1. Internal Quality Assurance Applied by Asian Universities
Associate Professor Tan Kay Chuan
Director, Office of Quality Management

2. Drivers of Internal Quality Assurance
International Quality Standards
Regional Quality Standards
Professional Bodies
National Quality Standards
The drivers of quality assurance in Asian universities are influenced by international, regional, national and professional bodies quality standards, the university’s strategies and the needs to comply with national policies on quality in university education. There is no single internal quality system adopted by Asian Universities considering the maturity and diverse development of quality in university education and the varied frameworks introduced by their education agencies.

3. International Quality Standards
ISO 9001:2008 is the standard that provides a set of standardized requirements for a quality management system
Output
(5) Management
Responsibility -
(8) Measurement,
Analysis, Improvement
(7) Product
Realization
(6) Resource
Management C U S T O M E R Q I N A F
Product
(4)Continual improvement
Quality Management System (QMS)
Input
The ISO 9001 quality management system standard is an example of the international quality standard adopted by some Asian universities in Malaysia and Indonesia. The International Workshop Agreement (IWA) provides guidance to educational organisations for implementing an effective quality management system in conjunction with and based on ISO 9001 standard.
Source: IWA 2: Quality Management Systems - Guidelines for the application of ISO 9001:2000 in education

4. International Quality Standards
IWA 2: Quality Management Systems - Guidelines for the application of ISO 9001:2000 in education
Principles
Description
Process approach
Identify the degree to which each operational process creates learner value
Customer focus
Enablers like technology, skill, expertise and culture that lead to the creation of learner value
System approach
Each operational process to achieve its objectives from an administrative standpoint
Leadership
Establishes vision, creates policy and leads the organization in responding to changes in the environment
Factual approach
Decisions based on facts and not on convenient speculation
Supplier relationship
Collaboration with partners to obtain optimal wisdom, skill and creativity to achieve learner value
Involvement of people
Maximizes the use of its people competence, wisdom, skill and creativity
Continuous improvement
Improvement in learning process and learner’s personal learning to create values
The guidance to management offered in this International Workshop Agreement and ISO 9001 to lead organizations toward improved performance is based on the eight quality management principles. An example for educational organizations follows.
Process approach: educational organizations should adopt a process approach when developing and implementing a quality management system. The organization should identify the degree to which each
operational process creates learner value. For this reason IT should include the processes related to the aim of the organization. Understanding interactions among processes is important for the educational
organization to improve processes while balancing the system at large.
Understanding core competence (customer focus) includes various enablers to ensure competitive advantage of the educational organization. These enablers include technology, skill, expertise and
educational organization's culture. The collective strength specific to the educational organization leads to creation of learner value. The educational organization's core competence should support innovation by
adapting to changes in the education environment to maintain ITS competitive advantage.
Total optimization (systems approach to management) enables each operational process to achieve its objectives from an administrative standpoint.
Visionary leadership (leadership) in educational organizations establishes vision, creates policy to realize the vision, and leads the educational organizatiOn in responding promptly to change in the education environment.
Factual approach (factual approach to decision making) ensures administrative decisions based on clearly understood facts and not on convenient speculation. To this end, information and wisdom are
combined with analysis, logical thinking, and the scientific approach.
Collaboration with partners (mutually beneficial supplier relationships) is important to obtain optimal wisdom, skill, and creativity to achieve learner value.
Involvement of people is the most effective and efficient way for an educational organization to achieve ITS objectives, to facilitate involvement of all people in the educational organization, and to make a
maximum use of its people's competence, wisdom, skill, and creativity.
Continuous improvement of the educational organization's learning process and the learner's personal learning enables educational organizations to keep creating values. This enables sustained growth in the
external educational environment. It increases learning, personal wisdom, and the educational organization'S wisdom in an innovative and constructive way.

5. Regional Quality Standards
ASEAN University Network
AUN recognises the importance of quality in higher education, and the need to develop a holistic quality assurance system to raise academic standards and enhance education, research and service among AUN member universities. In 1998, it mooted the AUN-QA initiative which led to the development of AUN-QA models. Following that, manuals and guidelines at institutional, IQA system and programme level were developed. At the end of 2010, AUN had successfully completed 10 actual quality assessments at programme level involving 23 undergraduate programmes in 7 AUN member universities within a 3-year period.
Source: AUN QA Network

6. Regional Quality Standards
ASEAN University Network
Strategic (QA at Institutional Level)
Systemic (Internal QA System)
Tactical
(QA at Programme Level)
The AUN-QA Models comprise strategic, systemic and tactical dimensions and are subjected to both internal and external QA including accreditation.  
Internal QA ensures that an institution, system or programme has policies and mechanisms in place to make sure that it is meeting its own objectives and standards. External QA is performed by an organisation or individuals outside the institution. The assessors evaluate the operation of the institution, system or programme in order to determine whether it meets the agreed upon or predetermined standards.
Source: AUN QA Network

7. Institutional QA Model
Regional Quality Standards
ASEAN University Network
Stakeholder Satisfaction
Quality Assurance and (Inter)national Benchmarking A C H I E V M N T S
Educational
Activities
Research
Community
Service
Policy
Plan
Management
Human
Resources
Funding
Mission
Goals
Aims
Strategic QA at institutional level starts with the requirements of the stakeholders which are translated into the university’s vision, mission, goals and aims or objectives. This means that quality assurance and quality assessment will always start with the question as to the mission and goals (Column 1) and end with the achievements (column 4) to fulfill stakeholder satisfaction.
The second column shows how the university is planning to achieve the goals:
translation of the goals into a policy document and policy strategy;
the management structure and management style of the university
human resource management: input of staff to achieve the goals
funding to achieve the intended goals
The third column shows the core activities of a university:
the educational activities of teaching and learning
research activities
the contribution to society and to the support and development of the community.
For continuous improvement, the institution should implement an effective QA system and benchmark its practices to achieve educational excellence.
Institutional QA Model
Source: AUN QA Network

8. Internal Quality Assurance
Regional Quality Standards
ASEAN University Network
Internal Quality Assurance
Follow up
Student
Progress
Pass Rate
Drop-out Rate
Feedback from the
Labour Market
and Alumni
Research
Performance
Evaluation
Course and
Curriculum
Service
Assurance
Assessments
Quality
Staff
Facilities
Student Support
SWOT Analysis
Inter-Collegial
Audits
Information
System
Handbook
Monitoring
Instruments
Special QA
Processes
Specific QA
An IQA system is the totality of systems, resources and information devoted to setting up, maintaining and improving the quality and standards of teaching, student learning experience, research, and service to the community. The AUN-QA model for an IQA system (see Figure 4) consists of 11 criteria covering the following areas:
 internal quality assurance framework;
monitoring instruments;
evaluation instruments;
special QA-processes to safeguard specific activities;
specific QA-instruments; and
follow-up activities for making improvements
IQA System Model
Source: AUN QA Network

9. QA at Programme Level (Original)
Regional Quality Standards
ASEAN University Network
Stakeholders Satisfaction
Quality Assurance and (Inter)national benchmarking
Programme Specification
Programme Content
Programme
Organisation
Student
Assessment
Academic Staff Quality
Support Staff Quality
Student Quality
Facilities & Infrastructure
Quality
Assurance
Teaching/
Learning
Student Evaluation
Curriculum Design
Stakeholders Feedback
Graduate Profile
Pass Rates
Drop Out Rates
Employability
Expected
Outcomes A c h i e v m n t s
Didactic Concept
Student Advice & Support
Staff
Development
Activities
Graduation
Time
The AUN-QA Model for programme level focuses on teaching and learning with regard to the following dimensions:
 quality of input
quality of process
quality of output
 At the end of 2010, AUN had successfully completed ten actual quality assessments at programme level involving twenty-three undergraduate programmes in seven AUN member universities within a 3-year period. To further enhance and sustain quality assurance practices and quality in higher education, AUN established an AUN-QA Documentation Review Committee and Procedure to keep its documents updated and relevant. The original AUN-QA for programme level was revised to enhance implementation and assessment efficiency and effectiveness
QA at Programme Level (Original)
Source: AUN QA Network

10. QA at Programme Level (Revised)
Regional Quality Standards
ASEAN University Network
Stakeholders Satisfaction
Quality Assurance and (Inter)national benchmarking
Programme Specification
Programme Structure & Content
Student
Assessment
Academic Staff Quality
Support Staff Quality
Student Quality
Facilities & Infrastructure
Quality Assurance of Teaching & Learning
Stakeholders Feedback
Pass Rates
Drop Out Rates
Employability
Expected
Learning
Outcomes A c h i e v m n t s
Teaching & Learning Strategy
Student Advice & Support
Staff
Development
Activities
Graduation
Time
Research
The revised AUN-QA model for programme level starts with the expected learning outcomes (1st Column). There are four rows in the middle of the model and the first row addresses the question of how the expected learning outcomes are translated into the programme; and how they can be achieved via teaching and learning strategy and student assessment.
 The second row considers the "input" into the process including academic and support staff; student quality; student advice and support; and facilities and infrastructure.
 The third row addresses the quality assurance process of teaching and learning, staff development and stakeholders feedback.
 The fourth row focuses on the outcomes of the learning process including pass rates and dropout rates, the average time to graduate, employability of the graduates, and research activities.
 The final column addresses the achievements and ends with the fulfillment of stakeholders and the continuous improvement of the quality assurance and benchmarking.
QA at Programme Level (Revised)
Source: AUN QA Network

11. Qualification Framework
National Quality Standards
Country
QA Body/Agency
Qualification Framework
Brunei Darussalam
Brunei Darussalam National Accreditation Council (BDNAC)
Brunei National Qualifications Framework (BNQF, in Progress)
Cambodia
Accreditation Committee of Cambodia (ACC)
Nil
China
Ministry of Education
Hong Kong
the Hong Kong Council for Accreditation of Academic and Vocational Qualifications (HKCAAVQ)
The Hong Kong Qualifications Framework
India
The National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC)
National Qualification Framework in Technical Vocational Education and Training
Indonesia
National Accreditation Board for Higher Education
BAN-PT
Japan
Japan University Accreditation Association
JUAA University Standards
The national quality standards in Asia are at different stages of development and maturity. The accreditation bodies are administered by the education ministry or its appointed agencies. Separate accreditation systems are also adopted for public and private universities in some Asian countries like the Phillippines and Singapore.

12. Qualification Framework
National Quality Standards
Country
QA Body/Agency
Qualification Framework
Lao PDR
Quality Assurance Centre, Department of Higher Education, Ministry of Education
Nil
Malaysia
Malaysian Qualifications Agency
Malaysian Qualifications Framework
Myanmar
Philippines
CHED, PAASCU
Philippine National Qualifications Framework
Singapore
Higher Education Quality Assurance Section, Ministry of Education
Quality Assurance Framework of Universities
Thailand
Commision on Higher Education Office for National Educatioin, Standard & Assessment
National Qualification Framework
Vietnam
General Department for Education Testing and Accreditation (GDETA), Ministry of Education and Training

13. Professional Bodies International Professional Bodies
Regional Professional Bodies
Quality accreditation could also be driven by the need to meet professional bodies (such as the institute of Engineers) requirements especially in terms of programme content and learning outcomes. Accreditation or compliance to such international and national professional agencies such as ABET or the national representation of engineers, medical doctors, architecture, accountancy, etc is available.

14. Internal Quality Assurance in General
Stakeholders’ Requirements
Input
Process
Output
Students
Curricula
Faculty staff
Non-faculty staff
Facilities & Infrastructure
Teaching resources
Teaching & Learning
Staff development
Student support & evaluation
Research
Administration
Skilled and employable graduates
Research publications & output
Contribution to community
From the drivers of the various QA initiatives, internal QA of Asian universities covers stakeholders requirements and satisfaction, input, process and output. A systems approach to quality assurance requires a focus on the requirements and satisfaction of stakeholders and the quality dimensions of input, process and output. The input segment includes students, teachers, curricula and facilities. Regarding process, the emphasis is on teaching, learning interactions, research, student support and evaluation, staff development, administrative practices. Output includes the quality of graduates, research output and service to the community.
Stakeholders’ Satisfaction

15. Characteristics of QA in Asia
Most countries have established QA bodies
Uneven development in national capacity
Core standards and criteria are quite similar
QA framework varies: institution, programme, or both
Applicable to public or private universities or both
Generally, most countries in Asia have established QA bodies or guided by some international and regional quality standards and professional bodies. Due to the various degree of economics development, Asia tends to have uneven development of QA at the national level. As such, regional QA like the AUN QA becomes attractive as an alternative to QA accreditation for countries like Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar and Vietnam. Nevertheless, standards adopted are almost similar to those adopted by AUN QA. QA frameworks are applicable to institutional and programme level to both public and private universities.

16. QA Challenges in Asia
Different phases of Asian QA development and maturity
Harmonization of Asian QA standards
Recognition of Asian QA standards
Different phases of Asian QA development and maturity may impede the objectives of harmonizing and recognition of Asian QA standards. It is for this reason that the AUN initiated the CLMV training in the early part of this year under the Japan ASEAN Cooperation. Harmonizing of Asian QA standards would bring about greater efficiency as compliance to various QA requirements result in assessment fatigue and separate reports and documentations. Harmonization increases recognition of Asian Universities and student mobility across borders. The cooperation with the APQN and DAAD is the step forward for ASEAN to move closer to this objective.

17. Closing the Quality Gap
Education systems in ASEAN countries are different. While ASEAN-6 has a long experience of building its own QA system, CLMV countries have just begun their journey on the QA standard. Quality improvement is significant in leading universities in ASEAN towards a harmonisation in education. The AUN realises that QA is bedrock for maintaining, improving and enhancing teaching, research and the overall academic standards.
Source: AUN QA Network

18. Harmonization of Asian QA Standards
ASEAN University Network – Quality Assurance (AUN - QA), established in 1998
Asia-Pacific Quality Network (APQN), established in 2005
ASEAN Quality Assurance Network (AQAN), established in 2008
APQN:
‘To enhance the quality of higher education in Asia and the Pacific region through strengthening the work of quality assurance agencies and extending the cooperation between them.’
AQAN:
The aims and purposes of the AQAN are:
To promote and share good practices of quality assurance in higher education in the Southeast Asia region;
To collaborate on capacity building of quality assurance in higher education in the region;
To share information on higher education and facilitate mutual recognition of qualifications throughout the region; and
To develop a regional quality assurance framework for Southeast Asia.
AUN-QA:
To be a focal point for coordinating activities in order to move forwards the harmonisation of educational standards and continuous improvement quality of universities in ASEAN

19. Harmonization of Asian QA Standards
Chiba Principle, 2008
To provide guidance to higher education providers and QA agencies in enhancing QA policies and practices
Chiba Principle Quality Framework
Internal Quality Assurance: key principles guiding institutions in assuring their own institutional quality
Quality Assurance Agencies: principles guiding the QA agencies and their management
Quality Assurance Assessment: guiding principle for the assessment of institution and programmes by the institution themselves or the QA agency
The reference point for quality assurance in Asian Countries are the “Chiba Principles” which have been drafted under the Brisbane Communiqué in Chiba, Japan in 2008 during the APQN Annual Conference. Based on the acknowledgement of the diversity in quality assurance, they provide guidance for higher education institutions and quality assurance agencies in enhancing quality assurance policies and practices.
Emphasis is on a generic approach, applicable and relevant to all higher institutions and quality assurance agencies. The breadth of the principles allows for the different roles of quality assurance agencies, i.e. accreditation, audit or both and also for different levels of assessment, institution, programmes and/or both. The underlying view is that the prime responsibility for quality assurance lies with the individual higher education institutions.
Ton Vroeijenstijn, 2009, “Quality Assurance in Asian and European Higher Education – Opportunities for Inter- and Intra- Regional Cooperation”

20. QA Collaboration Beyond Asia
Regional cooperation in QA
- allows for mutual learning, increases transparency of and trust in higher education systems and thus enables that degrees and study periods are recognized and mobility of students and academic staff is improving.
- promotes independent external assessments, because the credibility of the institution is higher, internationally and nationally, when peers do not come from the home country.
- raises efficiency and cost-effectiveness, especially for small and medium sized university systems.