We had an audit recently – a tough one, I would say. But despite the intensity, we did quite well. No non-conformities (NCR), just a few opportunities for improvement (OFI). While such audits often bring tension and anxiety, they also serve as moments of reflection.
As I engaged in discussions and debates with the auditors, I began to reflect more deeply on the entire accreditation process. What is the real purpose of these certifications and accreditations? How do they add value to an institution? Do they genuinely enhance efficiency and overall productivity? Or do the rigidity of some accreditation processes and the inflexibility of certain auditors stifle innovation?
The Purpose of Accreditation: Quality Assurance or Bureaucratic Burden?
In my 30+ years in academia, I have been involved in and led five international accreditation initiatives – spanning the US (AACSB), UK (AMBA), EU (EQUIS), Japan (ABEST21), and Germany (ACEEU). I have also served as an auditor for these accreditation bodies, giving me a broad perspective on how accreditation is approached globally.
One key takeaway from my experience is the professionalism of international auditors and their openness to different approaches. While institutions must comply with certain principles set by the accreditation bodies, most auditors respect an institution’s vision and mission and, more importantly, trust its approach to achieving its goals. Their feedback is often constructive, consisting mostly of recommendations for improvement rather than rigid directives.
The accreditation process, at its core, is meant to ensure quality and maintain standards. Ideally, it should help institutions identify strengths and areas for improvement, rather than act as a policing mechanism. However, the effectiveness of these audits depends not only on how they are conducted but also on the mindset of the auditors. A well-executed audit can drive meaningful progress, but when approached rigidly, it risks of becoming a bureaucratic exercise that adds unnecessary complexity rather than fostering true institutional growth.
When I served as an auditor for ABEST21, for example, we treated institutions as works in progress. Applying the Kaizen principle, our focus was on continuous improvements rather than expecting perfection. We respected each institution’s unique mission, goals, and strategic directions, and we trusted the process they used to achieve their objectives.
The Local Accreditation Dilemma
I was a former auditor with the Malaysian Qualifications Agency (MQA) in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Later, during my tenure at the Ministry of Higher Education, I also sat on the accreditation committee for the Malaysia Board of Technologists (MBOT), reviewing auditors’ work and recommendations. However, my experience with local accreditation agencies has been quite different from my international engagements.
The local approach tends to be more prescriptive, often dictating exactly how things should be done, sometimes to an excessive level of detail. Trust seems to be a foreign concept. At times, it feels as if higher education institutions are being treated no differently than schools or community colleges, with universities also subjected to unnecessary micromanagement.
More often than not, the emphasis is placed on process compliance and detailed documentation rather than actual outcomes. Institutions are expected to follow strict checklists, ensuring every document and policy is in place, rather than focusing on the real impact of teaching, research, and innovation. This raises a critical question – do auditors fully understand the purpose of the audit, or are they simply following the rigid manuals without flexibility?
The Documentation Overload in Higher Education
One of the biggest concerns with over-regulation in accreditation is the burden of documentation, which disproportionately affects faculty members.
Over the years, I have had numerous discussions and debates with quality assurance agencies, both internally and externally. Too often, we take a rigid approach, following established procedures without questioning their fundamental purpose. As Steve Jobs once said, most people do things a certain way simply because that’s how it was done yesterday and the day before. We rarely challenge existing norms or ask the most basic yet crucial question – why?
I firmly believe that diverse perspectives and approaches drive innovation. If we are to foster meaningful progress in higher education, we must embrace differences and be willing to agree to disagree.
Teaching in higher education, especially in postgraduate programmes, relies heavily on trust. Faculties must trust their faculty members to deliver courses effectively, considering the diverse backgrounds and experiences of students. Educators use their expertise and academic wisdom to determine what is best for their students, ensuring that learning outcomes are met.
While quality assurance mechanisms such as student feedback and internal reviews help maintain standards, excessive bureaucratic requirements often distract faculty members from their core responsibilities.
Teaching is only one of many duties of a faculty member. Overburdening academics with unnecessary documentation risks compromising their contributions to research, publications, industry collaborations, and community engagement, all of which ultimately enrich their classroom delivery and keep their knowledge relevant.
The Supervision Conundrum
Sometimes ago, I met a colleague who was overseeing a workshop on thesis supervision. Our conversation naturally drifted to similar concerns, how our supervisors, examiners, and chairpersons sometimes operate so differently compared to those in other countries.
In world-class universities, supervision is a highly structured and supportive process where students receive clear guidelines and fair assessment. Examiners evaluate work based on academic rigour rather than personal bias, and chairpersons ensure that evaluations are conducted with professionalism and integrity.
However, within our local institutions, we often see inconsistencies. Some supervisors take their roles seriously, guiding students effectively, while others neglect their responsibilities. Some examiners provide fair and constructive feedback, while others seem to impose unnecessary hurdles.
It puzzles me. Many of us earned our degrees from top overseas institutions, yet we seem to have learned little from those experiences. Why is that? Is it ego? Resistance to change? A reluctance to challenge the status quo? I don’t know.
A Conversation with Auditors
During the recent audit, I took the opportunity to engage with the auditors, hoping to better understand their perspective on the accreditation process while subtly sharing my own experiences. However, I found them to be quite inflexible in their approach.
I believe in accreditation when it serves its true purpose – enhancing quality, ensuring accountability, and fostering continuous improvement. But when it turns into a rigid, bureaucratic exercise that stifles innovation and creativity, I can’t help but question its value.
Striking a Balance: The Way Forward
The real challenge lies in striking a balance. We need quality assurance mechanisms, but they should be designed to empower institutions rather than constrain them. We need auditors who understand that different institutions have different missions and strategies, and that one-size-fits-all policies do not always work.
As someone who has witnessed both the strengths and weaknesses of accreditation systems, my hope is that we can move towards a more meaningful approach – one that values trust, flexibility, and genuine institutional progress over mere compliance.
If we truly want to improve higher education, we need to rethink the way we evaluate and accredit institutions. Otherwise, we risk creating a system that prioritises paperwork over real impact, and that is a loss for everyone involved.
Note: Dr Azizi is a professor at the Malaysian Graduate School of Entrepreneurship and Business (MGSEB), Universiti Malaysia Kelantan (www.mgseb.umk.edu.my). He can be contacted at [email protected]
