TAKLIMAT AUDIT PRESTASI AKADEMIK (ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE AUDIT) SECTION 3 : THE INTERNAL QUALITY AUDIT SECTION 4 : THE INSTITUTIONAL AUDIT MALAYSIAN QUALIFICATIONS AGENCY 1NAJMI/17Nov2008V2

Content Internal Quality AuditInternal Quality Audit Internal Quality Audit Task ForceInternal Quality Audit Task Force Self-Review Portfolio (MQA-03)Self-Review Portfolio (MQA-03) Institutional AuditInstitutional Audit The Audit VisitThe Audit Visit The Audit ReportThe Audit Report Findings & JudgmentsFindings & Judgments 2NAJMI/17Nov2008V2

Internal Quality Audit (IQA) Self review conducted by HEP.Self review conducted by HEP. Concern with HEP own objectives & its success in achieving them.Concern with HEP own objectives & its success in achieving them. Based on:Based on: – guidelines on good practices – 9 areas of evaluation 9 areas of evaluation9 areas of evaluation 3NAJMI/17Nov2008V2

Self-Review Activities Data collectionData collection – accurate & consistent Data reviewData review Analyse data to identify HEPs strength, areas of concern & opportunities.Analyse data to identify HEPs strength, areas of concern & opportunities. Develop strategies to ensure:Develop strategies to ensure: – strengths maintained – problems addressed Make recommendations for quality enhancementMake recommendations for quality enhancement 44NAJMI/17Nov2008V2

Focus of the Self Review Self-questioning on each area can be structured as follows: i.What actions are we taking in relation to this area? ii.Why were these actions chosen? iii.How do we check their effectiveness? What performance indicators do we have? iv.Are the indicators effective? v.What do we do as a result of the review? vi.Can we measure the degree of achievements? What are the actual outcomes? vii.Can we improve on the existing actions, even on those that are already effective? 55NAJMI/17Nov2008V2

Effective Quality Management HEP policy & procedures should be in writingHEP policy & procedures should be in writing Approved through institutional processesApproved through institutional processes Published & accessiblePublished & accessible Implemented by HEPImplemented by HEP 6NAJMI/17Nov2008V2

Internal Quality Audit Task Force HEP forms a self-review task force. CoordinatorCoordinator Members:Members: –Administrators –Heads of departments and programmes –Senior or junior academics –Students –Alumni –Other stakeholders 77NAJMI/17Nov2008V2

Consists of:Consists of: Part A: General Information on HEPPart A: General Information on HEP Part B: Information on 9 areas of evaluationPart B: Information on 9 areas of evaluation –May use template provided in Section 3 Part C: Self Review ReportPart C: Self Review Report – Should include the following: Strengths of HEP in meeting its goals;Strengths of HEP in meeting its goals; Areas of concern that need to be addressed;Areas of concern that need to be addressed; Strategies for maintaining and enhancing the strengths;Strategies for maintaining and enhancing the strengths; Steps that have been taken to address the problem areas; andSteps that have been taken to address the problem areas; and Conclusions and recommendations for change.Conclusions and recommendations for change. The Self-Review Portfolio (MQA-03) 88NAJMI/17Nov2008V2

9 The Institutional Audit The Institutional Audit External independent auditExternal independent audit Assess institutional effectivenessAssess institutional effectiveness Variety of purposes:Variety of purposes: – comprehensive assessment of HEP – specific aspects of HEP NAJMI/17Nov2008V2

The Role Players The Liaison Officer (from HEP)The Liaison Officer (from HEP) –Link between HEP & MQA Representatives of the HEP (Auditees)Representatives of the HEP (Auditees) Audit panelsAudit panels –Selection guided by characteristics of HEP, type of audit, expertise & experience of the panel MQA OfficerMQA Officer –Coordinator & resource person 10 NAJMI/17Nov2008V2

The Audit Visit The purpose: To verify HEP’s Self Review PortfolioTo verify HEP’s Self Review Portfolio to acquire further insight into HEP’s operationsto acquire further insight into HEP’s operations Qualitative assessment of factors not easily documentedQualitative assessment of factors not easily documented 11 NAJMI/17Nov2008V2

THE AUDIT TIMELINE THE AUDIT TIMELINE 12 NAJMI/17Nov2008V2

The Audit Report The Oral Exit ReportThe Oral Exit Report –The report is presented by the Chairperson at the end of the visit – Exit Meeting -HEP areas of strengths; -HEP areas of strengths; -Areas of Concern; -Areas of Concern; -Opportunities for improvement -Opportunities for improvement The Draft ReportThe Draft Report –Draft Report prepared by chairperson with the help of panel members –Draft Report is sent to HEP for verification of facts and feedback 13 NAJMI/17Nov2008V2

The Audit Report The Final Audit ReportThe Final Audit Report –Conclusions made through interpretations of specific evidences and observed facts. –The report will assist HEP in continual quality improvement. – Will include commendation, affirmation and recommendation 14NAJMI/17Nov2008V2

FINDINGS AND JUDGMENT The panel may propose one of the following:- For Academic Performance Audit (APA)For Academic Performance Audit (APA) –Highlight affirmation, commendation and areas of concern. –Indicate the performance of institution on all 9 areas of evaluation. –No specific decision (pass or fail). For continuation or cessation of Programme AccreditationFor continuation or cessation of Programme Accreditation –Maintain Accreditation. –Cease Accreditation. For Self-Accreditation StatusFor Self-Accreditation Status –Grant Self-Accreditation status –Not granted Self-Accreditation Status MQA Institutional Audit Committee will make decisions base on proposal by the panel of assessors. 15NAJMI/17Nov2008V2

Appeal All appeals can be made in relation to: a) factual contents of the reports; b) substantive errors within the report; or c) any substantive inconsistency between the oral exit report, the final audit report and the decision of the MQA. 16NAJMI/17Nov2008V2

Follow Up The purpose is: To get feedback on the report and the audit process, and on the extent to which the HEP considers the Report to be authoritative, rigorous, fair and perceptive;To get feedback on the report and the audit process, and on the extent to which the HEP considers the Report to be authoritative, rigorous, fair and perceptive; To ensure corrective actions are taken if required; andTo ensure corrective actions are taken if required; and To have a dialogue with those responsible for follow up action as to how the recommendations will be integrated into the HEP and department’s continual quality improvement plan.To have a dialogue with those responsible for follow up action as to how the recommendations will be integrated into the HEP and department’s continual quality improvement plan. 17NAJMI/17Nov2008V2

INSTITUTIONAL AUDIT PROCESS INSTITUTIONAL AUDIT PROCESS 18 NAJMI/17Nov2008V2

COMPARISON OF PROGRAMME ACCREDITATION AND INSTITUTIONAL AUDIT PROCESSES COMPARISON OF PROGRAMME ACCREDITATION AND INSTITUTIONAL AUDIT PROCESSES 19 NAJMI/17Nov2008V2

Malaysian Qualifications Agency (MQA) 14 B, Menara PKNS-PJ 17, Jalan Yong Shook Lin Petaling Jaya, Selangor Tel: NAJMI/17Nov2008V2