Search results

Quality Assurance and Improvement Program (QAIP) is defined as “an ongoing and periodic assessment of the entire spectrum of audit and consulting work performed by the internal audit (IA) activity”. QAIP is an important component of internal auditors’ commitment to improve internal audit (IA) quality. The pressure towards improvement is urgent for central banks, in light of the vulnerabilities of their IA functions identified by the International Monetary Fund. The authors analyse the professional standards and the literature on IA and QAIP, aiming to propose general considerations to enhance IA quality and to develop and maintain a QAIP, with reference to central banks, also shedding light on the synergies among IA, QAIP and total quality management (TQM).

This paper reviews the most relevant professional standards in light of the professional and academic literature regarding IA quality, QAIP and their relationship with TQM. The analysis of these sources represents an important step to identify general measures to improve IA quality and develop effective QAIP in central banks.

This analysis shows that it is important to understand the rationale behind the development of an IA function and its theoretical and practical foundation, especially for complex organisations such as central banks. In addition, the authors show that QAIP represents an important tool to exploit the synergies between TQM and IA. These synergies could result in higher levels of quality for the IA function and more effective implementation of TQM within the whole organisation. Lastly, the authors provide practical suggestions to support the implementation of an effective QAIP in central banks and to spread TQM philosophy within the organisation.

The authors contribute to the scant literature on IA quality and QAIP by focusing on central banks and shedding light on the relationship with TQM. Regardless of their importance, these topics have been largely neglected by the extant literature.

Via the Institute of Internal Auditors, founded in 1941, the internal auditing profession actively promote the quality of internal auditors and internal audit activities. Since 1999, internal auditing standards have been revised. From 1 January 2002, all internal audit activities/any consultant rendering internal auditing services must undergo quality control, according to the provisions of Attribute Standard 1300. The revised internal auditing standards on quality control in internal audit activities reflect fundamental changes for the internal auditing profession. This article analyses the formal prescriptions and guidelines on quality in internal audit activities contained in the internal auditing standards and related practice advisories.

Using an external examiner in an institution is not a new phenomenon; the evidence of having an outsider to scrutinize the quality control process has been prevalent since the 1800s. However, the concept has undergone considerable changes and has been subjected to mounting criticism and validity of the process. There are several challenges that are faced by institutions in recruiting and defining the role of external examiners and the assumption that they are assessment literate. Universities are engaged in safeguarding the procedure, and at the same time, enhancing the quality standards. Researchers have been collaborating to create best practices and working on key developments that would ensure that degree standards are maintained in higher education. There is no “one size fits all” guidelines, but hiring an external examiner with the view to safeguarding academic quality is the prevalent norm across the globe. The book on the role of external examiners put forth such challenges and best practices by academia in various parts of the world. Authors have written about how to mitigate disadvantages and how to create opportunities without compromising the quality assurance process. International standards have been discussed with the view to make external examining a rigorous process that is fair, reliable and consistent.

Evaluation literature often emphasises the involvement and interest of local academic leaders as vital conditions for organisational improvement and change during and after assessment processes. Careful planning, organising, staffing and decision‐making in relation to the assessments are in particular highlighted as basic and important responsibilities for academic leaders. By studying a series of external quality assessments of educational programmes at universities and colleges in Norway, and analysing to what extent local department heads influenced the assessment processes, this article suggests that even if such basic leadership responsibilities are taken, a successful outcome of the assessment process is very much related to academic leaders’ ability to translate, interpret and give meaning to the assessment process. This result points to the significance of the cultural and symbolic sides of academic leadership during assessment processes.

Second of a two‐part series. Suggests that external, third‐party assessment schemes no longer meet the needs of total quality organizations and that what is needed is a self‐assessment process, based on a new reference model, capable of unifying an organization′s diverse assessment criteria regarding total quality. Highlights the “quality sub‐system” as the most important component in self‐assessment and examines a possible model in detail, including its relationship to the organizational system model. Concludes by summarizing ways in which external assessment can be improved significantly through incorporating these self‐assessment methods.

First of a two‐part series. Examines current schemes for self‐assessment and their limitations. Proposes a new method of measuring organisational excellence and continous improvement. Suggests what is needed is an “assessment model” of the company′s quality goals and results, created and analysed through surveys and measurement.

This study compares quality assurance across two case studies in the UK; a commercial organization operating in the private sector and a university. Case Study A is a private education organization specializing in the delivery of business and management programs. Case Study B is a university that delivers courses across four academic schools and through a number of partnerships. The business school offers a range of undergraduate and postgraduate degrees in business management, economics, accounting, events, tourism, marketing, entrepreneurialism, and human resources. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 11 organizational members from across the two organizations including 8 academics/tutors, 6 of whom are also employed as external examiners and/or external quality assurers (EQAs). The study compares the remit of both EQA working on behalf of awarding bodies and external examiners working on behalf of universities. The EQA role is conceptualized as an “arbiter of standards” whereas the external examiner is more likely to be considered as “critical friend.” This variance in conception has important implications for the way the process of quality assurance is conducted and utilized in support of program and institutional development. The research finds that one of the most significant differences between quality assurance processes in Case Studies A and B is the way in which student feedback is collected and utilized to support and enhance the process of review. This chapter provides recommendations designed to capitalize on the value of the quality assurance process through greater alignment of teaching and assessment strategy and policies and procedures in practice.

This paper aims to test the need in the Australian higher education (HE) sector for a national network for the peer review of assessment in response to the proposed HE standards framework and propose a sector-wide framework for calibrating and assuring achievement standards, both within and across disciplines, through the establishment of a peer review of assessment network (PRAN).

This study used a “proof of concept”approach to test the need for a national network, using consultations (n = 67) which included teleconference meetings [39], face-to-face meetings [2], Skype [1], presentations [19], state-based workshops [6] and a national forum. Quantitative data from evaluation surveys from state-based workshops and national forum were computer-analysed to generate descriptive statistics. Qualitative data arising from open-ended questionnaire responses were analysed through progressive categorisation and data coding designed to identify and refine data themes.

In all, 63 per cent of participants to the state-based workshops were satisfied with the workshop content. A further 29 per cent reported a high level of satisfaction. The interactive group discussions fostered a collaborative approach and facilitated engagement with the workshop content. A total of 58 per cent of participants to the national forum were satisfied with the forum, with a further 40 per cent reporting a high level of satisfaction. Participants indicated that presentation content was informative and covered a diverse range of topics and viewpoints highly relevant to the current clime across the HE sector.

Many participants strongly supported the establishment of a national PRAN, with overwhelming support (88 per cent) for the forum to be made an annual event.

This study contributes to existing literature and provides further evidence for the value of networks in the peer review of assessment to support academics in professional learning and calibration exercises.

In this chapter, Turkish educational system and institutional quality assessment initiatives of education are explained. And also, the relationship between educational quality assurance (QA) in Turkey and issues of effective schooling is summarised in terms of Turkish literature.

Education is widely accepted as a lifelong process. The school is an institution established in order to provide qualified education which contains complex and more abstract knowledge and ideas as well as literacy and simple numerical skills to the students. Each country has basically established education systems and educational institutions to ensure social integration, continuity and stability, and to sustain the social and cultural heritage of a society. Education in Turkey is one of the state’s basic functions according to the constitution and performed under the supervision and control of the state with the declaration of the Republic of Turkey. Ministry of National Education is responsible for the implementation of all education activities centrally managed in the Republic of Turkey. Higher Education Council (YÖK) is responsible for the management and thus the quality processes of the higher education institutions in Turkey. Two major attempts in this perspective are YÖK, which assesses the institutions with standards which are coherent with international accreditation institutions, and Higher Education Quality Council (YÖKAK), an independent and specific council which is established by YÖK. YÖK and YÖKAK are governmental-based quality-assessment institutions. Association for Evaluation and Accreditation of Teacher Colleges’ Educational Programs (EPDAD) is also an independent institution for quality assessment of education faculties which focusses on teacher training and education. The purpose of EPDAD is to strengthen the student learning in formal training and to ensure the quality standards for candidate teachers. Any undergraduate programme which meets the standards of EPDAD is accredited for three years. Standards of EPDAD are detailed in this chapter.

Despite the abundance of research on quality management there is no universal consensus on how best to measure quality in higher education. This paper undertakes a critical evaluation of the different methods used to assess the quality of provision in higher education departments in the UK.

Drawing on relevant literature, the authors develop a quality audit tool that incorporates all key components of effective quality management programmes and apply it to a single UK case study department.

The findings suggest that the potential for quality enhancement is determined by the manner in which the evaluation is conducted and subsequent change implemented. Perhaps unsurprisingly there is currently an emphasis on internally derived quantitative data and there is potential to enhance the management of the quality of HE programmes.

This paper concentrated on the development of a quality audit tool and tested this within one UK department.