This article was downloaded by: [University of Reading]

On: 04 January 2015, At: 20:15

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954
Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,
UK

Quality in Higher Education

Publication details, including instructions for authors
and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cqhe20

Evaluating the Effectiveness

of the New Zealand Academic
Audit Unit: Review and
outcomes
Philip Meade & David Woodhouse
Published online: 18 Aug 2010.

To cite this article: Philip Meade & David Woodhouse (2000) Evaluating the
Effectiveness of the New Zealand Academic Audit Unit: Review and outcomes, Quality
in Higher Education, 6:1, 19-29, DOI: 10.1080/13538320050001045

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13538320050001045

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the
information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.
However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or
suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed
in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the
views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should
not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions,
claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities
whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection
with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.
Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-
licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly
 forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Downloaded by [University of Reading] at 20:15 04 January 2015
 Quality in Higher Education Vol. 6, No. 1, 2000 19

Evaluating the Effectiveness of the

New Zealand Academic Audit Unit:
review and outcomes
PHILIP MEADE1 & DAVID WOODHOUSE2
1
University of Otago, PO Box 56, Dunedin, New Zealand, 2Academic Audit Unit, PO Box
9747, Wellington, New Zealand
Downloaded by [University of Reading] at 20:15 04 January 2015

ABSTRACT The New Zealand Vice-Chancellors’ Committee set up the Academic Audit Unit to
carry out quality audits of each university following the Education Amendment Act 1990. The
Academic Audit Unit was required to advise the New Zealand Vice-Chancellors’ Committee on
what should happen after the ® rst cycle of audits. The Academic Audit Unit Board decided to submit
the Academic Audit Unit to a very thorough review by an independent group with an analogous
composition to the Academic Audit Unit’s audit panels (members from within and without
academia, and from New Zealand and abroad).
The Review Panel concluded that the procedures developed by the Academic Audit Unit requiring
universities to undertake a self-review with the Academic Audit Unit validating the process have
been a major stimulus for introduction of effective quality systems. A climate of trust and mutual
respect is developing between the Academic Audit Unit and the universities. There are promising
signs that universities are highly committed to the audit process, are going beyond compliance and
are now ready to in¯ uence the audit process through identifying their own speci® c audit themes as
part of the next two audit cycles.
New Zealand universities are now preparing for the next cycles of audits and there is a sense of
optimism that the relationship between the Academic Audit Unit and the universities will become
more robust, enabling a climate of critical evaluation and reform to prevail.

Introduction
This paper describes the processes and outcomes of a review of the effectiveness of New
Zealand’s national Academic Audit Unit (AAU). David Woodhouse is the Director of
AAU, while Philip Meade was convenor of the panel, which reviewed the effectiveness of
AAU following its ® rst 4 years of operation.

What is the AAU?

Background and Philosophy
The New Zealand Vice-Chancellors’ Committee (NZVCC) set up the AAU to carry out
quality audits of each university. A major incentive for this was the Education Amendment
Act (NZ Government, 1990) which established the NZVCC as a statutory body and gave
it explicit responsibility for standards and quali® cations in the university sector. The Act

ISSN 1353± 8322 (print)/ISSN 1470-1081 (online)/00/010019 ± 11 Ó 2000 Taylor & Francis Ltd
 20 P. Meade & D. Woodhouse

contained the clear indication that, if the NZVCC did not take this responsibility seriously,
reserve powers (external to the university sector) could be invoked.
These powers would have been exercised through the NZ Quali® cations Authority,
which espoused the philosophy that there is no difference between academic and vo-
cational education. This context for the AAU led some academics to regard the AAU as a
government agent with a vocational agenda. It was particularly important, therefore, for
the AAU to demonstrate an understanding of the nature and characteristics of universities.
Its ® rst step in this was to adopt quality audit as its approach to the review activity
required by its Terms of Reference (see Appendix 1).
Quality audits (Standards New Zealand, 1994) begin with the objectives of an organis-
ation and investigate whether its plans and activities are effective in achieving its objec-
tives. Each institution of higher education in NZ must produce a public statement of
objectives which is approved by the Ministry of Education (Woodhouse, 1997), and these
form the starting point for the AAU’s audits.
Downloaded by [University of Reading] at 20:15 04 January 2015

The characteristics of a university in NZ are de® ned in legislation (NZ Government,

1990). A university is characterised by a wide diversity of teaching and research, especially
at a higher level, that maintains, advances, disseminates, and assists the application
of knowledge, develops intellectual independence, and promotes community learning.
Universities also have interdependent research and teaching, and accept a role as critic and
conscience of society. The AAU takes the institution’s objectives to include not only
its speci® c statement of objectives, but also these nationally required characteristics
(Woodhouse, 1995).
All quality assurance agencies are expected to ful® l two barely compatible roles, namely,
to assist the institutions to improve their operations and to report to the government or
society on the current state of those operations. On this improvement accountability
spectrum, the AAU has located itself towards the improvement end, aiming to achieve
accountability through improvement. Discussions of the nature of quality, quality assur-
ance and quality assurance agencies may be found in, for example, Barnett (1992), CQAHE
(1995), Harvey and Green (1993), Kells (1992), Seymour (1992), and Vroeijenstijn (1995).
The activities to date of the AAU are summarised in Table l.

Reviewing the AAU

The AAU was required to advise the NZVCC on what should happen after the ® rst cycle
of audits, and the AAU Board believed that any advice it might give would be more
credible if backed by independent authority. Therefore, it decided to submit the AAU to
a very thorough review by an independent group (Review Panel) with an analogous
composition to the AAU’s audit panels (members from within and without academia, and
from New Zealand and abroad) (Appendix 3). The universities were impressed and
pleased to learn that the AAU had decided to undergo a process similar to the audits that
they had undergone. They also appreciated having a forum in which to comment on the
AAU and its activities.
The monitoring of monitors (quis custodiet ipsos custodes, loosely translated) has rarely
been addressed in this context, and following a scan of the relevant literature it became
evident that the Review Panel had little previous research to draw upon. However, the
Review Panel did have the advantage of a brief which included ® ve formal Terms of
Reference (see Appendix 3). At a very early stage in the planning, the Review Panel
decided to utilise a methodology which could provide robust evidence for review out-
comes, ranging from validation of the AAU’s work to a recommendation for the Unit’s
 The New Zealand Academic Audit Unit 21

TABLE 1. Schedule of AAU actions

Year Action

1994 Establish procedures. This included developing a set of Critical

Success Factors (Appendix 2) for the AAU’s operations, based
on the Terms of Reference (Appendix 1) that it had been given.
Set out the procedures and rationale in detail in an Audit
Manual for institutions and auditors.
Appoint and train auditors.
1995 Conduct trial audits of two universities. The AAU’ s processes
were essentially unchanged as a result of the trials but one or
two extra steps were introduced.
1995± 1998 Audit all seven universities and the Committee on University
Academic Programmes (the programme approval committee of
the NZVCC).
Downloaded by [University of Reading] at 20:15 04 January 2015

The AAU’s main way of determining the effectiveness of

quality processes is to consider outcomes. However, the broad
scope of the Cycle 1 audits, coupled with the fact that they
were the ® rst audits, meant that panels identi® ed many generic
issues that needed attention in all universities, almost without
detailed consideration of outcomes.
1997 Review of AAU.
1998 Produce publication s drawing on the audits of Cycle 1.
Plan for future audit cycles.

discontinuance. It was decided that the judgement of key stakeholders would be the
determining factor. Public and targeted submissions were invited using the criteria estab-
lished by the Review Panel’s Terms of Reference. The Review Panel received submissions
from:
· all seven New Zealand universities;
· six members of staff covering four universities;
· student associations from two universities;
· four representatives of professional societies;
· senior staff from the Association of University Staff (AUS) and the Public Service
Association; and
· the New Zealand Quali® cations Authority and the Ministry of Education.
The Review Panel allocated a full day to interviewing key stakeholders, to seek further
detail and validate the evaluative material provided via the written submissions. The
Review Panel responses to AAU characteristics classi® ed via key issues following its ® rst
4 years of operation are summarised in Table 2.

Impact of the AAU

The Review Panel drew attention to areas where the AAU and the audit process have
stimulated reform in the universities, such as the stimulation of a culture shift, support
from student groups and support from staff groups.
The panel noted that the audit process has been effective in encouraging a culture shift
in the universities with respect to quality matters, though penetration has been uneven
across the sector. However, there is a broad acknowledgement within the universities that
positive bene® ts have resulted and the outcomes have been worth the costs.
 22 P. Meade & D. Woodhouse

TABLE 2. AAU characteristics and Review Panel responses

Key issue AAU characteristic s Review panel responses

Independent AAU has an independent governing
membership board, appointed by the NZ Vice-
Chancellors’ Committee. Only three
of the 12 members are academics,
one of whom is from abroad.
All audit panels include some
members from within and some
from without academia, and at least
one international member.
The composition and size of the AAU Board is
appropriate, with the inclusion of an Australian
representative and the weighting in favour of
external representation being positive features.
There is a valuable mix of membership on the
audit panels and it is important this balance be
maintained.
The auditor training programme has been
appropriate and adequate.

Terms of Reference The AAU has established The Terms of Reference are adequate but need
and Critical Success comprehensive Terms of Reference some re® nements to re¯ ect the current
Downloaded by [University of Reading] at 20:15 04 January 2015

Factors and four Critical Success Factors. environment. While the emphasis on
evaluating the effectiveness of processes is
endorsed, reference should also be made to
evaluating outcomes.

The Review Panel commended the

establishment of Critical Success Factors.

Scope of audit and In the ® rst cycle of audits, the AAU The procedures developed by the AAU
self-audit emphasis covered the whole sweep of requiring universities to undertake a self-audit
academic activity . with AAU validating the process and
conclusions have been a major stimulus for
To recognise and af® rm the reform resulting in initiative s such as:
autonomy of the universities, and to · improvements in strategic planning;
embed the attention to quality within · strengthened internal review mechanisms;
the institutional culture, the AAU · speci® c staff appointments such as quality
requires each university to conduct a managers;
self-audit as the basis for its · an increased recognition of the value of
submission to the AAU. A thorough staff development;
self-audit is then validated (or · improved promotion policies and
otherwise) by the AAU audit panel. procedures including increased
recognition for excellence in teaching;
· an increased willingness of staff to seek
However, the AAU signalled to feedback from students, graduates and
universities it would treat the employers as one aid to programme
following as generic for all monitoring and development; and
universities: · a raised pro® le for Treaty of Waitangi and
· the achievement of a social conscience issues.
research/teaching nexus;
· actions in relation to the role of It was evident that the audit of a university by
critic and conscience of society; AAU is likely to be more effective the more
· attention to the requirements of thorough the university’s own self-audit
the Treaty of Waitangi (signed exercise has been, presumably because the
in 1840 between Maori and the AAU audit panel has to do less investigative
British Government). work and can therefore focus on constructive
criticis m as part of the validation exercise.

Audit Manual The AAU produced a very The overall content of the Audit Manual is
comprehensive Audit Manual which both useful and necessary.
describes the
· mechanisms of audit; In view of criticisms of overuse of technical
· reasons for these; language and views that the manual was not
· factors to be considered by `user friendly’ the manual should be reviewed
institutions and panels. in the light of experience.

Audit visits The AAU Director and the Chair of
the audit panel conduct a planning
visit to each institution prior to the
audit visit.
The audit visit itself lasts for 3 days
and a wide range of staff, students
and others from the community and
Council are interviewed .
Downloaded by [University of Reading] at 20:15 04 January 2015
Audit reports The AAU report of the ® ndings
of each audit is a public document,
distributed to the media and other
organisations. The report describes
the processes in place and includes
both recommendations for change,
constructive criticism and
commendations of good practice.
The AAU judges each institution
against its own objectives and hence
does not rank them against each
other. To avoid this, and other
simplistic interpretations of the audit
® ndings, the audit reports have been
written to deter the use of context-
free extracts.
Audit follow-up Funding of universities is not related The Review Panel notes it was too early (at the
to the audits by AAU.
The AAU has no sanctions to
enforce its recommendations other
than the pressure resulting from
wide publicity of the reports.
One year after an audit report is
published, the AAU requires a
report from the university on the
progress in addressing the audit’s
recommendations.
The AAU gives its opinion on the
thoroughness and
comprehensiveness of the
university’s actions.
The New Zealand Academic Audit Unit 23
The Review Panel received extremely
favourable feedback about the value of the
planning visit.
Concerns were expressed about several aspects
of the audit visit itselfÐ for example, with
reference to the selection process, questions
raised were why some people were selected
and others not, and some concerns were
expressed about the con® dentiality of
information imparted to audit panels.
Some students were unaware that they could
ask to have an interview with the audit panel.
The Review Panel believes many of the
criticisms could be addressed by extending the
scope of the planning visit and improving the
quality of information supplied prior to the
audit visit. It is suggested that the visit length
be no more than 3 days and that visit
programmes include some interviews with
staff and students in their own environments.
The inclusion of commendations of good
practice as well as criticism is strongly
endorsed, as is the opportunity given to
universities to comment on points of factual
error before public release. The careful
consideration given by the audit panel to
comments from universities did much to allay
fears and build trust.
However, the obscure style of audit reports
which embeds the commendations, criticisms,
suggestions and recommendations in the body
of the text makes extraction of the key points a
dif® cult task.
In line with the developing trust between AAU
and the universities, and following suggestions
from the universities, the Review Panel
recommends that the audit reports become
more robust in argumentation and explicit in
style and recommendations.
time of the review in 1997) to evaluate the
extent to which NZ universities have
responded to audit reports.
The Review Panel received expressions of
concern that as AAU recommendations
resulting from audit are neither binding nor
have any timelines for putting them into effect,
a claim could be made that universities have
developed a process that in the ® nal analysis
`lacks teeth’.
While advocatin g the existence of a clearly
understood follow-up process, the Review
Panel does not consider that the AAU should
take on a policing and compliance role with
regard to implementatio n of the audit reports;
the primary responsibility for responding to
audit lies squarely with individual universities.
 24 P. Meade & D. Woodhouse

The prospect of a quality review has caused the universities to examine and
monitor processes in ways which they had not done hitherto. Under such
examination, defects have been identi® ed and addressed rather than lingering to
face public exposure. The presence of the AAU, coupled with new awareness in
social and legal contexts of the rights of consumers, has encouraged universities
to make more effort to deliver services of quality. (Extract from a submission to
the External Review Panel, Review Panel, 1997, p. 15)
The audit process has also enabled student groups on campus to highlight areas of
particular concern to students.
The [AAU’s] philosophy of encouraging self-audit and international best-practice
while avoiding the pitfalls of a mechanistic and bureaucratic model [meets] many
of the concerns within students’ associations. (Extract from a submission to the
External Review Panel, Review Panel, 1997, p. 15)
Downloaded by [University of Reading] at 20:15 04 January 2015

In addition to seeking submissions from the two key Staff Associations, the Review
Panel interviewed seven representatives of staff associations from across New Zealand.
Their views of AAU’s effectiveness were unanimously positive, and this can best be
depicted by a resolution made by the Association of University Staff at the time of writing
this article.
The Association of University Staff reaf® rms its position that the current sector-
speci® c university quality assurance processes, provided under the auspices of
the New Zealand Vice-Chancellor’s Committee by the Academic Audit Unit and
the Committee on University Academic Programmes, satisfactorily and appropri-
ately address the distinctive characteristics of `quality’ in the university environ-
ment. These approaches to quality assurance have achieved high credibility both
in New Zealand and internationally and AUS supports their maintenance and
continued development.

From Antagonism to Acceptance

Over these ® rst few years of operation, the attitude of the universities towards the AAU,
as noted in responses to the Review Panel, has moved from antagonism to acceptance. The
reasons for this include:
· thoroughness of the auditor training;
· commitment and professionalism of the auditors, leading to a rigorous but fair audit
process;
· the tone of the reports, with commendations as well as recommendations, and
a recognition of the problems that can arise from unbalanced reporting of public
documents;
· responsiveness to feedback from the universities; and
· the willingness of the AAU itself to undergo a rigorous review.
The AAU has been able to be critical in implementing thorough and rigorous audits, while
avoiding alienating its academic constituency. It has achieved the latter through its
willingness to listen to the university community. It began this process at an early stage by
proposing a rather opaque form for the public audit reports, in response to the universities’
concerns that the media would quote negative ® ndings out of context. (It is a measure of
the AAU’s success in this that the universities themselves are now wanting a more explicit
 The New Zealand Academic Audit Unit 25

form of public report.) Following the trial audits, a debrie® ng was held with the two
universities and the two audit panel chairs, and the changes in procedures were made in
response to the universities’ views that the changes would make the audits more thorough.
Additionally, when a university has sought a variation in wording in the draft audit report,
the AAU has usually been able to accommodate the change in expression while retaining
the meaning intended by the audit panel. Thus, the universities have felt that, on the one
hand, they would be listened to but, on the other, that they were unlikely to `get away with
anything’. This has helped develop trust between the universities and the AAU. The AAU
has produced audit reports that are generally considered to be authoritative, rigorous,
fair and perceptive. As a result of this, the AAU has earned respect both in its primary
roles of accountability and improvement in the university sector and as a national and
international authority on quality assurance.
The AAU has been managed in a cost-effective and ef® cient manner, and has provided
value for money in terms of its impact, the scope and nature of its activities, and the
Downloaded by [University of Reading] at 20:15 04 January 2015

success and high standing it has achieved, nationally and internationally.

However, the report noted that awareness of and interaction with the AAU has not
penetrated deeply to the average academic or student. This suggests that the AAU should
review the nature and extent of communication within the various constituencies.

Recommendations of the Review

The Review Panel made 41 recommendations to the AAU Board. Some of these related to
decisions or actions that are the responsibility of the NZ Vice-Chancellors’ Committee, not
the AAU. The great majority either related directly to the operation of the AAU (for
consideration and action by the AAU Board), or would assist the AAU Board in preparing
its end-of-cycle advice to the NZ Vice-Chancellors’ Committee.
The main recommendations were as follows.
· con® rm the AAU as an integral part of the New Zealand university system, extending
its life for several years;
· provide variety and depth by planning for three short audit cycles focusing on a small
number of themes (before returning to a comprehensive audit in the subsequent cycle);
· strengthen the focus on the outcomes of the processes being audited;
· strengthen the procedures for follow-up of audit reports and implementation of their
recommendations; and
· increase the resources provided to the AAU for its educative and quality enhancement
roles.
Each of these recommendations has resulted in a positive outcome or outcomes.

Outcomes Following the Review Process

End of Cycle 1: publications
Each institution has learned from its own audit, but to spread this learning more widely
the AAU is publishing a series of end-of-cycle publications. Already published are:
· a description of the relation between professional associations and institutions of higher
education;
· an analysis of the Cycle 1 audit reports to highlight common problems and successes;
· a compendium of examples of good practice; and
· approaches to auditing a `virtual institution’.
 26 P. Meade & D. Woodhouse

In preparation are:
· a Treaty of Waitangi overview; and
· an analysis of the current state of academic freedom and the `critic and conscience’ role
of the universities.
In view are:
· a comparative document on `support for students’;
· an explanation for professional associations of how to interpret AAU audit reports and
use them as a base document; and
· accreditation of teachers.

Response of the NZ Vice-Chancellors’ Committee

Downloaded by [University of Reading] at 20:15 04 January 2015

The NZVCC received the Review Panel recommendations and agreed that the universities
will continue the establishment and funding of the AAU to at least 2005.

The Next Two Audit Cycles

The next two cycles of audits (Cycles 2 and 3) will each be of 2 years duration (instead of
4), and in each cycle every institution will be audited on a nationwide theme, speci® ed by
the AAU (after consultation with the universities and consideration of the Cycle 1 audit
reports). In addition to the nationwide theme, each institution is being invited to nominate
a university-speci® c theme to be audited alongside the nationwide theme. The suggestion
for this thematic approach came from the university constituency during the review. It
con® rms the success of the AAU’s approach in Cycle 1, and indicates a high level of
commitment to the audit process. The universities are going beyond compliance, and are
very positive about this opportunity to in¯ uence the audit focus.
Following consultations with universities, the AAU Board has determined that the two
nationwide themes for the next two cycle of audits will be:

Cycle 2: research
· provision and support for postgraduate students;
· the research± teaching link (at undergraduate, as well as postgraduate, level); and
· research policy, management and performance.

Cycle 3: staff and employment matters

· staff development, improvement and support, for: teaching, research, administration,
community service; and
· staff appraisal and promotion.

Expansion of AAU’s Educational Role

Following the success of the AAU in the ® rst cycle of audits, the universities are now more
receptive to its educational role, although the larger universities usually ® nd it more
convenient and effective to provide their own educational activities where a speci® c focus
is desired, for example, leadership training at the University of Otago (Meade et al., 1999).
 The New Zealand Academic Audit Unit 27

However, during 1998 and 1999, the AAU has organised a range of workshops
and seminars, which have been attended by participants from the universities, other
educational institutions and other organisations.

Conclusion and Lessons

As noted at the beginning of the paper, not everyone in the New Zealand university sector
has welcomed the AAU. However, the review has revealed that in the context set by
external expectations and requirements, the AAU has been effective in achieving the aims
set for it. From the beginning, the AAU has recognised, stated and emphasised that
university quality is primarily dependent on the universities themselves and their activi-
ties. It has also recognised that funds spent on the AAU are not available for employing
more academic staff within an institution, and has therefore aimed to be run as economi-
Downloaded by [University of Reading] at 20:15 04 January 2015

cally as possible, so that any bene® ts identi® ed from its activities may be seen to have been
achieved in a cost-effective manner.
The Review Panel concluded that the procedures developed by the AAU, requiring
universities to undertake a self-review with AAU validating the process, have been a major
stimulus for introduction of effective quality systems. A climate of trust and mutual
respect is developing between the AAU and the universities. There are promising signs
that universities are highly committed to the audit process, are going beyond compliance
and are now ready to in¯ uence the audit process through identifying their own speci® c
audit themes as part of the next two audit cycles.
The Review Panel drew attention to two areas of concern. First, the awareness of, and
interaction with, the AAU has not penetrated deeply to the average academic or student.
The AAU will strengthen its educational role in response to this concern. Second, as the
AAU has no sanctions to enforce its recommendations, and the Review Panel was strongly
of the view that the AAU should not adopt a policing and compliance role, the universities
themselves will need to accept the primary responsibility for responding to audit report
recommendations. The Review Panel recommended that the NZVCC should consider
overseeing these responses to shore up university accountability where this is called for. A
serious response by the NZVCC will consolidate the NZ Government delegation of
responsibility for standards and quali® cations to the NZVCC.
The success of the audit process so far is not solely due to the approach taken by
the AAU, but also to the high level of commitment made by the universities. While the
AAU has acted as a catalyst and stimulus, there has been strong leadership within the
universities themselves determined to embrace the quality improvement philosophy.
New Zealand universities are now preparing for the next cycles of audits and there is a
sense of optimism that the relationship between AAU and the universities will become
more robust, enabling a climate of critical evaluation and reform to prevail.

References
BARNETT, R.A., 1992, Improving Higher Education: Total quality care (Buckingham, Society for Research into
Higher Education and Open University Press).
COMMITTEE FOR QUALITY ASSURANCE IN HIGHER EDUCATION (CQAHE), 1995, Report on 1994 Quality Reviews,
Vol. 1 (Canberra, Australian Government Publishing Service).
HARVEY, L. & GREEN , D., 1993, `De® ning quality’, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 18(1),
pp. 9± 34.
K ELLS , H.R., 1992, Self-Regulation in Higher Education: A multi-national perspective on collaborative systems of
quality assurance and control (London, Jessica Kingsley).
 28 P. Meade & D. Woodhouse

MEADE , P., MORGAN, M. & HEATH, C., 1999, `Equipping leaders to capitalis e on the outcomes of quality
assessment in higher education’ , Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 24(2), pp. 147± 56.
NEW ZEALAND (NZ) GOVERNMENT , 1990, Education Amendment Act (Wellington, Government Printer).
REVIEW PANEL , 1997, Report of a Review of New Zealand Universities Academic Audit Unit (Wellington,
Academic Audit Unit).
SEYMOUR , D.T., 1992, On Q: Causing quality in higher education (Phoenix, Oryx Press).
STANDARDS NEW ZEALAND , 1994, Quality Management and Quality Assurance Vocabulary, Australian/New
Zealand Standard ISO 8402:199 4 (Wellington, Standards New Zealand).
VROEIJENSTIJN , A.I., 1995, Improvement and Accountability: Navigating between Scylla and Charybdis (London,
Jessica Kingsley).
W OODHOUSE , D., 1995, Audit Manual: Handbook for institutions and members of audit panels (Wellington,
Academic Audit Unit).
W OODHOUSE , D., 1997, `Quali® cations & quality in New Zealand’ , in BRENNAN , J., DE VRIES , P. & WILLIAMS,
R. (Eds.) Standards and Quality in Higher Education (London, Jessica Kingsley).
Downloaded by [University of Reading] at 20:15 04 January 2015

Appendix 1. De® nition of the AAU (Abstract) (Woodhouse, 1995)

The following is the speci® cation that was set down by the NZVCC for the operation of the AAU (as later
amended after advice from the Board of the AAU). It has been further amended since the review of the
AAU, speci® cally with the addition of further Terms of Reference to crystallise its role as an educational
and advisory body.
In its activities , the AAU shall take account of the special features of the New Zealand universities
including:

i the characteristic s of a university, as generally accepted, and as set out in the Education Amendment
Act 1990;
ii the obligation that each university has under that Act to establish a charter;
iii the obligation under such a charter to take account of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi;
iv the obligation to develop and state aims and objectives in accordance with the goals and principles
stated in the charter;
v the relatively small scale of the university system;
vi the provisions the universities have made for both interinstitutional cooperation and peer review;
vii their long-standing relationships with university systems in other parts of the world; and
viii the existence of other agencies monitoring the performance of the universities.

The AAU’s Terms of Reference are:

i to consider and review the universities’ mechanisms for monitoring and enhancing the academic
quality and standards which are necessary for achieving their stated aims and objectives;
ii to comment on the extent to which procedures in place in individual universities are applied
effectively;
iii to comment on the extent to which procedures in place in individual universities re¯ ect good practice
in maintaining quality; and
iv to identify and commend to universities good practice in regard to the maintenance and enhancement
of academic standards at national level.

In ful® lling these Terms of Reference, the AAU is expected to focus its attention on a number of areas of
particular importance, namely, mechanisms for:

i quality assurance in the design, monitoring and evaluation of courses and programmes of study for
degrees and other quali® cations;
ii quality assurance in teaching, learning and assessment;
iii quality assurance in relation to the appointment and performance of academic and other staff who
contribute directly to the teaching and research functions;
iv quality assurance in research, more especially, but not exclusively , in the context of its relationship with
university teaching; and
v taking account of the views of students, of external examiners, of professional bodies, and of employers
in respect of academic matters.
 The New Zealand Academic Audit Unit 29

The AAU will also audit the Committee on University Academic Programmes (to the extent that the
Committee on University Academic Programmes is part of each university’s system of quality assurance).
The AAU comprises:
i a Board;
ii a Register of auditors; and
iii a secretariat, headed by a Director.
The Board has 12 members, appointed by the NZVCC, and the NZVCC speci® ed a composition that has
75% of members from outside academia.
Auditors are appointed to the Register by the Board and given an appropriate training. They include both
currently employed academics and other persons of appropriate experience. From the Register, small
panels are drawn in order to audit the individual universities, and such panels normally include at least
two persons in the former category and one in the second.
The seven universities should each be audited once within the ® rst 4 years of the existence of the AAU.
Towards the end of that period, the AAU shall make recommendations to the NZVCC on a further cycle
of audits, and comment on such other matters relating to its functions as it sees ® t.
Downloaded by [University of Reading] at 20:15 04 January 2015

Appendix 2. Critical Success Factors

In 1994, the Board of the AAU set the following Critical Success Factors for the AAU, namely, that the AAU
should:
i produce audit reports which are acknowledged, both within and without the universities , to be
authoritative , rigorous, fair and perceptive;
ii through these reports, and otherwise, contribute to the improvement of quality in NZ universities;
iii maintain suf® cient international contact to give international credibility to its reports; and
iv liaise appropriately with relevant NZ organisations in relation to ensuring and demonstrating the
academic quality of universities.

Appendix 3. The Review

In 1997, the Board of the AAU appointed an independent Review Panel with the following Terms of
Reference:
1 investigate and report on whether the AAU has successfully met the Terms of Reference set by the
NZVCC, and the Critical Success Factors identi® ed by the Board (see Appendix 2);
2 investigate and report on the AAU’s effect on the universities;
3 Investigate and report on the AAU’s effects more generally;
4 recommend any changes or improvements in the audit process; and
5 provide comment on the Terms of Reference of the AAU and the composition of the Board of the AAU,
including comment on possible future activities , structures or goals for the AAU.
The reviewers were Professor Timoti Karetu, Commissioner, Maori Language Commission, Mr Colin
O’Loughlin, Consultant in Forestry and Science, Emeritus Professor Phil Meade, Deputy Vice-Chancellor
(Academic), University of Otago (Convenor), and Associate Professor Jane Morrison, Pro-Vice-Chancellor
(Development), University of New South Wales, Australia.