Guideline for the Audit of

Higher Education
Institutions’ Quality
Management Systems
Adopted by the Board of AQ Austria on 27/28 May 2015
Table of Contents

1 Preamble ............................................................................................................................................................. 3

2 Objectives of the audit ................................................................................................................................ 3

3 Basic structure of the audit ...................................................................................................................... 3

4 Standards ........................................................................................................................................................... 4

5 Process ................................................................................................................................................................. 6

6 Entry into force ............................................................................................................................................... 9

2/9
1 Preamble

Autonomous higher education institutions are in charge of quality assurance and quality
development with respect to degree programmes, teaching, research and development and
appreciation of the arts, and organisation. They develop and design their own internal quality
management systems in accordance with their individual profiles and in compliance with
European standards.

The Agency for Quality Assurance and Accreditation (AQ Austria) acknowledges this
responsibility of higher education institutions and strengthens the quality approach of such
institutions through its audit. The audit is based on national and international experience and
many years of expertise AQ Austria has acquired in quality assurance.

The audit of AQ Austria involves the higher education institution and knowledgeable reviewers
in a co-operative process, which is professionally accompanied by AQ Austria. The audit is
tailored to the profile of the respective higher education institution and allows a learning
process, the results of which will remain with the higher education institution.

The AQ Austria audit is in accordance with the Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance
in the European Higher Education Area (ESG) and uses peer review to include European
expertise.

This Guideline specifies in detail the provisions of the Austrian Act on Quality Assurance in
Higher Education 2011 (Hochschul-Qualitätssicherungsgesetz, HS-QSG) on the performance
1
of audits at Austrian public universities and universities of applied sciences . A manual for
higher education institutions and peers complements the Guideline.

2 Objectives of the audit

The audit by AQ Austria has two different objectives:

 to confirm that a higher education institution has established its quality management
system pursuant to statutory provisions;
 to support the higher education institution in the enhancement of its internal quality
management system.

3 Basic structure of the audit

An audit is a periodic peer process, where external reviewers assess the organisation and
implementation of a higher education institution's internal quality management system. It
supports the enhancement of the quality management system and allows for feedback among
colleagues on its further development potential.

1
All references to the HS-QSG and the provision for the re-audit apply to Austrian public universities and universities of applied
sciences.

3/9
The audit standards specify in detail the assessment areas pursuant to section 22 para. 2
HS-QSG to the Austrian law and describe the quality loop (plan – do – check – act). They
shall be used by the higher education institution for self-assessment of the internal quality
management system and by the peers for external assessment.

The higher education institution will receive a certificate documenting that it fulfils its
mandate of assuring the quality of degree programmes, teaching, research and development
and appreciation of the arts, and that the quality management system is suitable to support
the higher education institution in achieving its objectives. Conditions shall only be imposed
if any shortcomings are identified in the actual implementation of the quality management
system. Recommendations and feedback provided by the reviewers shall support the
advancement of the quality development system.

The higher education institution defines its profile and the objectives derived from it. The
objectives are defined, for example, in the mission statement, in development plans or in
performance agreements. The quality management system of a higher education
institution shall comprise all measures taken to assure and advance internal organisational
and controlling processes which help the higher education institution achieve its objectives.
The higher education institution is autonomous in designing these processes.

The quality culture at a higher education institution shall be characterised by the higher
education institution’s members communicating and agreeing on the objectives of the
institution and on the best way of how to achieve them. They shall be aware of their joint
responsibility and thus contribute to the evolution of the higher education institution. Open
communication, participation and trust shall characterise the higher education institution’s
target-oriented activities.

4 Standards

For the purpose of certification, four standards shall be applied to assess the quality
management system. Those standards define the requirements for an operational quality
management system and specify the assessment areas pursuant to section 22 para. 2 HS-
QSG to the Austrian law.

Standard 1
The higher education institution has defined objectives and pursues a strategy
which is systematically supported by management tools.
The higher education institution shall specify strategies and define objectives as prerequisites
to establish and implement an internal quality management system. Measures shall be
derived from these strategies, and responsibilities at all levels of the higher education
institution shall be defined. The higher education institution is autonomous in designing its
internal management processes.

4/9
 Standard 2:
The quality management system supports the higher education institution in
achieving its objectives.
The quality management system shall comprise measures of internal quality assurance, which
support the higher education institution in achieving its objectives, fulfilling its tasks and
advancing its internal organisational and management processes. Pursuant to section 22
para. 2 HS-QSG, section 3 of the Universities Act (Universitätsgesetz, UG), section 4 of the
Law on the University for Continuing Education Krems (Bundesgesetz über die Universität für
Weiterbildung Krems, DUK-Gesetz) and section 3 of the University of Applied Sciences Studies
Act (Fachhochschulstudiengesetz, FHStG), the core responsibilities of a higher education
institution shall be studying and teaching including further training, research or development
and appreciation of the arts as well as cross-cutting tasks in the fields of organisation,
administration and support, human resources, resource management, and
internationalisation.

Standard 3:
The quality management system uses evaluation procedures, monitoring and
information systems as integral components.
Strategies, organisation and services of the higher education institution shall be subject to
systematic monitoring. The higher education institution shall rely on the results and findings
of internal monitoring, of its information and reporting systems and of quality assurance
measures when it comes to developing and/or advancing objectives and strategies and
making management decisions. Furthermore, the results of internal and external evaluation
measures shall be integrated into the advancement and/or adaptation of the quality
management system.

Standard 4:
The quality management system is based on the quality approach of the higher
education institution and provides for the systematic involvement of various
interest groups.
The higher education institution’s quality culture shall be sustained by its members and
fostered by an active communication strategy. The composition of the interest groups shall be
determined by the profile and objectives of the higher education institution and shall reflect
its societal responsibility.

5/9
5 Procedure

The audit shall be carried out as peer review. On the basis of the higher education institution’s
self-report and two site visits, a group of external, independent reviewers shall assess the
internal quality management system using the four audit standards, and draw up an audit
report. This report shall contain opinions and recommendations on the higher education
institution’s quality management system. The audit report and a comment of the higher
education institution constitute the basis for AQ Austria’s certification decision.

Agreement

The higher education institution and AQ Austria shall enter into an agreement about the
performance of an audit.

Reviewers

The expert panel shall consist of at least four reviewers, one of them being a student
representative. They shall have demonstrated experience in the management and
organisation of higher education institutions and the related quality management. Depending
on the higher education institution’s profile, a representative of vocational practice can be
added. The expert panel shall consist of international reviewers who are familiar with the
higher education system and its sectors. In the composition of the expert panel, AQ Austria
shall take the profile and objectives of the higher education institution into account and shall
be mindful of diversity and a balanced gender ratio.
AQ Austria shall appoint the reviewers. The higher education institution shall have the right to
raise substantiated objections against recommended individuals. The reviewers shall declare
in writing that there are no grounds for prejudice, that they are independent and unbiased
and that they will keep confidential all information received and lessons learned in the course
of the Audit. The AQ Austria secretariat shall thoroughly prepare the reviewers for the
procedure.

Self-documentation

Involving the various interest groups, the higher education institution shall prepare a self-
report, presenting its internal quality management system and its actual implementation. It is
autonomous in defining the structure and design of the self-report and shall ensure that the
topics of the four audit standards are covered. The higher education institution shall use
existing documentation and material.

The higher education institution may also introduce specific topics and questions on the
development potential of the quality management system (development areas) in order to get
a reviewer opinion and feedback from the expert panel. These topics and questions shall
either be specified in the agreement between AQ Austria and the higher education institution
or be generated in the course of the preparation of the self-report. In either case they shall be
discussed in the self-report. The reviewers’ feedback shall address the further development of
the quality management system and will not be used for the certification decision.

Site visits

The expert shall pay two site visits to the higher education institution. For their preparation,
they shall receive the higher education institution’s self-report as well as information provided

6/9
by AQ Austria on the procedure and on the higher education system. In line with the peer
principle, the reviewers shall talk with various groups of people in an appreciative, open and
dialogical atmosphere.

At the first site visit, the higher education institution shall outline how its internal quality
management system is organised. Within the scope of this visit, the reviewers and the higher
education institution shall agree on fields of action which give evidence of the implementation
of the quality management system.

At the second visit, the expert panel shall assess the implementation of the quality
management system in the selected fields of action and address the topics introduced by the
higher education institution.

If necessary, the higher education institution shall supplement the self-report in agreement
with the reviewers in the period between the site visits.

Review report

The expert panel shall draw up a joint report, including statements on the quality
management system of the higher education institution and an assessment on whether the
audit standards are categorised as "not met", "partially met" or "met". The review report shall
be drawn up respecting the diversity of reviewers’ opinions while at the same time aiming at a
consensus on a basis that is as broad as possible. If applicable, the reviewers shall mention in
their report best-practice elements of quality management.
The preliminary audit report shall be handed over to the higher education institution, which
shall get the opportunity to point out any potential factual or formal errors. The peers shall
take the higher education institution’s comments into account for their final version of the
report. The higher education institution shall comment on the contents of the final review
report.

Feedback on development areas

If the higher education institution has introduced additional topics and questions on the
further development of its quality management system, the reviewers shall provide feedback
on them in writing. This feedback shall neither be used for the assessment of whether the
audit standards have been met nor for the certification decision. It shall be provided
exclusively to the higher education institution.

Certification

The Board shall make a decision on the certification based on the final version of the review
report and on the higher education institution's comment on its contents. The higher
education institution’s self-report as well as any documents submitted at a later date shall be
available to the Board for inspection.
Certification can be granted with conditions and is limited to a seven-year period. If a
standard is assessed as “partially met”, this means that there are shortcomings which entail
conditions. If a certification is granted subject to conditions, their fulfilment shall be
documented within two years. A written documentation shall be submitted as evidence in
which the higher education institution describes the measures taken. If necessary, a reviewer
shall be involved in examining whether the conditions have been fulfilled.

7/9
Certification will be denied if at least one standard has been assessed as “not met”. In this
case, the higher education institution shall perform a re-audit after two years.

Re-audit

In a re-audit pursuant to section 22 para 6 HS-QSG to the Austrian law, the higher education
institution shall prove that it has established a quality management system in accordance with
statutory provisions and has rectified the shortcomings identified in the previous audit. The
re-audit shall be performed in accordance with the provisions of this Guideline. In the self-
report, the higher education institution shall separately indicate the identified shortcomings
and the measures taken. A certification with conditions after a re-audit is not possible.

Complaint

The higher education institution can appeal to AQ Austria’s Appeals Committee against the
procedure and the certification decision.

Publication

After the procedure has been completed, the Agency for Quality Assurance and Accreditation
Austria shall publish a report on the findings of the audit procedure, which shall include the
review report, the higher education institution's comment (upon its approval), the decision of
the Board including the reasons for the decision, the certification period and any conditions as
well as the reviewers’ names. Any personal data, funding sources and business or trade
secrets shall be exempt from publication.

Role of the Management Office

The AQ Austria secretariat shall accompany the entire procedure and make sure that it is fair
and adequate. A member of the secretariat shall act as the contact person for the higher
education institution and the reviewers.

Costs

The higher education institution shall pay the lump sums determined and published by the
AQ Austria Board for the procedure as well as for the reviewers.

8/9
 Flow chart of the procedure

6 Entry into force

This Guideline shall enter into force on 1 July 2015.

9/9