Higher education institutions that wish to carry out quality assurance and development procedures for their study programmes independently can opt for so-called system accreditation. The subject of system accreditation is a higher education institution’s internal quality management system (QM system), which must reliably ensure that all Bachelor’s and Master’s degree programs offered by the higher education institution meet the relevant formal and academic criteria for study programmes.
This responsibility for quality is associated with the right of a system-accredited higher education institution to carry out internal peer-review procedures with the participation of external experts and then to award the Accreditation Council’s seal for the quality-assessed study programmes itself.
System accreditation therefore does not result in a blanket and immediate accreditation of all study programmes at a higher education institution. Rather, each study programme must be accredited, continuously developed and regularly reaccredited in accordance with the procedures and processes defined in the QM system. Higher education institutions have a wide range of options when it comes to the specific design of the processes and accreditation procedures required for this.
System-accredited higher education institutions bear the quality seal of the “System accredited” foundation for a period of eight years. During this eight-year period, all study programmes at the higher education institution must pass through the internal quality assurance cycle at least once, i.e. they must also be subject to an accreditation decision at least once.
The requirements for QM systems are set out in the specimen decree (MRVO) or the corresponding
System accreditation is a multi-stage procedure that can be divided into an assessment phase and a decision phase (so-called administrative procedure). The assessment is always designed as a peer review, i.e. the assessment of the university’s internal QM system is carried out by independent experts with specific experience in higher education institutions, accreditation and QM.
Once the assessment has been completed, the Accreditation Council decides on system accreditation at the request of the higher education institution and on the basis of the assessment results.
The duration of the entire process depends on many different factors and can therefore vary greatly from case to case. Experience has shown that the process takes at least 12 to approx. 24 months.
Head of the system accreditation department
Phone: +49 (0) 228 - 338 306 20
E-mail: boersch@akkreditierungsrat.de
Deputy Head of System Accreditation
Phone: +49 (0) 228 - 338 306 77
E-mail: grube@akkreditierungsrat.de
The higher education institution commissions an agency of its choice approved by the Accreditation Council to assess its quality management systems.
In coordination with the Agencies, the higher education institution prepares a self-evaluation report that describes the internal quality management system in detail, taking into account the relevant criteria for system accreditation. The self-evaluation report serves as an essential evaluation basis for the subsequent assessment process.
The Agency appoints a group of experts in accordance with the accreditation procedures developed by the German Rectors’ Conference.
The academic evaluation of the university’s internal quality management systems (QM system) is carried out by the expert group on the basis of the academic criteria set out in Part 3 of the specimen decree and, in addition to the analysis of the written self-evaluation report, usually comprises two inspections at the university including random samples.
The peer review report is then prepared by the experts with a recommendation for a decision. The peer review report together with the Agencies’ formal report, in which the formal requirements for system accreditation are assessed, form the accreditation report.
As soon as the final accreditation report is available, the higher education institution can submit the application for system accreditation to the Accreditation Council. To do so, it submits all necessary documents to the Accreditation Council via the ELIAS application processing system. In addition to the accreditation report, this also includes the self-evaluation report and attachments as well as the sample documentation. The higher education institution may also submit a supplementary statement to the application.
The documents submitted by the higher education institutions are first checked for completeness and plausibility by the experts at the Head Office of the Accreditation Council. In addition, it is checked whether the peer-review procedure has been implemented properly and in accordance with the guidelines. Fehlende Dokumente können ggf. bei der Hochschule nachgefordert werden.
In addition, a member of the Accreditation Council is appointed as rapporteur for each application.
The Accreditation Council decides on the accreditation of the quality management systems on the basis of the written documents and the reporting during the meeting.
In the event of a positive decision, the quality management system bears the quality seal of the Accreditation Council and the university is granted the right to accredit its study programs itself for a period of eight years.
Once the accreditation procedures have been completed, the Accreditation Council publishes its decision and the peer review report, including the names of the experts, on its website.
If the Accreditation Council intends to deviate significantly from the experts’ recommendation, the higher education institution is given the opportunity to submit a statement before the Accreditation Council makes its final decision. If the higher education institution makes use of this opportunity, the Accreditation Council will deal with the higher education institution’s application again at the next meeting, taking into account the statement submitted.
If the higher education institution refrains from making a statement, the Accreditation Council’s provisional resolution becomes effective.
Once the accreditation procedures have been completed, the Accreditation Council publishes its decision and the peer review report, including the names of the experts, on its website.
The Accreditation Council may attach conditions to the system accreditation decision if not all accreditation criteria have been assessed as fully met. As a rule, the higher education institution has one year to provide evidence to the Accreditation Council that the identified deficiencies have been rectified by means of suitable documents.
After the higher education institutions have provided the documents for the fulfillment of conditions via ELIAS, the process is essentially the same as for the processing of the accreditation application (preliminary review of the documents by the Head Office with subsequent rapporteur procedure and committee decision).
The higher education institution commissions an agency of its choice approved by the Accreditation Council to assess its quality management systems. It is advisable to contact the Agencies at an early stage to plan the timing of the accreditation procedures and to clarify fundamental content-related questions, e.g. the requirements for the
In coordination with the Agencies, the higher education institution prepares a self-evaluation report that describes the internal quality management system, taking into account the
The implementation of the entire peer-review procedure, including the evaluation of the formal criteria for system accreditation and the preparation of the accreditation report, is the sole responsibility of the agency commissioned by the higher education institution.
The Agency shall appoint a group of experts consisting of at least the following persons:
When appointing the expert group, the Agencies to the procedure developed by the German Rectors’ Conference.
Before appointing the experts, the higher education institutions are informed by the Agencies about the composition of the peer review panel and are given the opportunity to make a statement.
The academic evaluation of the university’s internal quality management systems (QM system) is carried out by the expert group on the basis of the academic criteria set out in Part 3 of the specimen decree and, in addition to the analysis of the written self-evaluation report, usually includes two inspections at the university. As part of these inspections, the expert group conducts interviews with representatives of the higher education institution and, if necessary, with external persons who are or were involved in the QM system of the higher education institution. The peer reviewers then prepare a peer review report with a recommendation for a decision, which is based on the grid specified by the Accreditation Council.
The peer-review procedure also provides for the implementation of a
To assess the formal requirements of system accreditation, the Agencies must also
Should it become apparent during the course of the assessment that individual requirements have not (yet) been met, the higher education institution may decide, in consultation with the agency, to rectify the identified deficiencies (in whole or in part) before the end of the assessment phase.
The peer review report on the assessment of the academic criteria and the result of the review of the formal criteria (the so-called formal report) together form the accreditation report, which must be submitted by the higher education institution to the Accreditation Council as part of the application. According to common practice, higher education institutions are given the opportunity to submit a statement before the accreditation report is completed.
As soon as the final accreditation report is available, the higher education institution can submit the application for system accreditation to the Accreditation Council. To do so, it submits all the necessary documents via the application processing system ELIAS. In addition to the accreditation report, this also includes the self-evaluation report and attachments as well as the sample documentation. The higher education institution may also submit a supplementary statement to the application.
To ensure that the documents are as clear and manageable as possible, the structure offered in ELIAS can be used for sorting assets.
The Head Office of the Accreditation Council is available at any time if further clarification is required in connection with the application.
The documents submitted by the higher education institutions are first checked for completeness and plausibility by the experts at the Head Office of the Accreditation Council. In addition, it is checked whether the peer-review procedure has been implemented properly and in accordance with the guidelines. Fehlende Dokumente werden ggf. bei der Hochschule nachgefordert.
In addition, a member of the Accreditation Council is appointed as rapporteur for each application. The rapporteurs deal particularly intensively with the respective documents and explain the application and the corresponding proposed resolution in detail at the Accreditation Council meeting.
The Accreditation Council decides upon
The Accreditation Council can decide on accreditation, accreditation with conditions or denial of accreditation. If the Accreditation Council identifies a procedural error, such as an incomplete random sample, it can attach a condition to its accreditation decision (e.g. proof of a further random sample). In this case, accreditation only becomes effective once the higher education institution has provided evidence that the condition has been fulfilled.
Although the accreditation report represents the central decision-making basis for the accreditation of a QM system, it is not binding for the Accreditation Council due to its recommendation character. The Accreditation Council can therefore deviate from the recommendation of the Agencies and/or the peer review panel in justified cases. This means that the Accreditation Council may waive proposed conditions, impose additional conditions or decide to deny accreditation contrary to the positive expert vote.
In the event of a positive decision, i.e. an accreditation or an accreditation with conditions, the QM system bears the quality seal of the Accreditation Council and the higher education institution is granted the right to accredit its study programmes itself for a period of eight years.
Once the accreditation procedures have been completed, the Accreditation Council publishes its decision and the peer review report, including the names of the experts, in the ELIAS database on its website.
If the Accreditation Council intends to deviate significantly from the experts’ recommendation, the higher education institution is given the opportunity to submit a statement before the Accreditation Council makes its final decision. If the higher education institution makes use of this opportunity, the Accreditation Council will deal with the higher education institution’s application again at the next meeting, taking into account the statement submitted.
If the higher education institution refrains from making a statement, the Accreditation Council’s provisional resolution becomes effective.
The Accreditation Council may attach conditions to the system accreditation decision if not all accreditation criteria have been assessed as fully met. As a rule, the higher education institution has one year to provide evidence to the Accreditation Council that the identified deficiencies have been rectified by means of suitable documents.
After the higher education institutions have provided the documents for the fulfillment of conditions via ELIAS, the process is essentially the same as for the processing of the accreditation application (preliminary review of the documents by the Head Office with subsequent rapporteur procedure and committee decision). Should the Accreditation Council come to the conclusion that conditions have not been fulfilled or not fully fulfilled, this will lead to the withdrawal of system accreditation.