review report that this is not stipulated in ACQUIN's public documentation. When ACQUIN's registration was last renewed, EQAR had flagged for attention whether ACQUIN’s international accreditation and evaluation activities take place on a clearly defined and transparent basis, within and beyond the EHEA. The Register Committee concluded that this flag has been resolved for ACQUIN's international accreditation activity in general, but not for audits in Austria”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.4 Peer-review experts – ACQUIN – Partial compliance (2016) Inadequate and insufficient preparation of experts in system accreditation
ACQUIN
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by GAC Decision of 03/12/2016 Standard 2.4 Peer-review experts Keywords Inadequate and insufficient preparation of experts in system accreditation Panel conclusion Substantial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “The panel considered that ACQUIN generally follows common practice in terms of preparation of experts, but remarked critically that ”ACQUIN only ensures a minimum for the preparation for the system accreditation”. The panel specifically noted that the preparation of experts in system accreditation was less intensive compared to other agencies working under the auspices of the German Accreditation Council (GAC). Consequently, the panel recommended that ACQUIN offer at least voluntary trainings or workshops to those experts. The development of ACQUIN's activities for training and preparation of experts was flagged for attention when ACQUIN's registration was last renewed. Considering the assessment by the panel, the Register Committee concluded that practice did not change materially and the issue was therefore not resolved”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.5 Criteria for outcomes – ACQUIN – Partial compliance (2016) consistency in decision making across different technical committees.
ACQUIN
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by GAC Decision of 03/12/2016 Standard 2.5 Criteria for outcomes Keywords consistency in decision making across different technical committees. Panel conclusion Substantial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “In the previous renewal of ACQUIN’s registration, EQAR had flagged for attention “ whether measures have been taken to enhance consistency in decision-making across different technical committees”. The panel reported that it had discussed the consistency of evaluations and decisions by ACQUIN in detail during the site visit. The panel established that no structural change had been implemented to improve the situation since the last review. While the report refers to one formal meeting between the chairs of the standing committees in 2014, such meetings do not seem to be institutionalised and regular. Given the assessment by the panel, the Register Committee concluded that the flag was not resolved”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
3.5 Resources – ACQUIN – Compliance (2016) human resources planning and estimation of workload
ACQUIN
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by GAC Decision of 03/12/2016 Standard 3.5 Resources Keywords human resources planning and estimation of workload Panel conclusion Partial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “The review report described that financial losses experienced by ACQUIN have eventually been recovered by reducing activity costs. The Register Committee was able to follow the panel's concerns with regard to human resources planning and estimation of workload. Despite the fact that planning and documentation require improvement, the Register Committee did, however, not understand that the number of accreditation procedures conducted by ACQUIN significantly exceeds its capacity. Moreover, the Register Committee appreciated that an agency operating in a market-based system naturally experiences greater fluctuation than an agency in a monopoly situation”
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