TESA Report - Quality Assurance

FINAL REPORT
i
Quality Assurance & Accreditation
(Organization, Mechanisms and Practice) (July, 2016)
Consultant
Prof. Dr. Riaz Hussain Qureshi

(Pride of Performance)
House 24, Street 25, Korang Town, Islamabad, Pakistan

Tel: +92 515958183 Cell: +92300 5071063
E-mail: rqureshi@alum.hec.gov.pk
HIGHER EDUCATION COMMISSION, ISLAMABAD

TERTIARY EDUCATION SUPPORT PROGRAM (TESP)
ISLAMABAD
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
S. # Title Page #
List of Annexures I
Acronyms ii
Executive Summary iii
1. Introduction 1
1.1 HEC initiatives for Quality Assurance 1
2. Approach and Methodology 4
3. Implementation, value, impact and follow-up of institutional reviews 6
(including IPES)
3.1 Background 6
3.2 Methodology 6
3.3 Findings 7
3.3.1 Implementation 7
3.3.2 Value and Impact 10
3.3.3 Follow-up 15
3.4 Recommendations 16
4. Implementation, value, impact and follow-up of program reviews and 18
scope for improvement and increased better “buy-in” by faculty staff
4.1 Background 18
4.2 Methodology 18
4.3 Findings 18
4.3.3 Follow-up 21
4.3.4 Scope of Improvement 23
4.3.5 Better ‘Buy-in’ by faculty staff 23
5. Implementation, value, impact and follow-up of self- assessment reviews 25
5.1 Background 25
5.2 Methodology 25
5.3 Findings 26
5.3.2 Objectivity 27
5.3.4 Follow-up 28
6. Assessment of the efficiency and capacity of the Quality 30
Assurance Agency (QAA) and the Quality Enhancement Cells
(QECs) in performing their duties
6.1 Background 31
6.2 Methodology 38
iii
6.3 Findings 38
7. Evaluation of performance of the Accreditation Councils; 40
7.1 Background 40
7.2 Methodology 41
7.3 Findings 41
8. Evaluation of the accreditation systems and criteria and compliance with 44
decisions and comparison between treatment of private and public HEIs
(in coordination with study # 6)
8.1 Background 44
8.2 Methodology 45
8.3 Findings 45
9. Assessment of quality assurance systems as applied to 47
Affiliated Colleges and External Degree Programs (studies # 4 and 5)
9.1 Background 47
9.2 Methodology 47
9.3 Affiliated Colleges 47
9.3.1 Background 47
9.3.2 Findings 50
9.3.3 Recommendations 52
9.4 External Degree Programs 53
9.4.1 Background / Quality Assurance System 53
9.4.2 Findings 55
9.4.3 Recommendations 56
10. Assessment of the coordination between Quality Assurance and 58
Qualifications Framework.
10.1 Background 58
10.2 Methodology 63
10.3 Findings 63
10.4 Conclusions and Recommendations 64
11. General Conclusions and Recommendations 65
12. References 67
13. Response to the comments of the Reviewer 68
13.1 Comment 68
13.2 Response 68
13.3 Comment 68
13.4 Response 68
14. Annexures 71
iv
LIST OF ANNEXURES
Annexure # Title Page #

I Questionnaire for QECs 64
II Institutional Performance Evaluation Standards (IPES) 81
III Questionnaire for PD (IPES) 87
IV Analysis of Data for Institutional Performance 92
V Questionnaire for PD (QECs) 103
VI Analysis of Data for Program Reviews 108
VII Recommendations of Program Review Assessment 125
Teams implemented by Islamia University, Bhawalpur
VIII Recommendations of Assessment Teams Implemented by KPK Agri. 130
University, Peshawar
IX Analysis of Data for SARs 133
X Questionnaire for HEC-Accreditation Councils 139
XI Questionnaire for GOP-Accreditation Councils 141
XII Questionnaire for Dir. QAA/PD (Accreditation Councils) 144
XIII Activities of Training Program for Evaluators by NAEAC 146
XIV Questionnaire filled by Pakistan Engineering Council (PEC) 150
XV Analysis of Data for Accreditation Councils 156
XVI Check List used by HEC for Recognition of Newly Established 159
HEIs/DAIs
XVII Questionnaire for In Charge Private HEIs at HEC 161
XVIII Questionnaire for In charge External Degree Programs at HEC. 163
XIX Analysis of data for Affiliated Colleges and External Degree
Programs
i
ACRONYMS
ABET American Board of Engineering and Technology

ACs Accreditation Councils
APQN Asia and the Pacific Quality Network
DAI Degree Awarding Institute
DSD Directorate of Staff Development
EDP External Degree Program
ENQA European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education
EQA External Quality Assurance
FGM Focus Group Meeting
FP Focal Person
HEC Higher Education Commission
HED Higher Education Department
HE Higher Education
HEI Higher Education Institution
INQAAHE International Network of Quality Assurance Agencies in Higher Education
IPES Institutional Performance Evaluation Standards
IPE Institutional Performance Evaluation
IQA Internal Quality Assurance
IUB Islamia University, Bhawalpur
MTDF Mid Term Development Framework
NQAC National Quality Assurance Committee
QA Quality Assurance
QAA Quality Assurance Agency, (HEC, Islamabad)
QAD Quality Assurance Division, (HEC, Islamabad)
QECs Quality Enhancement Cells
SARs Self-Assessment Reports
TPV Third Party Validation
UPR University Portfolio Report
VCs Vice Chancellors
ii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
After about 13 years of its establishment, the HEC has initiated 10 Studies under TESP for
evaluating the impact of its initiatives on improvement of Higher Education Institutions to
serve as engine of socio-economic development of the country. This Report of the Consultant
pertains to the ‘Quality Assurance and Accreditation’ initiative of the HEC and deals with the
study of impact of ‘organization, mechanisms and practice’ of QA system (IQA and EQA)
developed and implemented by the HEC for the HE sector. The Report focuses on 8 different
issues identified by the HEC that include evaluation of the system of Self–Assessment of
Academic Programs and Institutions, their external evaluation by relevant bodies, and the
capacity and working of QAA/QAD at HEC, QECs at HEIs, and Accreditation Councils to
achieve the targets.
Twenty universities including 5 Private sector universities that had gone through the process
of Institutional Performance Evaluation were selected for the Study. A detailed Questionnaire
was sent to QECs of these universities (19 responded) and separate purpose-designed
Questionnaires were sent to all PDs at HEC dealing with various aspects of the Study. Also,
Questionnaires were sent to all HEC- ACs and selected GOP- ACs. Meetings were held with
the relevant senior officers of the HEC, and VCs/ Directors of 2 universities and 3 sub-
campuses of universities where FGMs were held with faculty staff and students. The
Findings of the Study and the Recommendations based on the information gathered are as
under.
Findings
The present ‘half-baked’ QA system launched by HEC has done well in achieving initial
objectives of developing an IQA-EQA infrastructure through establishment of 162 QECs at
HEIs and 5 ACs by HEC.
The QA administrative set up at HEC i.e. QAA and QAD as well as QECs at HEIs are
seriously handicapped in terms of human and financial resources to work at the optimum
level.
The major impact of the QA initiatives is seen in terms of increasing awareness and quality
consciousness among administrative staff and faculty members, highlighting weaknesses of
HEIs and Academic Programs, improvement in documentation, teaching/research facilities,
general working of HEIs and development of a culture of self- assessment at HEIs.
The VCs/Rectors are unable to appreciate the real value of QA program while the QECs do
not enjoy the required level of ‘Respect’ in the university environment.”
Recommendations
A Panel of experts may be appointed to analyze the Findings and Recommendations of this
Study and suggest strategy and future course of action for making QA system more effective
by HEC in the future.
QAA, QAD and QECs may be strengthened adequately on priority, to enable them to achieve
targets of QA, effectively.
iii
Special Awareness programs may be initiated for students to make them conscious about the
quality of education being imparted to them and empower them to ensure that they get high
quality education.
The issue of quality of education of External students, Private students, and students of
Affiliated Colleges (also students at Sub-Campuses) should be given immediate attention by
HEC.
Special attention should be given to the practical training of undergraduates through
provision of appropriate lab. Facilities’
HEC should strengthen awareness programs for all stakeholders and expand Training
Programs for HEC and QEC personnel as well as for Reviewers for evaluation of HEIs and
Academic Programs.
A holistic approach of QA at the HEI level needs to be followed. QEC office needs to be
strengthened and made responsible for all QA activities including awareness campaigns,
documentation, Institutional Review, Program Reviews, liaison with ACs, and International
bodies concerned with QA system of HEI.
iv
v
1. INTRODUCTION
The Higher Education Commission of Pakistan has given very high importance and serious
attention to the issue of Quality in the higher education sector since after its establishment,
and identified it as one of the three major issues i.e., Access, Quality and Relevance to be
addressed in the first Mid Term Development Framework (MTDF I) 2005-10. Faculty
Development and Infrastructure Development were given the top priority for improvement in
Quality of HE. Again in MTDF II (2010-15), the same three aspects were at the center of the
strategy for development of HE Institutions as engine of socio-economic development in
Pakistan.
The World Bank have adopted the term ‘Tertiary Education’ to emphasize inclusion of non-
university Institutions in the HE sector. However, only universities and allied Institutions
have been focused in this study by the Consultant.
Mr. Jamil Salmi, the Education Sector Manager of the World Bank, in his letter to
participants of the Seminar on ‘Quality Assurance in Tertiary Education’ held in Sevres,
France (2006) emphasized to focus discussion on three principles i.e. the rigor and scope of
quality assurance practice, the integrity of the quality assurance process, and acceptance of
the results by stakeholders. It was emphasized in the Seminar that the cost of doing nothing
to inform the public about quality in tertiary education can be high.
Rana and Reid (2009) while proposing a Model of Quality Assurance in Pakistan emphasized
that Organizational culture played crucial role in the successful implementation of any
quality assurance strategy, and the typical culture in educational institutions of the world
including Pakistan was bureaucratic in nature, with a basic strategy of conflict rather than
collaboration. According to Reid (2009), another problem was that some of the Higher
Education system in Pakistan was built on the tradition of British system from the 19th
Century, with its emphasis on preparation for the public services, while Pakistan now needed
more emphasis on the science and technological area, as well as applied sciences,
entrepreneurship and business skills. However, he admitted the fact that ‘students who
graduated from the Pakistan education system did routinely well (and often excelled) in
educational and professional environments abroad(also see Boston Report, 2002).
From the International perspective, there is requirement of developing agreed Quality
Standards for cross border education, and many international networks including INQAAHE,
APQN and ENQA were established in different regions of the world to achieve this
objective. The Brisbane Communique led by Australian government developed a set of
quality assurance principles for internal and external quality assurance in early 2008, which
were discussed in Chiba, Japan before the APQN 2008 AGM and Conference, and were
further refined. It was agreed that these principles need to be further revised to fit the context
of great diversity in the Asia-Pacific. These Higher Education Quality Assurance Principles
for the Asia – Pacific Region are called ‘Chiba Principles’. However, ultimately, such
standards are expected to have a national context as well for implementation.
1.1 HEC Initiatives for Quality Assurance
Soon after its establishment, HEC announced a National Quality Assurance Committee
(NQAC or QAC) to oversee the Quality Assurance program of HEC, and Vice Chancellors
of various universities were nominated as its members. At HEC, the Quality Assurance and
Learning Innovation (QA&LI) Division headed by Adviser was responsible for the QA
program. The main focus was on sensitizing and awareness programs for HEIs, development
of Standards and Criteria and implementation of these Criteria in HEIs.
Later on, Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) headed by a Managing Director was set up by
HEC to act as an autonomous body for monitoring implementation of Quality Standards by
HEIs, primarily through establishment of Accreditation Councils (ACs).
HEC encouraged and ensured establishment of a Quality Enhancement Cell (QEC) in each
HEI as an instrument for Internal Quality Assurance (IQA).
Unfortunately, it appears that, in spite of great efforts made by HEC, the Quality Assurance
program of the HE sector did not succeed fully, primarily because of extremely low level of
financial and human resource allocations by HEC and HEIs, lack of proper training
programs, and more so, because of poor realization of the real value of this factor by
VCs/Rectors for improving quality of graduates. It needs to be clearly understood that
investment in QA programs by HEIs is expected to have high rate of return compared with
all other investments. It must be kept in mind that HEC has a strong urge to adopt
international best practices such as using Institutional Performance Evaluation Standards
(IPES) and is trying to accomplish/initiate such programs for a quick start of ‘Quality
Culture’ in the HEIs. HEC has been successful in launching many programs but without
creating concomitant human and financial resources required for the relevant activities which
left gaps in the accomplishment of targets set for the purpose. Nevertheless, after a lapse of
one decade after initiation of the QA programs, HEC has decided to initiate Review Process
to highlight gaps in implementation of these initiatives.
With the above given background in view, the HEC has initiated ten different studies
including this study on ‘Quality Assurance and Accreditation (Organization, Mechanisms
and Practice) which is to be conducted by the Author (Consultant for Study # 7). The overall
objectives of this particular study are:
• to assess the functionality and efficiency of the institutions and mechanisms to
assure quality of teaching and learning in existing HEIs and vet the quality of new
programs and HEIs, and
• to appraise their capacity to deliver the services in a context of a growing and more
diversified tertiary education sector.
For this study the agreement between HEC and the Consultant (Author of this Report) was
signed on 10th March, 2016 and the Inception Report was submitted on 16th March, 2016.
This study has the following 8 focus areas.
(I) Implementation, value, impact and follow-up of institutional reviews (including

IPES);
(II) Implementation, value, impact and follow-up of program reviews and scope for
improvement and increased better “buy-in” by faculty staff;
(III) Implementation, value, impact and follow-up of self-assessment reviews;
(IV) Assessment of the efficiency and capacity of the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA)
and the Quality Enhancement Cells (QECs) in performing their duties;
V) Evaluation of performance of the Accreditation Councils;
(VI) Evaluation of the accreditation systems and criteria and compliance with decisions
and comparison between treatment of private and public HEIs (in coordination with
study # 6);
(VII) Assessment of quality assurance systems as applied to Affiliated Colleges and
External Degree Programs (studies #4and 5)
(VIII) Assessment of the coordination between Quality Assurance and Qualifications
Framework.
The four major components of this study i.e. (i) – (iv) are intimately interlinked but, to make
the Report reader-friendly, each of the focus areas has been dealt with separately by giving a
short Background to highlight the issue, followed by Methodology, Findings, and
Recommendations. At the end, general Conclusions and Recommendations are given.
2. APPROACH AND METHODOLODY
As four out of the eight focus areas of the study were related to IPES and QECs, 20
universities were selected out of the 36 universities for which Institutional Performance
Evaluation (IPE) Process as well as QEC review had already been completed by the HEC.
Unfortunately, The Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad did not participate in the study. Ten
of the selected universities had also gone through the Third Party Validation (TPV) by the
Consultant Dr SM Qureshi under TESP. For selection of the remaining 10 universities,
preference was given to the private HEIs which were 5 in number. For the remaining 5
universities, IPE Review through on-site evaluation by peers, Review of QECs by HEC, and
Program Reviews had been completed already. The list of the universities selected for this
study is given as follows.
LIST OF UNIVERSITIES
4 STANDARDS
1 Shah Abdul Latif University, Khairpur
2 Iqra University,Karachi
6 STANDARDS
3 Hamdard University, Karachi
8 STANDARDS
4 Islamia University, Bahawalpur
5 COMSATS Institute Of Information Technology ,Islamabad
6 KPK Agri. University, Peshawar
7 Dow University Of Health Sciences, Karachi
8 Mehran University Of Engineering & Technology, Jamshoro
9 University of Engineering & Technology, Peshawar
10 Lahore College of Women University, Lahore
11 SBK Women University, Quetta
12 The University Of A.J. & K., Muzaffarabad
11 STANDARDS
13 University Of Balochistan , Quetta
14 SZABIST, Karachi
15 PMAS Arid Agriculture University, Rawalpindi
16 Institute of Space Technology, Islamabad
17 Indus University, Karachi
18 Government College University, Lahore
19 Government College University, Faisalabad
To find answer to various aspects of the 8 focus areas, a single comprehensive Questionnaire
was developed based on review of the relevant literature, personal experience, meetings with
the HEC staff and nature of the study (Annex I). The Questionnaire included Qualitative as
well as Quantitative parameters. The Questionnaires were sent to the Directors of QECs of
the twenty universities with copy to the respective VCs/Rectors with the request to get it
filled by the Dir. QEC and, separately, by a senior faculty member (non QEC person), and
return the filled in Questionnaire within 10 days. Response was finally received from 19 out
of the 20 universities. The information received from HEIs was analyzed using Microsoft
EXCEL (2013).
In addition, site visits were made to two universities i.e. GCUF, Faisalabad and UET, Taxila,
and 3 Campuses i.e. Ripha University Campus, Faisalabad, UET, Lahore Campus,
Faisalabad and SZABIST Campus, Islamabad where Focused Group Meetings (FGMs) were
held with faculty members and students as well as VC / Director of the Campus. It may be
pointed out that 67 public sector and 30 private universities have established their Campuses
which are recognized by HEC, in addition to the 163 Campuses which are not recognized by
the HEC. These Campuses are ignored in terms of implementation of any formal Quality
Assurance system and are not part of any Review conducted by the HEC.
Separate Questionnaires were developed for gathering information from the respective
Project Directors/In-charges at HEC dealing with various focus areas included in this study,
as well as for the relevant Accreditation Councils. Contact was also established with various
Officers of the HEC relevant to the study who provided full support in providing information
for the study. Findings of the study are given and Recommendations have been formulated
on the basis of the data collected and site visits. The Component-wise (issues 1-8) Report is
given in the following Sections.
3. MPLEMENTATION, VALUE, IMPACT AND FOLLOW-UP OF
INSTITUTIONAL REVIEWS (INCLUDING IPES)
3.1 Background
The Program Reviews conducted by QECs of universities highlighted the need for
Institutional Reviews for which HEC prepared a set of Standards called ‘Institutional
Performance Evaluation Standards (IPES) (Annex. II), mostly using two basic sources i.e 1)
New England Standards for Accreditation Commission on Institutions of Higher Education,
New England Association of Schools and Colleges (2005), and 2) Eligibility Requirements
and Standards followed by Middle States Commission on Higher Education (2002) i.e.
Characteristics of Excellence in Higher Education, Middle States Commission on Higher
Education (2002).
The Higher Education Commission of Pakistan prepared a Manual (Batool et. el., 2010) for
guidance in adoption of these Standards (the Author of this Report is also a co-author of this
Manual). Due to issues of awareness, training facilities and lack of trained staff both at HEC
and HEIs, it was decided to implement these Standards in a phased manner in selected HEIs.
Initially, only 4 Standards (1-4) were implemented followed by 6,8 and 11 standards in
selected HEIs as given in Section 2. Later on, a Review Process was initiated by HEC to
assess the performance of 36 universities against these Standards. The status of the Review
of 15 HEIs was then got validated through a Third Party Validation (TPV) conducted by Dr
Shamsuddin Qureshi under TESP. As a part of the current study, the HEC desires to have
status report on the Review conducted by HEC and to highlight the issues of the
Implementation Process, Value, Impact and the progress in Follow-up on the adoption of
IPES and IPE Process.
At this stage, it may be useful to add the following clarification from my own point of view.
The word Performance used in the Institutional Performance Standards in the context of the
present study is rather confusing, if not misleading, as these are the minimum requirements to
be fulfilled by Institutions to make them eligible for Accreditation rather than indicators of
‘Performance’. However, the PD (IPES) at HEC did not agree with the contention of the
Author and felt that these are actually the standards for performance evaluation. This aspect
needs to be deliberated by experts at the HEC level and, as planned earlier, more Standards
need to be included for Institutional Performance Evaluation.
3.2 Methodology
The Institutions included in the study and the Questionnaire used were the same as
mentioned under the title ‘Approach and Methodology (Section 2). In addition to the QECs,
views of the PD (IPES) at HEC, Mr. Muhammad Shoaib were also obtained through another
Questionnaire especially prepared for this purpose (Annex. III). A few UPRs and Review
Reports prepared by the Review Panels were also studied. The views of the Consultant
(TPV), Dr. SM Qureshi given in his Report on Third Party Validation of HEIs assessed
against Institutional Performance Standards, were also given due consideration. The fact that
the IPE Reviews of many Institutions had been undertaken recently and sufficient time had
not elapsed to properly assess the impact of the Institutional Review, while 3-4 universities
did not receive the Review Reports, has also been kept in view for preparing this Report.
The data obtained from 19 universities and the information gathered from other sources
including the FGMs have been utilized to formulate Findings and Recommendations as given
below.
3.3 Findings
3.3.1 Implementation
The IPES were communicated to all HEIs for adoption in phases as mentioned under
Methodology. The effectiveness of implementation of the IPES is the central point of this
part of the study.
It is felt that awareness regarding HEC initiatives among various stakeholders at HEIs i.e.
administration, faculty members and students is a prerequisite and has been a major
constraint in the implementation of the programs such as IPES. Many of the stakeholders are
familiar only with the nomenclature rather than full details, its value, requirements and
implications of implementation. Findings about IPES implementation are based on the data
provided by HEIs, PD (IPES), FGMs and previous findings of the Consultant (TPV).
The data regarding awareness vary highly among the universities and also between QECs and
faculty members (Annex. IV). Overall, 50% of the QECs and Faculty members were of the
view that between 60 – 90 % of the faculty members were aware of the IPES and the Review
Process. About 40% of the respondents felt that awareness level of the students was less than
30%, while 28% of the QECs and 40% of the faculty staff felt that awareness level of the
Admin. Staff was between 61-90%. On the other hand, FGMs with faculty staff and students
did not endorse the data as only one third of the faculty members and less than 10% of
students were aware of IPES, while less than 10% of teachers and almost none of the
students in Campuses were aware of IPES. Moreover, it has strongly emerged during the
FGMs that the faculty, students and administration of HEIs where Review Process was not
started were completely ignorant about the IPES.
The PD (IPES) HEC informed that briefing sessions on implementation of IPES were given
in VCs’ Meetings at HEC and the Directors of QECs who attended the trainings arranged by
QAA were also given briefing on IPES to increase the awareness level. No formal training to
Focal Persons (FPs) was given by HEC except for one training in 2012 when 10 FPs were
formally briefed by HEC. This level of awareness about IPES is far from being satisfactory
and deserves serious attention of HEC and HEIs. It needs to be clearly understood that
students are the main beneficiaries of IPES and the Review Process and must be focus of
awareness campaigns in the future.
The information gathered indicated some weaknesses in the IPES and some faculty members
emphasized on addition of more standards such as Social Corporate Responsibility (SCR)
and a separate standard for Research and Development. Some of the suggestions given by
faculty members such as including Student Facilities and Admission Policy etc.(also see
Report of the Consultant TPV) are already covered in existing IPES.
The suggestion that IPES with a different set of questions developed for specialized HEIs e.g.
Medical, Engineering, Linguistics etc. is strongly endorsed by the Author. In some cases,
meanings of some questions were difficult to understand and interpret. Therefore, such
questions need to be rephrased for easy understanding by the Audience the PD (IPES) of
QAA informed that the most difficult standard to implement was “Organization and
Governance”. The QAA must revise IPES and develop a more detailed Manual for
evaluation of Institutions and revise the questions for better understanding of the audience
and it should be made user friendly in all respects.
The information provided by HEIs shows that most of the Focal Persons for IPES Review
were actually the Dir. / In-charge, QECs, who were appointed on the basis of Relevance to
job/relevant experience (Annex. IV).
The issue of appointment of FPs to facilitate conduct of Institutional Performance Review
has been discussed in detail by the Consultant (TPV) in paragraph 43 of Section 3.3.1 of his
Report. In my view, at the Institution level, a holistic approach needs to be taken for Quality
Assurance arrangements (Implementation of IPES, Program Reviews, dealing with
Accreditation Councils, Liaison with HEC and other national/ international agencies etc.)
under the leadership of a single person who is Incharge of the Quality Enhancement Cell.
The Consultant (TPV) has argued that this nomenclature may be changed to reflect added
responsibilities (and added facilities). The Consultant (TPV) had recommended to rename the
QEC as Office of the Quality Assurance or Office of the Quality Assurance and
Accreditation under a Director General or a Dean. However, the use of the nomenclature of
Dean needs statutory provision. In my view, to give QA system in university the desired
level of emphasis and visibility, this office needs to be headed by a Provost after making
statutory provision.
There is a serious issue of lack of capacity at the QAA and at HEIs to implement IPES and
other Quality Assurance initiatives in HEIs. Both QAA and QECs are seriously handicapped
in terms of human and financial resources (see later in the relevant Section of the Report)
which need immediate attention of the concerned authorities.
The HEC very rightly decided to appoint In-charge QECs having training and international
exposure as members of the Review Panel who were briefed by QAA. Some suggestions
have been given in response to the Questionnaire that senior faculty members, particularly
those having experience relevant to the nature of the HEI, may be included in the Panel.
During the TPV it has emerged that Review Panel from the neighboring Institutions were
also appointed which is against the spirit of the Review.
As per SOPs, the Review Panel was expected to stay at the HEI for 3 days but, in many
cases, it stayed for only two days which did not allow a detailed scrutiny and visits to various
facilities. Some HEIs in response to the Questionnaire have pointed fingers on the quality of
the Review Report in terms of objectivity and considered it more of a ‘fault finding’ exercise
rather than an objective assessment. However, the Consultant (TPV) has verified that IPES
were generally recorded correctly.
Also, the findings of the report were conveyed very late to the institutions e.g. Inst. of Space
Technology, Islamabad, SZABIST, Karachi and PMAS Arid Agri. University, Rawalpindi
did not receive the Reports even after about two years after the Review, giving the
impression that Review had no purpose.
Nevertheless, the respondents overwhelmingly felt that the review was highly useful in
sensitizing and developing awareness about the quality issues among the Administration and
faculty members, highlighting the weaknesses of the Institution, documentation of facts, and
led to improvement in teaching and research of the Institution (Annex. IV).
Lack of uniformity and documentation and different meanings for the same question were
observed during TPV exercise (see Paragraph 33 of the Report). This issue can be addressed
by training of the concerned staff and preparing an instruction Manual for this purpose. Most
of the HEIs considered proper documentation as one of the most important benefits of the
Review Process (Annex. IV). Data from HEIs showed that insufficient time was given for the
preparation of documents. Keeping the capacity of QECs and facilities of HEIs in view, at
least 2-3 months may be allocated for the preparation of documents/ UPR.
Most of the respondents i.e. 56% of the QECs and 46% of the faculty members were of the
view that cycle of review should be after every 3 years while 38% QECs and 33% faculty
members thought that it should be after every 2 years (Annex. IV).
Training/capacity building and documentation are found to be the weakest links in the
implementation of IPES. The QAA may train Master Trainers for preparing UPR regarding
IPES and IPE Process in extensive training sessions to be conducted at HEC. This could also
become a part of the Faculty Development Program for improving Pedagogical skills. The
Master Trainers may then train the faculty at the institution level. A separate Training
program may be developed for Reviewers which may become part of the training of QEC
personnel by QAA/ QAD.
The documentation system of universities was weak and the Administration of UET, Taxila
emphasized that CMS needs to be set up in universities to improve documentation. It also
emerged that faculty members were very hesitant to spare time for documentation and
considered it a wasteful exercise and an undue pressure on them. They also felt that not
enough time was given to them before the Review to prepare UPR. However, the data given
in Annex. IV show that 100% of the respondents (both QECs and faculty members) felt that
the Reviews greatly improved the quality of UPRs.
The data provided by QECs also show that the implementations of the Recommendations of
Review were properly notified for implementation (Annex. IV)
Data given in Annex. IV show that at least 50% of the faculty members and 57% of the
QECs considered infrastructure as the main constraint in implementation of the
recommendations while 50% 0f the faculty members and 43% of the QECs thought conflict
with the policies of the institution were the major cause of not implementing the
recommendations.
In spite of various shortcomings and weaknesses, IPE Process has been highly valued and
appreciated by the HEIs as is also indicated in the following Section on Value and Impact.
During the FGMs and discussion with VCs the following major concerns were shown
relevant to the quality of education in HEIs:
 The quality of faculty did not meet the expectations, particularly in terms of
dedication, teaching skills and ethical standards.
 The quality of students admitted was much below the standards, particularly in the
Engineering Institutions.
 The enrollment in different disciplines was increased enormously without caring for
the availability of minimum facilities required.
 The curriculum did not match the modern trends and, in some cases, courses offered
in different semesters were “out of phase” with one another, particularly in some
medical and engineering subjects,
 Undergraduate Labs were poorly equipped which badly affected the practical training
of undergraduates,
 The examination system in the Semester system was defective and had many
loopholes.
In response to the Review Panel Reports, all the universities have given their compliance
reports showing that many of the recommendations of the Review Panels have been
implemented while the others are under process. I feel that the response of the HEIs has been
astonishingly good in terms of implementation. The implementation status of IUB is
appended as Annex V. It is obvious that the recommendations which required no or small
expenditures have already been implemented while the recommendations requiring heavy
financial investment are under consideration. Some HEIs and the Consultant (TPV) have
recommended that HEC may set aside separate budget for implementation of the
recommendations of the Review Panels.
Each HEI was requested to give three most important recommendations. It does not seem
appropriate to repeat all the recommendations here but the most significant of these
recommendations are as follows:
 Director QEC should be considered a statutory post like Registrar, Controller of
Exams. etc.
 Capacity building of HEIs may be done.
 Regular monitoring and follow up of the program should be done. This
recommendation was given by most of the HEIs.
 Awareness among faculty may be increased.
 There should be timely communication of recommendations of the Review Panel.
This was the 2nd most important Recommendation of HEIs.
 The QEC may be empowered and strengthened.
 The Review Panel should be well trained.
 The HEC may devise a simple single unified system of QA in HEIs.
 The recommendations of the Review Panel may be shared with the stakeholders
before finalization.
 IPES should be in line with standards/criteria of Accreditation Councils.
 Review should be more of performance evaluation rather than review of IPR Process.
3.3.2 Value and Impact
A direct question was asked from the QECs and faculty staff about their perception of value
of the IPES Review. The reply was overwhelmingly in favor of the Review. According to
62% of the QECs the Review was “ Highly Valuable” and the remaining 38% thought that it
was Valuable, while the percentage of the faculty members who considered it ‘Valuable’ and
‘Highly Valuable’ was 50% in each case., while not a single respondent thought it had no
value (Annex. IV). In most cases, this perception was developed on the basis of personal
experience and discussion with colleagues as is shown in Annex. IV.
As evident from Annex IV, a big majority of the QECs and faculty members thought that
Review Panels’ recommendations were most helpful in the improvement of documentation,
followed by Administrative aspects and Research aspects in that order.
Almost 75% of the QECs and faculty members were satisfied with the outcome of the
Review (Annex. IV).
Many Universities had developed their Mission Statement, Vision Statement and
Documentation system after the recommendations of the Review Panel.
Faculty members of most of the universities prepared Course Files and gave Course
Outcomes after the Review.
In 100% of the cases, the respondents opined that quality of the UPRs improved due to the
Review (Annex. IV).
An overwhelming response of the QECs and faculty members i.e. 94% and 100%,
respectively, was that the Review process improved ranking of the university (Annex. IV),
and 57% of the respondents from QECs and 100% of faculty staff agreed that Review
improved general working of the university (Annex. IV).
Some of the specific examples of the positive impact of the Review Process are as under:
(i) SBK Univ., Quetta felt that the Review gave many innovative ideas to the university
and recommendations of the Panel were shared with HoDs in regular meetings.
(ii) KPK Agri. Univ. Peshawar informed that following recommendations of the Panel
have been implemented/are under process:
• Mission Statement has been reviewed.
• Revised Statutes have been submitted to the Chancellor.
• QEC has developed new website.
• Automation of the library is in progress.
(iii) The Indus Univ. Karachi implemented the following recommendations after the Exit
Visit of the Review Panel(The Review Report was not received):
• Prospectus of the University have been prepared.
• CPD/Faculty Development Plan has been prepared.
• Lab Manual having safety precautions are placed in the lab.
• QEC has increased the number of Workshops/Seminars.
(iv) PMAS Arid Agri. Univ. Rawalpindi informed that Review helped in improving
various procedures, documentation and overall educational system.
(v) GCU, Lahore informed that following improvements took place as a result of the
Review:
• Deans have been appointed.
• On line feedback mechanism is in progress.
• Dir. QEC has been granted non-voting member status in Univ. statutory
bodies/committees.
• Mid-term exams are again part of the semester system.
• Some posts of faculty in depts. have been filled.
• Curricula are revised.
Implementation status of the Recommendations of the Review Panel by IUB asgiven is

follows:
1. Mission Statement and Goals
Sr.# Recommendations Action by / Responsibility Status
The university should consider reviewing its

mission statement to make it more specific; while Deans Committee
1.1 carrying out this activity, the university may take on Under Process
board all the stakeholders. Registrar
2. Planning and Evaluation

There is a need to develop SOPs for integration of
QA reports into future planning of the University. Director, QEC
The liaison between QEC and Planning &
2.1 Development department office may be extended Director, P&D Under Process
and defined to integrate the QEC’s
recommendations.
Treasurer
3. Organization and Governance

The university should look into this matter, as per
Registrar office
the university’s act assistant professor cannot chair
3.1 Implemented
a department and this should be followed.
Vice-Chancellor
4. Faculty
In semester system the grading lies on the
integrity of the examiner, it is therefore proposed
that newly inducted faculty members should be
4.1 trained for examination marking to avoid Director, QEC Implemented
inflation of examination grading and create
harmony in examination marking system.
It is recommended that efforts may be made to
induct senior faculty so that each department be
headed by a full professor and sufficient number of
associate and assistant professors are available in
4.2 Registrar office Implemented
the departments for provision of quality
education and mentoring to the junior/fresh faculty.
5. Students
The university may consider designing a well
maintained students’ handbook, which should be
circulated to all enrolled students. Also various
DSA
medium of communication should be used to
5.1 Implemented
enhance the awareness of students regarding
rules & regulations and other necessary Registrar office
information.
The university should take appropriate steps to Director Advance

5.2 eliminate unnecessary delays in conduction of Studies & Implemented
Ph.D. programs activities. Research Board
6. Institutional Resources
The university may consider maintaining its
website in more effective manner; the Website
6.1 Director IT Implemented
should be updated, in all respects.
Chief Librarian
The university may consider enhancing the All Deans
6.2 All Chairmen/ Under Process
availability of journals.
HODs
The university may consider providing dedicated All HODs

sitting spaces for graduate students for conducting Partially
6.3 their research related activities. Principal Officer, Implemented
EC & SM
7.Academic Programs and Curricula

It is suggested that all updated curricula may be
maintained properly by a specific Officer /official
and record should be easily traceable. The revision Registrar office
Partially
7.1 of curricula should be done as per the
Implemented
recommendation of HEC, i.e. at least after every 3 All Chairmen / HODs
years.
All Chairmen/
It may be helpful if revision process is HODs
7.2 simplified so that revision in curricula is
encouraged.
Registrar office
The university may identify some courses
having specific mode of knowledge transfer and All Chairmen /
7.3
then method of delivery may devised accordingly. HODs
8. Assessment & Quality Assurance

The budget provision of the following QA activities Implemented
8.1
may be extended for QEC;
For organization of Capacity Building workshops. Treasurer
Director QEC
For organization of Orientation Sessions on Quality
Assurance.
For participation in Conference and attending of
meetings on QA matters at national and
international level.
For Acquiring Memberships of QA bodies.
For Training and Development of QEC officials.
There is a need to develop SOPs for integration of

QA reports into future planning of the University.
The liaison between QEC and Planning & Partially
8.2 Development department office may be extended Director, QEC Director, implemented
and defined to integrate the QEC’s P&D
recommendations.
Regarding Graduating Students

Survey, bench marks are required to be
established indicating the excellent, satisfactory and Partially
8.3 Director, QEC
week areas for improvement for the guidance of the Implemented
respective departments.
The Employer survey is third party evaluation of

the graduating student who are employed and it
is one of the best way to judge the quality of
8.4 education. Therefore, university should take Director, Alumni Partially
appropriate steps to conduct Employer survey. Implemented
The frequency of orientation sessions on QEC
working should be extended
to the Students at all level as well, along with the
8.5 faculty members. Moreover training of young Director, QEC Implemented
faculty members on teaching and research
methodology may be executed by the QEC.
There should be SOPs to check the M.Phil. / Ph.D.

Director, QEC
thesis by the Plagiarism committee/ Director,
Research/QEC to avoid Self-checking of Plagiarism
8.6 Director Research Under process
which creates doubt on the credibility of the
All Chairmen/
originality of the work.
HODs
3.3.3 Follow-Up
Most of the recommendations of the Review Panel are being implemented by the HEIs as they
find the recommendations made by the Panel in the interest of the university. However, follow-
up mechanism needs more attention as has also been indicated by many HEIs in their
comments as well as much delayed reporting by the Panel e.g., in some cases, the
Findings/Recommendations have not been communicated to the HEIs even after 2 years since
the Review was conducted. The capacity of the QAD at HEC for follow-up seems limited.
HEIs are undecided/confused about the responsibility of follow-up on the Recommendations of
the Review Panel at the institution level. For example, when asked that who was responsible
for the follow-up at the Institution level, 15 QECs and 6 faculty members responded and many
of them named two offices responsible for the follow-up. The data given in Annex. IV show
that 73% QECs and 50% of the faculty staff thought that QEC had this responsibility, while
53% of QECs (some had mentioned both Offices) and 50% of the faculty thought that
Registrar’s office was responsible for the follow-up. Nevertheless, each university had a
follow-up program on the Recommendations of the Panel. The recommendations of the Panel
were notified as is informed by 92% of the QECs (Annex. IV). Detailed plan of follow-up
being implemented by the Indus University, Karachi is shown in the following Flow Diagram.
Responsible
Person
Director
Recommendations
Responsible
Person Dean&
Chairpersons
University Prospectus Reporting
Time
Authority
frame
CPD for Faculty & Responsible Minimum Registrar
Students Person :
2 Months
Chairpersons
Lab Manual
Responsible
PhD review Body
QEC
Faculty /Student
handbook
On the whole; it can be concluded that follow–up process on the recommendations of the
Panel was reasonable, although some of the respondents thought follow-up should be carried
out more vigorously by the HEC.
3.4 Recommendations
The Institutional Performance Evaluation Processes has been highly appreciated by the HEIs
on many accounts, especially in terms of sensitizing/ creation of awareness, and
improvement in documentation and improvement in teaching /research and, therefore, should
be continued and its scope expanded to include all remaining HEIs and their Campuses.
A holistic approach for IQA and EQA should be developed to deal with all aspects of Quality
Assurance at the Institution level. The best office to address the Quality issues will be the
QEC which can be given the responsibility of implementation of IPES, Program evaluation,
accreditation by Accreditation Councils, liaison with QAA and international Networks of
QA, Awareness and Training programs at the university and all other aspects of QA. This
Office needs to be strengthened in terms of human and financial resources and should be
headed by a very senior officer e.g. a Provost.
A very strong Awareness and Training program needs to be followed at the Institution level
for the Administration, faculty staff, and particularly for the students who are the main
stakeholders in the QA process and are sufferers in case poor quality education is offered by
the university. In my view 100% of the students need to be made aware of the Quality issues
through formal discussion programs which will then generate lot of internal pressure on the
Institution to adhere to the high quality standards.
QAA may improve IPES in consultation with HEIs to include additional Standards such as
Social Corporate Responsibility, and address issues highlighted by the HEIs, e.g. the issue of
the HEIs engaged in professional education in Medicines, Engineering, and Languages etc.
The documentation system of HEIs must be improved through training and possibly by
provision of CMS. The HEIs should be allowed a period of 3 months to complete
documentation and prepare UPR.
QAA should ensure that Findings/ Recommendations of the Review Panel are conveyed to
the university in writing within one month of the visit and the follow-up program should be
substantially strengthened.
The cycle of the Review should be 3 years.
The capacity of QAA/QAD at HEC and QECs at HEIs should be substantially enhanced to
cope with the workload.
The recommendations of HEIs in respect of implementation of IPES as given in the
preceding Section should be given due attention.
The Manual of IPES should be revised and Training Manuals for FPs, Members of Review
Panels and implementation of IPES should be developed by QAA/QAD at HEC.
The HEIs may divide the Recommendations of the Review Panel in two separate sets i.e., 1)
those Recommendations which do not require extra funding such as preparation of Mission
statement, Vision Statement, Course Files with Course Outcomes, Academic Calendar, and
holding regular meetings of the Statutory Bodies etc., and 2) those Recommendations which
require large amount of funding such as provision of lab, lecture room, library and transport
facilities, and construction projects etc. The HEIs may develop their strategy for
implementing the Recommendations accordingly.
4. IMLEMENTATION, VALUE, IMPACT AND FOLLOW-UP OF PROGRAM
REVIEWS AND SCOPE FOR IMPLEMENTATION AND INCREASED
‘BUY-IN’ BY FACULTY STAFF
4.1 Background
The number of Academic Programs run by a university is usually quite large, particularly in
General Public sector universities, which requires an adequate mechanism of Quality
Assurance. The idea of handing over the ownership of Quality Assurance to HEIs was
conceived/developed at HEC by the Author and QAA/QAD at the HEC addressed this issue
through establishment of Quality Enhancement Cells at HEIs as an Internal Quality
Assurance (IQA) mechanism. A Manual for Self-Assessment of Programs (Raouf, 2006) was
also prepared by the HEC for guidance of the QECs. Under this mechanism, each program is
expected to be reviewed periodically under the umbrella of QECs who have completed
Review of a large number of programs in each university by now and prepared the Review
Reports. However, Program Reviews are still facing many difficulties as indicated by the PD
(QECs) at HEC. QAA has got established QECs in 162 HEIs and assessed status of 110
QECs through a scoring system based on 3 parameters i.e. establishment, incorporation of
program self-assessment mechanism and empowerment.
In addition to the IQA-EQA mechanism adopted by QECs, an EQA mechanism through
Accreditation Councils established by Govt. of Pakistan and HEC is also in vogue as
elaborated in the Section 7 ‘Evaluation of Performance of the Accreditation Councils’.
However, their scope is limited to only 14 main disciplines of education i.e. Medical and
Dentistry, Engineering, Veterinary Sci., Law, Nursing, Architecture and Town Planning,
Pharmacy, Homeopathy, ‘Tibb’, Agriculture, Business Education, Computing Education
Teachers’ Education and National Technology Council..
Through this component of the study # 7, the status of the Programs Reviews conducted by
QECs has been assessed and various issues related with this program have been highlighted.
Based on the data collected from QECs, input given by the PD (QECs) and review of some
SARs and Review Reports, Findings and Recommendations are given in the ensuing
Sections.
4.2 Methodology
The methodology used for this component in terms of selection of QECs and preparation of
Questionnaire was the same a used for IPES Review given under the ‘Approach and
Methodology’ and ‘Methodology’ given in Section 2. However, a separate Questionnaire
was developed to get input from the PD (QECs) (Annex V.). Also, the Review Reports of the
QECs were consulted and the matter was discussed in great detail in the FGMs at selected
universities. Findings and Recommendations given here are based on the analysis of the data
gathered for this purpose.
4.3 Findings
The achievements of the QAA (and QECs) are fantastic as it has succeeded in establishing
QECs in 162 HEIs which, in turn, have evaluated a large number of Programs in their
respective Institutions. The QAA has been able to conduct Review of the QECs and also
verified the information provided in SARs for selected QECs through its Review Teams (see
Quality Assurance Agency Annual Progress Report, 2013-14).
The QECs played the key role in sensitizing the university Administration and faculty staff
about the Quality Assurance issues of the University Education and creating awareness about
the need of Self-Assessment by the program Managers in the universities. As given in
Annexure VI, 40-50% of the respondents reported that 60-90 % of the faculty staff had
awareness while only about 40% respondents thought that between 30 and 60 % of the
Administrative staff were aware of the QA initiatives.
The office of the QEC is not given the respect it needs for effective working in the university
environment. This issue is apparent from the fact that only 50% of the HEIs have got full
time Head, 44% QECs have got part time In-charges /Additional charge to a faculty member,
while 6% of the QECs do not have any Head of the Office. The information provided by the
PD(QECs) shows that 65% of the QECs employed 2 Officers, 17% employed one Officer
and 18% employed no Officer, while 6% of the QECs did not employ any Support Staff
(Annex V).
During the site visits, the Dir. QEC expressed that QEC had a low level of acceptance
amongst the faculty and Administration as the Directors were not invited to attend various
meetings of the Statutory Bodies in spite of being declared non-voting members. In some
cases, proper office space has not been provided to the QECs.
The PD (QECs) was not satisfied with the level of input given by HEC for improving
working of QECs. His observations are given under Section ‘Assessment of Efficiency and
Capacity of QAA and QECs in performing their duties’ (see Section 6).
The QAA is following good training programs for the Directors of QECs but is unable to
keep pace with the requirement of increased number of QECs.
The QECs trained the Program Teams (PTs) for preparing SARs based on Self-Assessment
Manual provided by QAA and also gave briefings to Assessment Teams which is a
reasonable system. However, during the scrutiny of some SARs of GCUF, it was found that
the quality of SARs prepared by different PTs varied greatly, i.e. from very good SARs to
rather poor SARs, depending upon the interest taken by the respective PT.
The students in their Teacher and Course evaluations did not fill the column about
Comments. However, they expressed lot of reservations during the FGMs about the quality
of education and facilities provided to them. This showed that they were not encouraged to
participate in the QA activities.
The QECs were generally overloaded with various tasks given by the universities as is
evident from the following reasons narrated by the Dir. QEC at KPK Agri. University,
Peshawar for delay in responding to the Questionnaire sent to him:
(a) Busy in getting information and compiling data for university ranking.
(b) Working on S&T Proforma which is a lengthy and time consuming process.
(c) Training of support staff.
In general, the respondents reported that QECs were extended cooperation by faculty
members (78%), Admin. staff (72%), students (59%), ATs (95%) and PTs (78%)
(Annex.VI).
Most of the Assessment Teams were selected from other departments of the same university
and in some cases, from the same Dept., which made the Program Evaluation questionable.
Most of the QECs (44%) and faculty staff (67%) felt the cycle of Program reviews should be
after every 2 years, while about 33% of both QECs and faculty staff though that it should be
after every 3 years (Annex.VI)
Recommendations of the Assessments were put up to the VC/Rector for approval and then
notified by office of the Registrar/QEC for implementation. Data given in Annex.VI show
that most of the recommendations were implemented.
Most of the respondents such as PMAS Arid Univ. Rawalpindi, COMSATS, Islamabad,
KPK Agri. Univ. Peshawar and others informed that ALL recommendation of the ATs were
accepted by the Competent Authority and plan of implementation was also approved. Work
is in progress in most cases. .The list of the Recommendations implemented by various
universities is quite long and only one such example from IUB is given as Annex. VII.
QAA is regularly reviewing the progress of QECs in the Progress Review meetings held at
HEC.
Quality Assurance mechanism is being applied to all disciplines across board. Before the
implementation of the this program there was no formal system of Quality Assurance for
disciplines other than those that fell in the domain of 14 Accreditation Councils . Thus,
Program Reviews have shown the way for continuous improvement in all subjects being
taught in HEIs all over the country.
The information regarding value of the Program Reviews was collected from the Program In
charges, faculty members, students and university Administration through the respective
QECs. It turned out that 80-100% of the Program In-charges, faculty members, students and
the Administrative staff of the university considered the Value of the Program Reviews as
“Medium” while about 22% of the QECs and faculty respondents considered the Value as
“High” (Annex.VI). Between 90 and 100% of the respondents observed improvement in
Programs due to the Review Process. Annex. VI shows that 91% of the faculty members and
95% of the QECs were satisfied with the outcome of the Review.
The respondents agreed that Program Review Process played a very important role in
creating awareness about the quality of the programs among faculty members (100%
respondents), students (80-83%) and Administration (90-100% respondents) (Annex.
VI). The Impact of the Review Process was significant in terms of the following
parameters as indicated by the positive reply from majority of the respondents:
• It increased awareness among faculty staff, administrative staff and students.
• It helped in increasing faculty members and space for the departments.
• Financial support was also increased for the departments.
• Helped in research publications output.
• Regularity of teachers in classes increased.
• Student evaluation of teachers and courses was improved.
Most of the respondents (78-100%) informed that score of the QEC improved after the
Review, while 67 -100 % of the respondents thought it also helped in improving ranking of
the University (Annex. VI).
According to the data given in the QAA Annual Report 2013-14, the implementation
statistics with regard to Program Reviews are quite encouraging as reproduced below:
(i) Awareness Workshops organized by 55% of the QECs were up to standard, 27%
were below the standard while 18% did not hold any Workshop.
(ii) The %age of QECs conducting 3 mandatory surveys in more than 85% Programs was
47% (34% conducted survey of all Programs). The QECs conducting Survey of less
than 50% programs was 27%.
(iii) The QECs implementing SA mechanism in 85% of the target Programs was 67% of
the total number of QECs reviewed by QAA. Only 12% of the QECs implemented
SA mechanism in less than 50% of the target Programs.
(iv) More than 50% of the QECs addressed more than 85% of the weaknesses identified
by the Assessment Teams.
(v) All of the QECs were able to acquire membership of 1, 2 or 3 International Quality
related bodies.
QECs informed that the following factors had a negative impact on the working of the
universities.
• Low capacity of the QEC,
• Lack of appropriate authority with Dir. QEC,
• Slackness of Program In-charge,
• Slackness of faculty staff,
• High work load,
• Less cooperation from administration,
• Difficulty in finding appropriate Assessment Team,
• Less cooperation from AT.
4.3.3 Follow-up
Office of PD (QECs) at QAA is not conducting review visits at all because of shortage of
human resources. Also, succession planning is not done due to shortage of human resources.
The PD (QECs) at HEC gave a list of difficulties in the Follow-up of the Program Reviews.
The most important problem identified was that due to large number of participants in the
Progress Review Meetings, sufficient time was not given to the participants to make
presentations and discuss their issues. Now the size of the group has been reduced which has
created the problem of arranging a large number of meetings.
The opinion was divided about who was the person responsible for the follow- up for
approval/implementation of Recommendations of the Assessment Teams for various
Programs and mostly multiple offices were identified for this responsibility e.g. 94% of the
QECs thought it was the responsibility of both QEC and Program In-charge, 67% and 94% of
the faculty staff thought it was the responsibility of the QEC and Program In-charge,
respectively, while some others thought that this was the responsibility of PTs (Annex.
VI).This confusion needs to be resolved immediately.
In general, the QECs got prompt response from the PTs and Program In-charges but faced
some difficulties from the Assessment Teams (Annex. VI).
The QECs succeeded in getting approval of the Action Plan for implementing the
Recommendations of the Assessment Teams and notify them promptly. Further actions
depended on the interest of the In-charge Program and availability of funds required for the
purpose. However, progress in actions is always reviewed at various levels.
The PD (QECs) at QAA has reported the following difficulties in the follow-up of Program
reviews.
In progress review meetings, since the sizes of the groups were very large, the participants
could not be given enough time to present / discuss their issues or best practices etc. Further,
administrative problems were also there in managing a large group of participants.
Now the size of the groups for review meetings has been reduced to 15 HEIs. Although the
groups are now manageable but it has increased the number of review meetings per annum,
which, in view of already short HR, is getting difficult to manage.
Because of HR shortage in QAA, review visits are not done at all.
In quantitative assessment a number of problems have been observed:
(i) Poor mechanism of data collection and analysis, although the situation has improved
now by developing models in MS EXCEL. It needs to be automated by developing a
web based MIS.
(ii) Poor evidences in support of yearly progress report (YPR). Evidences are sent
manually, along with YPRs. Because of workload and lack of HR, establishing its
authenticity is difficult, that makes the whole assessment questionable. By developing
a web based MIS having ability of cross verification, this problem can be overcome.
(iii) Lack of reviews of the program self-assessment process.
(iv) Lack of reviews of quantitative assessment criteria.
(v) Dependence of quantitative assessment upon one individual officer. It not only
creates monopoly on IQA relevant information and bias in quantitative assessment
but also can be risky in case the individual leaves or any accident occurs.
Because of HR shortage succession planning is not possible.
Poor archival system and shortage of space. Although, it has improved now, it still needs
further improvement.
Lack of relevant HR. Only one officer, supported by two (shared, temporarily hired)
Assistants are extremely insufficient in view of the scope of the work.
Most of QECs mentioned the following difficulties in discharging their responsibilities:
(a) Inadequate capacity of the QEC.
(b) Lack of appropriate authority with Director/In-charge QEC.
(c) Slackness of Program In-charge
(d) Slackness of faculty members
(e) High work load of QEC.
(f) Less co-operation/support from Administration.
(g) Finding appropriate Assessment Team.
(h) Less co-operation from Assessment Team.
4.3.4 Scope of Improvement
The PD (QECs) informed that there has been no improvement in the structure of QECs since
when they were established. At the same time the QECs needed major improvement in terms
of increase in strength of staff and financial resources, appointment of Regular Director of
QEC and upgrading the status of Director (QEC) urgently. Substantial strengthening of
Office of PD (QEC) at QAA is urgently needed to meet the challenges of increase in
workload due to increase in number of QECs, improvement in Training strategy, Review and
Follow-up programs.
The other suggested improvements endorsed by all respondents are as under:
(a) Increase in permanent human resources of QEC.
(b) Proper training of Director and staff of QEC.
(c) Better status of Director/In-charge QEC.
(d) Increase in financial allocation for QEC.
(e) Better training of Program Teams (PT).
(f) Development of more elaborate guidelines Manual for conduct of Program Reviews.
(g) Better training of Program Assessment Teams.
(h) Increase in payment to Assessment Team.
4.3.5 Better ‘Buy-in’ by faculty staff

Awareness programs at the university level for faculty staff should be strengthened,
particularly through FGMs.
Appointment of a Regular Dir. QEC at a high pay scale has been strongly recommended by
many respondents to achieve the above objective. The author feels that this office should be
headed by Provost to bring more respect to this Office in a university environment.
Including Program Review Reports as agenda item in the Academic Council meetings will be
an important step to improve ‘buy-in’ by the faculty staff.
4.4 Recommendations
Program Reviews are the hub for improvement in quality of education in all universities. This
program needs to be strengthened, pursued more vigorously and with greater seriousness.
To improve the effectiveness of this program, capacity of QAA has to be increased
substantially as review visits are not being conducted by QAA at all.
As recommended previously also, the Office of QEC must be strengthened with conviction to
bring it the required level of respect and through permission of adequate resources to
discharge its duties in a befitting manner. It should serve as the ‘Hub’ for all QA activities at
the university.
QECs will function properly only when the Office of PD (QECs) at QAA is upgraded to
match the challenges of manifold increase in the workload and expansion in the scope of
work. HEC should immediately respond to meet this requirement.
Awareness cum Training programs for faculty staff, students and Administrative staff should
be increased so that the message reaches out to each and every stakeholder. QAA may train
Master Trainers from each university who may then replicate these programs at the
university level.
Assessment Teams may be appointed from other Institutions to make the Assessments more
meaningful.
The Cycle of Programs should be every 2-3 years.
Follow-up programs by QAA and QECs need to be strengthened further and the
responsibility for notification of the recommendations should lie with the QEC while
approval of Action Plan and execution of the planned activities should be the responsibility
of the person In-charge of the Program.
There is lot of scope for improvement in efficiency of the QECs which need to be exploited
through training of the QEC staff particularly in documentation and office skills.
The reports of the Assessment Teams should be included in the agenda of the Academic
Council meetings to bring seriousness to the exercise of Program Reviews.
5. IMPLEMENTATION, OBJECTIVETY, VALUE, IMPACT AND FOLLOW-
UP OF ASSESSMENT REVIEWS
5.1 Background
Self-Assessment is the main instrument used for Internal Quality Assurance (IQA) as well as
a prerequisite for External Quality Assurance (EQA) in any form.
In the context of this study it is defined as ‘assessment of an academic program by the
Program In-charge through a systematic process of gathering, reviewing and using important
quantitative and qualitative data about educational programs for improving student learning
and evaluating whether academic and learning standards are being met’.
However, Self-Assessment is equally applicable to all tiers of learning and Administration in
Educational Institutions. Preparation of Self-Assessment Report (SAR) by an Institution or a
Department in a university is a prerequisite and foundation for any internal review (e.g.
Program Review) or an external review (e.g. Institutional Review and Accreditation Review)
and, therefore, the quality of SARs is of paramount importance for achieving the objectives
of the Review.
HEC prepared and published a Self- Assessment Manual in the year 2005 which was revised
in August, 2006. The basic ingredients of a Self-Assessment Report are drawn from ABET
Engineering Criteria 2000, which required each Engineering program seeking accreditation
or re-accreditation to establish its own Self-Assessment Process which, in turn, was to be
assessed by ABET.
The Program Assessment procedure proposed by HEC is given in the following figure.
HEC proposed Criteria with a number of Standards under each Criterion to prepare
Self-Assessment Report against which each program is assessed by an external Assessment
Team (AT). Results of the Assessment include Implementation Plans given in the Self-
Assessment Manual (page 24).
Self-Assessment for Program Reviews was initiated by QECs in HEIs under the directions of
HEC in the year 2005. The purpose of this component of the study is to evaluate the success
level of the Self-Assessment initiative and appreciation of its impact on the quality of
teaching/learning in all subjects taught in a university. It also aims at identifying any
deficiencies in the Self-Assessment Process being followed and need for revising the Self-
Assessment Manual to include new Criteria and Standards based on the experience gained
over the past one decade.
5.2 Methodology
The questions pertaining to Implementation, Objectivity, Value, Impact and Follow-up of
Self-Assessment Reviews were included in the General Questionnaire (Annex. I) and the
Questionnaire developed for response from the PD (QECs). The Questionnaire filled by the
PD (QECs) is available as Annexure V. Some Self-Assessment reports were also examined
to assess their quality. In fact, this component has largely been covered under the preceding
Sections 3 and 4, while the additional questions raised above will also be addressed here.
QEC initiates SA through the Dean one
Semester prior to the assessment
Department forms the PT that will be

Responsible for preparing SAR
QEC reviews the Document action within

One month
NO SAR
Complete
YES
The Vice Chancellor/Rector forms the
AT in consultation with the concerned
Dean based on the recommendation of
The QEC
QEC plans and fixes ATv visit
The AT conducts assessment and

Presents its findings to QEC, Dean, PT
And faculty dept.
The QEC submits an executive

Summary to the Vice Chancellor/
Rector
Department prepares implementation

Plans in tableA.2
Follow up of the implementation plan by

QEC
Figure –:Self-Assessment Procedure
5.3 Findings
Self-Assessment Reviews (SAR) have been introduced in all HEIs having a QEC. However,
the pace of achievements varies greatly among the HEIs. It depended not only on the size of
the university and size of student enrollment, but also on the capacity of the respective QECs
and interest shown by Administration (VCs/Rectors) and the Program In-charges (HODs).
Some QECs had prepared a large number of SARs as high as 132 (e.g. in the case of PMAS,
Arid Agri. University Rawalpindi), while the professional universities such as MUET;
Jamshoro having smaller number of programs prepared 27 SARs. KPK Agri. Univ. Peshawar
prepared SARs for 34 Programs as listed in Annex.VIII.
Self- Assessment (SA) is not a statutory requirement but was undertaken under the direction
of HEC. It is still not mandatory for the Programs to follow the Self-Assessment process.
However, it was interesting to note that some faculty members and students were concerned
about the lack of Standards such as for control of student enrollment vis-à-vis the facilities
available for the conduct of various Programs. For example, they complained about less
enrolment in some Science Programs, compared with the sister universities having much
lower facilities as the SA Standards were silent about such issues. They stressed on
developing QA system for all Programs similar to the one followed by ACs.
The standards did not match the requirements of many programs as these were basically
developed from the base of Engineering Programs, while Social Sciences and Languages
Programs need a separate set of Standards.
The sub-campuses were not involved in the Process of Self- Assessment and were generally
not aware of the QA programs. However, SZABIST sub-campus at Islamabad had appointed
a dedicated person for this purpose.
The quality of SARs varied greatly among different Programs as was observed for two
Reports received from GCUF.
The PT was generally briefed well by the QEC/ Program In-charge for preparing SAR and
the information provided was verified by the In-charge program and sent to the QEC through
the Dean. This information was verified by the AT during the AT visit.
The person responsible for the follow-up on the Recommendations of the AT was Dir. QEC
instead of the Program In-charge or Dean.
5.3.2 Objectivity
Most of the QEC respondents (89%) were of the view that SARs had high objectivity.
Most of the respondents confirmed that the Objectivity was verified by checking if the SARs
were based on published information, consideration of training of the person preparing SAR,
and the fact that the information given in the SAR was verifiable (Annex. IX).
The authenticity of evaluation of teachers by students was verified by discussion with
students (63% respondents) and by matching it with the repute of the teachers with peers
(53%respondents) (Annex. IX).
PTs and QECs got the relevant evaluation Performas filled by students and by Alumni and
employers in very few cases, mostly from within the university, which was not of much
worth.
A large number of the QEC persons were of the view that SARs helped in getting
Accreditation of the relevant Programs (84% respondents) and played important role in
highlighting the deficiencies of Programs (89% respondents) (Annex. IX).
Students were empowered to give their views about the courses being taught and the
Teachers imparting education to them. They were also given the opportunity to give their
opinion about other aspects of education in the university by filling the column of
‘Comments’ although they rarely utilized this opportunity.
A large number of SARs were prepared as mentioned above under ‘Implementation’, and
many Programs were accredited by the Accreditation Councils on the basis of SARs prepared
by PTs in all the universities.
The SARs played the most significant and a crucial role in creating Awareness among all
stake-holders in the HEIs as discussed in the preceding sections.
Examples of Impact of SARs in specific cases are given below.
The Hamdard University, Karachi mentioned identification of deficiencies, hiring new

faculty and subscription to Int. online Journal as the major impact of SARs.
SZABIST, Karachi mentioned comprehensive documentation of programs, establishment of
Boards of Studies, revamping of curriculum of Programs and MERGER OF THREE
PROGRAMS INTO ONE as the major Impact of SARS.
Indus Univ. mentioned that Course outlines and Course schemes were aligned with Course
Codes and titles prescribed by the HEC.
In AJKU, Muzaffarabad, highly qualified faculty was recruited to cope with requirements of
M Phil and PhD programs.
NOTE: There are many other similar examples of the Impact but space does allow
mentioning all of them.
5.3.4 Follow-up
The list of SARs and their follow-up provided by IUB (Annex, VII) and KPK Agri. Univ.,
Peshawar as given in Annexure VIII are good examples of outcomes of Follow-up of SARs.
According to the prescribed procedure, the department submits SAR to the QEC through the
concerned Dean and QEC reviews the SAR to ensure that it is prepared according to the
format, followed by approval of ATs by the VC/Rector in consultation with the QEC. AT
comprise 2-3 faculty members from within or outside the university including at least one
expert in the area of the program to be assessed. The department submits Implementation
Plan to the QEC who is responsible to Implement the Plan.
The data provided by QECs show that there is an effective Follow-up on the SARs. The
SARs are followed up till the implementation of the recommendations of the External
Reviewers including ATs and ACs.
5.4 Recommendations
The Self-Assessment should be pursued vigorously and expanded to cover 100% of the
Programs offered by all HEIs.
The quality of SARs should be improved through effective training of PTs and ATs by QECs
under the direction of QAA.
The Self-Assessment Manual needs to be revised to address issues related with Social
Sciences and Languages etc.
ATs should be appointed from the pool of experts from other universities and, preferably, at
least one expert from industry/field should be included in the AT. The Self Assessment
Manual may revised accordingly.
Instead of the QEC, the owner of the Program i.e. In-charge/Dean should be made
responsible for Follow-up on implementation of recommendations of ATs/ACs.
6. ASSESSMENT OF EFFICIENCY AND CAPACITY OF THE QUALITY
ASSURANCE AGENCY (QAA) & QUALITY ENHANCEMENT CELLS
(QECs) IN PERFORMING THEIR DUTIES
6.1 Background
The HEC Ordinance/Act mandates the Commission with respect to accreditation of
Institutes, their Departments, Faculties and disciplines by setting up new evaluation councils
or empowering the existing ones. The clause is reproduced here under:
“Set up national or regional evaluation Councils or authorize any existing Council or similar
body to carry out accreditation of institutions including their departments, faculties and
disciplines by giving them appropriate ratings. The Commission shall help build capacity of
existing Councils or bodies in order to enhance the reliability of the evaluation carried out by
them.”
The Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) was established by the HEC in May, 2005. It was
visualized to be ultimately an independent and autonomous body for implementing Quality
Standards in the Higher Education Institutions across the country. The QAA was given the
mandate to establish new ACs and help existing Accreditation Councils by providing
guidance and training, as well as financial support to the newly established Councils, at least
in the initial period. The QAA was headed by a Managing Director and its structure and
Mandate was expected to be revisited and given protection under Act. The QAA was
expected to be responsible for all EQA functions, and act as the Accrediting body for all the
Accreditation Councils, including those established under Act by the Govt. of Pakistan
(GOP-Councils).
The Annual Report of QAA includes the following statements.
QAA Mission:
“To integrate the concept of quality assurance in higher learning with enhanced levels of
international compatibility through capacity building”.
QAA Vision:
“Developing a visible and sustainable
mechanism of quality assurance in higher learning sector to
meet the rising challenges of transforming the country into
a knowledge economy”.
Since then, QAA operates within the following framework:
Stage I: Pertains to QA Standards and
Criteria
Stage II: Undertakes the aspect of Internal
Quality Assurance i.e. IQA
Stage III: Assures the quality by reinforcing it from
external facet i.e. EQA
Having established the IQA mechanism under Stage II, at present, QAA is passing through
Stage III i.e. EQA and is striving to assure the academic quality at HEIs by functioning in
these dimensions.
At the moment the QAA is headed by a Director General who is supervising all activities of
QAA with the help of only few Officers.
The DG (QAA) has provided the following information in response to the Questionnaire sent
to him:
SN Name Designation Major Tasks
1 Dr. Mohammed Director General, QAA Heading the QA Division

Rafiq Baloch
2 Mr. Nasir Shah Director QAA Heading IQA Section of QAA

Heading EQA-Program Level
Quality Assurance by means of
Accreditation Councils
3 Mr. Muhammad Heading EQA-Institute Level Review.

Shoaib Deals in all accredited universities of HEC
Project Director and performs following functions:
[EQA-Institute
Level] i. Evaluation of entire performance of each
Public/ Private Degree Awarding
Institutions on the basis of 11 standards
He is shared with already defined by QAA, HEC.
HRD Division
ii. Coordination with universities for the
preparation of University Portfolio Report.
iii. Coordination and Conduction of visits of all
Public and Private Sector DAIs on
the given
standards
iv. Selection, Capacity Building and facilitation
of Institutional Evaluators involved in IPES.
4 Mr. Abaidullah Assistant Director (IQA) Assisting Director (QAA) helps in: -
Anwar
Administering the activities w.r.t.
establishing new QECs and IQA
mechanism in established QECs
(i.e. 162 so far) in all the accredited HEIs of
Pakistan (i.e. 177, so far). The objective is
to attain: “All the accredited HEIs have
their Directorates of Quality Assurance and
have achieved W level of academic
quality”. For attaining the objective, the
following activities are performed:
Preparing and reviewing the criteria and
developing IQ standards.
Establishing new Directorates of Quality
Enhancement.
Capacity building of HEIs [new and
existing] w.r.t. the IQA criteria and
standards.
Progress Monitoring – by means of
Progress Review Meetings.
Progress Monitoring & Assuring - by means
of Surprise/informed
visits of HEIs.
Progress Assessing and Rating – by means
of submitted annual reports, individually by
each HEI.
The report is assessed in accordance with
the provided criteri and standards and the
given targets.
Assessment of the self-assessment process /
IQA mechanism.
Coordinating with DAIs, Keeping and
maintaining databases and archives.
5 Ms. Humaira Assistant Director Program Level Accreditation by means of

Quddus establishing discipline wise Accreditation
[EQA-Program Councils.
Level by means of
Accreditation Deals with 9 Professional councils and
Councils] performs following functions: Coordination
with already existing
Professional Accreditation Councils.

Establishment of New Councils in those
disciplines where deemed necessary.
Capacity Building of Accreditation
Councils including Capacity Building of
Program Evaluators of Accreditation
Councils.
Assessment, Funding and continuous
facilitation of Councils.
Need assessment of established councils
Annual meeting and subcommittee
meeting of all Accreditation Councils
Assisting Director QAA in dealing with 4

councils established by HEC and performs
following functions:
Coordination with already existing
Capacity Building of Accreditation
Councils including Capacity Building of
Program Evaluators of Accreditation
Councils.
Assessment, Funding and continuous
facilitation of HEC Established Councils
6 Mr. Shoaib Irshad Assistant Director Review visits of PhD and MS/MPhil level
[EQA-Program programs. Out of more than 110 HEIs
Level Review] which are offering PhD programs, more
than 300 programs of more than 46 HEIs
have been reviewed as you
Further, w.r.t. MS/MPhil program review
86 programs of 9 HEIs have yet been
reviewed. Job description of the
incumbent is:
Assisting Director General QAA in
conducting PhD as well as MS/MPhil
Program Level Review Visits and
performs following functions:
Data gathering of all Ph.D. scholars
enrolled in all programs of each DAIs on
given templates.
Ph.D. Program Review Visit of all Public/
Private Sector DAIs that are offering Ph.D.
Programs.
Coordination and conduction of Ph.D.
Program Review Visit.
Selection, Capacity Building and
facilitation of Program Evaluators
involved in Ph.D. Program Review.
7 Mr. Muhammad Assistant Director Assisting Director General QAA in

Raza [Governance Review conducting governance review visits of all
under PM’s the Pakistani universities and preparing this
Directive] reports.
8 Ms. Pakeeza Private Secretary to Assists DG QAA

Yousef DG
9 Mr. Amjad Farooq Assistant Private Assists all the sections of QAA in putting
Secretary up and clearing financial matters from
Finance Department. QAA has to deal with
an enormous amount of TA/DA bills, hotel
bills of conducting workshops, seminars,
review meetings etc.
10 Ms. Anum Diary Despatcher Deals in diary and dispatch of department’s
official mail.
11 Mr. Zulfiqar Assistant Assists Mr. Shoaib Irshad – AD (EQA

Program Level Review).
12 Mr. Mohsin Saleem DEO-Contingent Paid Assists AD (IQA) as well as AD

(EQA-Program Level via
Accreditation Councils).
13 Mr. Umar Nawaz Assistant- Assists AD (IQA), AD (EQA) Program
Contingent Paid Level via Accreditation Councils) as well as
to AD (Governance Review)
14 Mr. Rehan Naib Qasid
15 Mr. Anwar Naib Qasid
QECs
HEC views QECs as the most powerful instrument for a quick start and continued IQA
mechanism for all Programs in all HEIs, not otherwise covered by Accreditation Councils.
To date, QAA has established QECs at the main campuses of 162 HEIs and reviewed their
status in the case of 116 QECs which is a tremendous amount of work. QAA is also actively
following a program of Capacity Building of these QECs through extensive trainings and
follow-up programs. It is carrying out assessment program for QECs using a score card
system. At QAA, an Officer of Assistant Director level is responsible for the entire QECs
network in the country.
It needs to be clarified at this stage that another parallel department called Quality Assurance
Division (QAD) of HEC is looking after other relevant areas of QA such as Qualification
Framework, Plagiarism etc. The present set up of QAD and its functions are given as below:
1.
SN Name Designation Major Tasks
1 Muhammad Consultant QA Heading the QA Division

Ismail
2 Ms Shamim Director QA Issuance of NOCs for launching of New

Shami MPhil/MS/Equivalent and PhD
Programs
Review of the relevant policies
Handling the queries and complaints regarding
above mentioned matters.
3 Ms Dur-e- Deputy Director Evaluation/Recognition of National Research

Shahwar QA –I Journals and Financial Support
4 Muneer Ahmed Deputy Director Implementation of Plagiarism Policy Matters

QA-II related to Directorates of Distance Education
above mentioned matters. Responding to Court
Cases
5 M. Saleem Assistant Endorsement of TTS appointments/

Qamar Director QA promotions cases
Reviewing the TTS draft Statutes of the
Universities
above mentioned matters
Responding to Court Cases
6 Sanaullah Assistant Implementation of QA Policies related to
Memon Director QA-I Faculty employment/promotion and admission
to MS/MPhil/Equivalent and PhD Programs
Formulation of QA Policies, the National
Quality Assurance
Committee
National Qualification Framework and
register
above mentioned matters Responding to Court
Cases
7 Ms. Sadia Assistant Endorsement of TTS appointments/

Bukhari Director QA-II promotions cases
8 Rahim Shah Assistant Assists Consultant QA
Personal Sec
9 Ms Saria Amjad Research Associate Assists AD QA
10 Syed Computer Operator Assists DD QA-I

Masroor Shah
11 M. Rafaqat Awan Assistant Assist D QA
12 Muhammad Naeem LDC Assists DD QA-II
13 Farman Naib Qasid
14 Ansar Nawaz Naib Qasid
2. Above mentioned activities entail an enormous volume of work hours for which
appropriate number of officers and support staff (Assistants/Computer
Operators/Research Associates/Internees) are essentially required. Currently, QAD is
functioning at strength of 62.5% against the approved posts.
3. In the absence of a regular head of QAD during last year, a large number of cases
related to TTS, NOCs for new programs, plagiarism etc. got accumulated. Recent
increase in the salary of TTS faculty has promoted many more faculty members to join
the Scheme. Overall, with increase in the number of universities/DAIs, the cases related
to all the functions of QAD are increasing significantly.
4. Although the Officers dealing with the above mentioned activities work very efficiently
but they are constrained by the lack of support staff in the areas of maintenance of files
/ record, typing, follow up on the HEC instructions to the universities / DAIs, checking
the records, searching for the record / information from the files / internet, mail
dispatch/receipt entries, follow up on the required information / response from the
Universities in the cases of plagiarism, NOC issuance, TTS cases, implementation of
the QA guidelines etc. There is no support staff to assist DDQA-II, ADQA-I and
ADQA-II. No Superintendent and mail dispatcher is available at the Division Level.
5. There are a large number of files, which are placed in the stores without any
arrangement. Tracing a file and looking for required information sometimes become a
serious problem. The data base of TTS cases needs to be streamlined. Even determining
the backlog of work is not possible due to the involvement of the staff in day to day
routine work.
6. The delay in response to TTS and NOCs cases, queries and complaints on any matter
mentioned above, in spite of very strenuous efforts by QAD, causes irritation, and
hatred, frustration, disappointment to the faculty and institutions on one part and
embarrassment, bad taste and humiliation for HEC on the other.
7. In the context of above mentioned situation and the backlog available at QAD, there is
an urgent need to improve the capacity of the QAD for the timely / efficient disposal of
cases by providing additional staff as mentioned below:
OFFICERS
(a) One DDQA (for TTS)
(b) Two ADQA (for TTS)
(c) One ADQA (Plagiarism Section)
(d) One ADQA (Distance Education)
(e) One DDQA (NOC Programs)
(f) One ADQA (NOC Programs)
(g) DDQA (Implementation of QA Policies)
(h) ADQA (Implementation of QA Policies)
SUPPORT STAFF
One Superintendent for Division
One Assistant for DDQA-II
One Assistant for ADQA-I
One Assistant for ADQA-II
One Mail Dispatcher/Receiver for Division
The purpose of this component of the study is to assess the efficiency and capacity of the
QAA and QECs in performing their duties.
6.2 Methodology
The latest available Annual Report of QAA was studied to understand its current
engagements.
Detailed Questionnaires were sent to DG (QAA), Consultant (QAD) and PD (QECs) at HEC.
Brief discussions were also held with DG (QAA) and Consultant (QAD), while regular
contact was maintained with Mr. Nasir Shah, Director QAA who is also the Focal Person for
this Study.
The role of QECs has already been discussed in detail in Sections 3, 4 & 5 of this Report,
while a part of the QAA activities will also be discussed here. Feedback from QECs, DG
(QAA), Consultant (QAD). PD (QECs), data collected from Institutions, discussions with
stake holders in Universities during site visits and Annual Report of QAA were used to give
Findings and making Recommendations.
6.3 Findings
Even a cursory look at the current set up (see human resource figures given above) of QAA,
QAD and QECs management at HEC will tell the story of ‘Capacity’ of these very important
Offices responsible for Quality Assurance of HE sector of Pakistan. The manpower in this
Division of HEC is dismally low and requires immediate attention of HEC Authorities. The
information provided regarding the problems of coping with the workload are also mentioned
by QAA and QAD which include a huge backlog of various queries pertaining to NOCs, TTS
cases, Plagiarism cases and implementation of HEC Guidelines etc. to be responded by the
Division.
The QECs, faculty staff and some ACs in their response to the Questionnaires had indicated
the problem of no response and late response from QAA and QAD offices which entailed
frustration and a bad impression of HEC among the affected people and Organizations as an
Organization,
The failure of the QAA and QAD staff to deliver appropriately in spite of best efforts made
and extra time devoted to office by them, caused frustration and disappointment among the
very good Officers and the supporting staff. One could easily feel the impact of over work on
senior and junior staff equally, in meetings with them. This should be a matter of serious
concern for the HEC Authorities.
The issues of the QECs at HEI level have already been discussed earlier under Section 4 of
this Report.
QAA and QAD as well as PD (QECs) faced a severe problem of storing, sorting and
extracting information from the files due to shortage of space and poor management of
Archives and lack of supporting staff to meet the needs of 177 HEIs.
Officers of HEC were generally not satisfied about meeting the expectations of HEIs.
In spite of the fact that the QECs undertook a large number of Awareness campaigns at the
Institution level, a high percentage of faculty and Admin. Staff was not aware of the QA
activities. This situation was even worse for the students.
In spite of various difficulties, achievements of the QECs were very good in terms of
preparation of SARs and conduct of Program Reviews.
The above observations in no way reflect on the ‘Efficiency’ of QAA, QAD and the PD
(QECs) and QECs at HEIs who were delivering extraordinarily more than expected, in spite
of the capacity issues. In fact, considering all the constraints, efficiency of these offices was
quite high.
6.4 Recommendations
The most important recommendation is that the QAA-QAD and Offices of PD (QECs) and
Dir. QEC at HEIs should be immediately strengthened in terms of human and financial
resources by HEC/HEIs. The new officers to be appointed should have knowledge and
aptitude to handle Quality issues of the HE sector.
Management of Archives and provision of archival space for the above Divisions/office
should be given high priority by HEC.
It is emphasized that optimum working of Quality Assurance system which is declared as one
of the three pillars of the HEC’s strategic planning holds key to the production of high
quality graduates by HEIs. Therefore, QAA-QAD at HEC should be given the resources at
the optimum level to discharge their duties effectively.
QECs at HEIs need to be upgraded and strengthened to meet the QA challenges at the
university level as discussed under Sections 4 and 5 of this Report and is evidenced by the
relatively better output of better established QECs of SBKU, Quetta and KPK Agri. Univ.
Peshawar, compared with many other QECs.
7. EVALUATION OF THE PERFORMANCE OF THE ACCREDIATATION
COUNCILS
7.1 Background
Accreditation Councils (ACs) have the mandate to accredit the relevant undergraduate
professional degree programs all over the country and have the authority to control launching
of such programs by HEIs. Thus, their role is crucial in controlling the quality of these
programs. To date, the Govt. of Pakistan has established 9 such Councils under their own
respective Acts. The Councils are:
• Pakistan Medical and Dental Council (PM&DC).
• Pakistan Engineering Council (PEC).
• Pharmacy Council of Pakistan (PCP).
• Pakistan Veterinary Medical Council (PVMC).
• Pakistan Nursing Council (PNC).
• Pakistan Bar Council (PBC).
• Pakistan Council for Architects and Town Planners (PCATP).
• National Council for ‘Tibb’ (NCT).
• National Council for Homeopathy (NCH).
All programs launched by the HEIs falling in the domain of the above ACs require
accreditation/re-accreditation by the respective AC, for recognition of the degrees and
‘Practice’ by the graduates. Therefore, these Councils have a very important position and
authority to implement Quality Standards in the respective programs. The scope of work of
these ACs is limited to the programs that lie within their respective domains.
However, there were many new disciplines which were growing rapidly and so was the
number of new sub-standard DAIs that were established in small buildings in streets of all
cities all over the country- a phenomenon called by HEC the ‘mushroom growth of DAIs’
phenomenon. This phenomenon was more visible throughout the country in the disciplines of
Business Education and Computing Education. Also, some key Disciplines like Agriculture
and Teachers Education had no External Quality Assurance mechanism.
In the wake this grave situation, the HEC established the following 5 Accreditation Councils
(NTC has been established very recently) as was provided in the Ordinance/Act of the HEC.
• National Business Education Accreditation Council (NBAEC).
• National Computing Education Accreditation Council (NCEAC).
• National Agriculture Education Accreditation Council (NAEAC).
• National Accreditation Council for Teacher Education (NACTE).
• HEC has very recently established National Technology Council (NTC).
Note: The author of this Report (Consultant) is a member of the NAEAC.
The above 5 Councils apparently do not enjoy the same authority as the 9 Councils
established by GOP, but are quite effective (except for NACTE) in terms of implementing
Quality Assurance Standards in their respective domains.
HEC has published a Brochure on “Good Practices for Quality Assurance for Accreditation
Councils in Pakistan” (Batool and Qureshi, 2005). In this study the performance of the above
4 Councils has been evaluated while the issues of the 3 Councils established by GOP that
responded to the Questionnaire have also been highlighted.
7.2 Methodology
All the 4 Accreditation Councils established by the HEC (5th has been established only
recently) and 6 Councils out of 9 established by GOP were approached to fill Questionnaires
(Annex. X & XI) sent to them by the Consultant to have their point of view about their role
in Quality Assurance of their respective Disciplines. All HEC Councils and 3 GOP Councils
i.e. PEC, PVMC and PCATP responded and sent back the filled in Questionnaires.
Questions relevant to the role of ACs and their performance were also included in the
Questionnaire sent to all QECs. Also, a separate Questionnaire (Annex. XII) was sent to Dir.
QAA who is the officer In-charge of ACs at HEC. Additional information from the HEC
Councils in the form of Annual Reports was also collected. The performance of ACs was
evaluated in the light of the information gathered through all above mentioned sources.
7.3 Findings
The findings of this component are divided into three parts i.e. for HEC Councils, GOP
Councils and QECs.
HEC Councils
The Councils were well organized under the umbrella of QAA and are performing their
functions well as per their mandate. They were sharing with QAA the status of program
accreditation on quarterly basis, and their Annual Action Plan before the closure of the
financial year. The QAA was supporting training workshops of all the Councils conducted by
foreign experts for Program Evaluators e.g. for NAEAC (Annex. XIII).
These Councils have progressed well in achieving their goals and assessed/accredited a large
number of programs (214 by NCEAC, 231 by NAEAC,205 by NACTE). The process takes
about 3-4 months to complete which is undertaken for a number of Programs simultaneously.
Unlike the GOP Councils, the HEC Councils divide the Program-Assessment results into W,
X, Y and Z categories, W being the best and Z the poorest category, to guide the HEIs about
their status of Quality/ Accreditation.
Each Council has a different understanding of its legal authority. THE NAEAC feels that
legal authority was an issue to be resolved. NACTE was of the view that the Council’s legal
authority/mandate of the Council was questioned by many Institutions, particularly by the
public sector Colleges of Education in Punjab. Not a single college in Punjab applied for
accreditation, rather there was resistance from the DSD, Lahore. The universities are
affiliating Teachers Education Programs without informing the Council and bypass the
Council in this regard. These HEIs do not even respond to NACTE on this issue.
NBEAC had entirely a different concept about this issue and believed that accreditation
should be a voluntary exercise and Business Schools should work on self-motivation to
improve the quality of the programs.
The NCEAC has remained silent on the issue of the ‘authority’.
The Councils have streamlined the procedure for assessment and published Manuals for
Training of Reviewers and preparation of SARs. NACTE has published a number of high
quality Manuals with the assistance of UNESCO and USAID.
The HEIs have shown satisfaction with the accreditation process of HEC Councils and its
outcome.
GOP Councils
Three Councils responded to the Questionnaire sent to them and the Questionnaire filled by
PEC (Annex. XIV) is a good example of clarity in procedure adopted for accreditation by
them. The accreditation process followed by these Councils is clearly laid down, though they
differ in certain details e.g. in the selection of the Inspection Teams.
These Councils differ greatly in terms of time since establishment and have Accredited /
assessed for accreditation a large number of Programs. For example, PEC has accredited 326
programs while 100+ are under process, PVMC has accredited 37 programs and PCATP
accredited 18 B.Arch. and 3 B.Sc. City& Regional Planning Programs.
These Councils have published Manuals for guidance of HEIs and training of Accreditation
teams.
Except for PEC (and may be PM&DC) these Councils are not accredited by International
bodies. However, they regularly follow the Self-Assessment process and review their
Standards in the Council meetings.
These Councils tend to align their accreditation criteria with the international bodies, e.g.
PEC criteria are in line with Washington Accord (WA) and Federation of Engineering
Institutions of Asia and the Pacific (FEIAP).
The procedure for resolution of conflict with the HEIs regarding decisions of the Councils is
well defined. However, in the case of PVMC, this procedure is biased entirely in favor of the
Council, the HEIs do not have much choice but to accept the decision of the Council.
QAA
HEC/QAA is in the process of establishment of new Councils of Life Sciences, Social
Sciences and Medical Allied Health Sciences which is an important step at this stage.
HEC has made significant achievements by way of signing MOUs with major GOP-
Councils i.e. PEC, PVMC, PCATP and PBC for conflict resolution.
QAA has resolved major issues of Medical graduates from Cuba and Veterinary graduates of
non- accredited Institutions.
Response from the HEIs
The FP/QEC was properly briefed (80% respondents), for the preparation of SAR by
providing Manual and guidance during Zero Visit by the AC Team.
In about 90% cases, the HEIs were satisfied with the Accreditation process and its outcome
(Annex. XV).
7.4 Recommendations
New HEC Councils under consideration should be established earliest and their number
increased to include Natural Sciences and Basic Sciences.
The issue of legal status of the HEC Councils is sensitive and needs to be tackled wisely at
the earliest opportunity, in consultation with legal experts.
The concept of NBEAC about its mandate for accreditation needs to be clarified earliest by
QAA.
The problem of lack of response to NACTE by Teachers Education Colleges towards
accreditation by NACTE is a serious issue to be addressed by QAA. Its resolution with the
help of QECs and taking up the issue with Govt. of the Punjab needs consideration by QAA.
QAA needs to be strengthened to a much higher level to deal with the existing HEC
Councils, GOP Councils and new Councils under consideration for establishment.
The HEC may increase its financial support for the HEC Councils to make them viable, and
for capacity building of the Councils.
8. EVALUATION OF THE ACCREDIATATION SYSTEMS AND CRITERIA
COMPLIANCE WITH DECISION AND COMPARISON BETWEEN
TREATMENT OF PRIVATE AND PUBLIC HEIs (IN COORDINATION
WITH STUDY # 6)
8.1 Background
Accreditation System for HEIs and DAIs
There is no formal Accreditation System in vogue for existing HEIs/ DAIs e.g. evaluation
against IPES for accreditation. However, HEC has developed Criteria (Check List)for
recognition of newly established HEIs/DAIs as given in Annex. XVI, which are strictly
implemented by HEC both for the Public and Private Institutions of higher learning.
In parallel to the HEC, the Provincial governments have also constituted their own
Committees for recognition of the new Institutions that apply for recognition e.g. Charter
Inspection and Evaluation Committee (CIEC) in the Sind Province. The constitution of these
Committees varies in different provinces but the Committee is generally led by the provincial
Secretary of Education, except for the Sind province where it was led by a retired senior
Bureaucrat Dr. S M Qureshi, the Consultant for the TPV study under TESP. The Author of
this report represented HEC for many years on these Committees. Initially, there were
serious conflicts between HEC and the Provincial governments on the issue of recognition of
newly established HEIs. However, later on, this issue was resolved through joint site visits by
the HEC Committee and respective Provincial Committees.
After the positive decision by the joint Committee of HEC and the respective Provincial
Govt., name of the Institution is placed on the HEC Website in the list of recognized
Institutions.
HEC regularly publishes Parent Alerts in the leading national newspapers and the list of
HEIs/DAIs ‘Recognized’/ ‘Not Recognized’ by HEC is placed on the HEC Website.
The recognition criteria are the same and are applied with equal rigor to Public and Private
Institutions.
Accreditation of all Academic Programs offered by HEIs in Pakistan that fall in the domain
of the 9 Accreditation Councils established by GOP through legislation is mandatory and
there is no distinction between private and public sector HEIs in this regard. Launching of
these programs and their accreditation by the relevant Councils is essential for the
recognition of degrees and registration of the graduates for employment and private practice
as professionals. The list of such Councils is given in Section 7 of the Report. Each Council
has developed its own Criteria and Standards for evaluation /accreditation of the relevant
programs under various disciplines. These Criteria and Standards are aligned with the
international practices for international recognition of the degrees of the graduates. However,
for this purpose many countries hold their own examinations for the recognition of degrees
from other countries in spite of the fact that such degree programs were accredited by the
Accreditation Council of that country. For example, PM&DC does not recognize the degrees
awarded in Medical subjects unless the candidates pass the test held by PM&DC.
Each Council has developed detailed procedure of accreditation (example of PEC is given in
Annex. XIV). Compliance to the decision of the Accreditation Council is mandatory and
there is no exception in this regard. In case any HEI disagrees with the decision of the
Council, it has the right to contest the decision through an appeal against the decision, based
on strong logical grounds. The final decision on the appeal, however, lies with Council.
The case of accreditation/evaluation of programs by the 4 HEC Councils who work in
parallel to the GOP Councils is different in terms of the ‘mandatory’ status.
This issue of legal authority of HEC Councils has been discussed in the preceding Section 7
of the Study. In spite of this shortcoming, the HEIs are offering their programs of Computing
Education, Agriculture Education and Business Education for evaluation, while NACTE is
facing problems from Colleges/Institutions in Punjab offering programs of Teachers
Education.
The HEC-Councils do not accredit any program but, using the Criteria and Standards
developed by HEC, the Assessments Teams appointed by the Councils identify strengths and
weaknesses of the Program and place the program in one of the categories i.e. W, X,Y and Z
to sensitize the Institution about the steps to be taken for the improvement of the programs.
HEC publishes the status of each program as determined by the Councils on its website and
QAA publishes ‘Parent Alerts’ for guidance of the public about the quality of the program.
This step of publicity encourages the HEIs to struggle for compliance to the decisions of the
HEC-Councils. On the basis of success achieved by the existing Councils. HEC has decided
to establish more Councils on the pattern of the existing Councils in the disciplines of Life
Sciences, Social Sciences and Medical Allied Health Sciences which is the right step to be
taken at this stage. The 5th Council i.e. National Technology Council (NTC) has been
established very recently
Note: This component of the study has largely been covered under Section 7. However, an
attempt is made below to compare treatment of private and public HEIs in terms of
accreditation of programs by the Accreditation Councils.
8.2 Methodology
Feedback from the 5 Private universities was collected through the Questionnaire sent to their
QECs. These universities were: Iqra University, Karachi, Indus University, Karachi,
Hamdard University, Karachi, SZABIST, Karachi and Institute of Space Technology (IST),
Islamabad. A Questionnaire was also sent to the PD looking after the matter pertaining to
Private Institutions at HEC to collect the required information (Annex. XII). DG (A&A) at
HEC was also approached to get the relevant information. The information given on the HEC
Website and feedback from ACs was also utilized for the purpose of evaluation of HEIs and
DAIs.
8.3 Findings
HEC has developed minimum Criteria for establishment/recognition of HEIs/DAIs in the
Public and Private Institutions.
To date, HEC has inspected and recognized 51 Institutions in the public sector and 36 in the
private sector based on the approved minimum criteria for recognition of HEIs.
There is no difference in the Criteria used for recognition of private and public sector
Institutions. ALL (100%) Private HEIs informed that they were satisfied with the
Accreditation Process.
Accreditation Process and Accreditation Criteria were the same for public and private
Institutions as was informed by the Private HEIs.
The Minimum Criteria used for recognition of DAIs are apparently too low and should be
enhanced.
HEC has developed a system to address complaints against decisions of the
Committee by the HEIs and has addressed 60 such complaints since its establishment. In
such cases, provincial authorities are requested to resolve the conflict on the basis of NOC
granted to private and public sector HEIs by HEC.
8.4 Recommendations
The current system of recognition of new HEIs based on Minimum Criteria is working well
and should continue to encourage establishment of new HEIs/DAIs.
After about 5 years after recognition, the HEIs may be evaluated through a ‘soft review,’ and
re-evaluated through a ‘hard review’ using the IPES Criteria and Standards.
9. ASSESSMENT OF QUALITY ASSURANCE SYSTEMS AS APPLIED TO
AFFILIATED COLLEGES AND EXTERNAL DEGREE PROGRAMS (IN
COORDINATION WITH STUDIES # 4 & 5)
9.1 Background
Government of Pakistan, HEC and general public in the country are equally concerned about
the issue of Access to Higher Education. The Planning Commission of Pakistan in its
Approach Paper (2006) on Strategic Direction to achieve Vision 2030 mentioned that
‘Pakistan faced a tremendous challenge in developing a system of delivery of quality
education at all levels’. In spite of establishment of a large number of new HEIs both in the
public and private sectors, it is not possible to cope with the burgeoning demand for higher
education in Pakistan. Therefore, to deal with the issue of the widening gap in demand for
higher education and the limited capacity of public sector to handle it, dependence on
Distance Education (External Degree Programs) and Affiliated Colleges is rapidly
increasing, while the challenges of quality assurance for these modes of education need to be
addressed effectively. In the past few years, a rat race for affiliation of colleges (especially
the private colleges) by the public sector HEIs with the main objective of increasing
university income has been witnessed.
Two separate studies one each for Affiliated Colleges and for External Degree Programs are
being conducted concurrently by two Consultants under TESP and the Author of this Report
was expected to coordinate with the two Consultants which did not become possible. This
Study is ,however, focused on Quality Assurance system rather than overall review of the
above two modes of Higher Education.
At this stage, the Author has got access to the Draft Reports submitted by the two
Consultants which have been utilized to strengthen this Chapter and, for the sake of
convenience, the two modes of education have been discussed separately.
9.2 Methodology
Information was collected from QECs as well as In-charge External Degree Programs
through Questionnaire appended as Annex. XVIII.
The Drafts Reports of the two Consultants for Affiliated Colleges and External Degree
Programs were also consulted. In addition, the World Bank Discussion Paper Report No.47,
the HEC PC-1 for Establishment of Directorate of Distance Education, Survey Report of
Affiliated Colleges conducted under DLI 4 etc. were also consulted. Findings and
Recommendations are based on the literature reviewed and the limited data collected from
QECs (Annex. XIX).
9.3 Affiliated Colleges
9.3.1 Background
According to the Word Bank Discussion Paper series Report No. 47, Affiliated Colleges
Model is regarded as the weakest link in the Higher Education sector while about 45% of the
graduates in South Asia come from this stream. Therefore, the quality of education of
Affiliated Colleges is a matter of serious concern for this region.
HEC Website shows the list of colleges affiliated with various universities which gives
interesting evidence of lack of seriousness and concern of many universities about relevance
of the Affiliated Colleges with their academic programs.
In Pakistan, there was mushroom growth of Affiliated Colleges after 2002, especially by the
newly established universities and the number has grown to 1900 with enrolment of about
1.5 million students as given below (HEC, 2014).
Number of Colleges, Enrolment and Faculty
Provinces No. of Enrolment Faculty

Affiliated
Colleges
Punjab 1,351 1,018,248 36,648
Sindh 268 339,060 7,582

KPK 209 74,981 5,674
Baluchistan 72 62,568 3,212
Total 1,900 1,494,857 53,116
Most of these colleges (1351) with student strength of over one million are located in the
Punjab Province. These colleges normally imparted education at BA/BSc levels (2 years
course) under Annual system of examinations. In some Postgraduate colleges, MSc,
MPhil/MS level education is also being imparted. Under the direction of HEC, the
universities have now shifted to 4 year (124-130 credit hours) BS program and the Affiliated
Colleges are adopting the same system. The curriculum followed by the colleges is the same
as followed by the Affiliating University which, in turn, is developed by Acad. Division of
HEC by involving various universities of the country. However, in this exercise, college
teachers are rarely involved directly. The examinations are conducted by the affiliating
university which will face difficulties when Semester system is fully adopted by the colleges.
The Affiliated Colleges are generally established in the Public sector and work under the
administrative control of the respective provincial governments. Therefore, the HEC as a
Federal organization, has no direct say in their affairs. Recently, the number of private
colleges and private Groups of Colleges run under their own administrative set up has
increased rapidly. However, all Affiliating Universities follow HEC’s guidelines for
maintaining standard of education of these colleges, including the minimum standards to be
met by a college for affiliation. Nevertheless, the watertight bureaucratic system of
Directorates of Colleges under various provincial ministries will play a major role in any
future strategy for improving conditions of these colleges.
Quality Assurance for Affiliated Colleges
In general, the quality of the affiliated colleges in the South Asian region is not satisfactory
as was also pointed out in the World Bank Report No 47 (2011). While discussing the
question, “can quality expansion be achieved with the current Affiliation Model?” the
categorical answer was “No, it is no longer sustainable or wise to continue the current way
these colleges are operated and managed” This answer is applicable to Pakistan’s situation as
well. However, there have been many exceptions in Pakistan where the past history shows
that affiliated colleges like Govt. College, Lahore, Punjab Agri. College and Research
Institute, Lyallpur (Faisalabad), Hailey College of Commerce and Law College performed
extremely well and got international fame within the same set up/Model. This is an import
point to ponder that why majority of the colleges failed to perform while some others did not
find the system to be an obstacle in the way of their excellent performance? One common
factor for better performers was their high quality leadership and faculty as well as good
administration at the college level. Even the current studies show huge difference in the
quality of Affiliated Colleges (e.g. HEC and World Bank, TESP, 2014).
It was strongly felt by HEC that unless the quality of graduates of which a high proportion
comes from the Affiliated Colleges is improved, quality of higher level degree holders will
remain compromised. Therefore, HEC took many steps for improving the quality of teaching
at these colleges by providing necessary guidelines to the Affiliating Universities. It,
however, needs to be well understood that there are many interacting factors that determine
the quality of education that include, among others, the quality of the faculty staff, leadership
of the college, curricula being followed, facilities such as library, internet, computers, labs,
classrooms and student amenities etc., support from the Affiliating University and
Management. Except for the curricula, all other factors are beyond the purview of HEC.
HEC has taken up the issue of Affiliated Colleges as a challenge and included it in TESP as a
Disbursement Linked Indicator (DLI 4). Acad. Division of HEC has developed a Manual of
Guidelines based on Minimum Quality Standards (MQS) to be followed by the Affiliating
universities for Quality Assurance. However, these Standards are primarily for the purpose of
granting affiliation to colleges, similar to the Eligibility Requirements and Standards for
Accreditation followed by Middle States Commission on Higher Education, USA.
The HEC Minimum Quality Standards outlining major areas to be focused for the evaluation
of quality, effectiveness and future development of affiliated colleges are given below:
Standard 1: Vision, Mission and Goals (05%)
Standard 2: Academic Programs and Evaluation (10%)
Standard 3: Student Admission and Progression (10%)
Standard 4: Academic Faculty and Non-Academic Staff (10%)
Standard 5: Physical Infrastructure, Academic Facilities and Learning Resources (20%)
Standard 6: Organization, Governance and Financial Management (20%)
Standard 7: Research (03%)
Standard 8: Public Disclosure and Transparency (15%)
Standard 9: Community Link & Outreach (07%)
Each Affiliating university has constituted Affiliation Committee as per Statutes, consisting
senior faculty members, administrative staff and In-charge Quality Enhancement Cell. The
Affiliation Committee visits the colleges applying for affiliation and subsequently for
adherence to the prescribed Standards. However, according to the World Bank study (2011),
this is only a loose regulatory system. Affiliations are granted under political pressures or the
urge of the universities to raise income without developing proper facilities to monitor
quality of education imparted by the affiliated colleges.
HEC undertook a detailed study under TESP (2014) to assess the level of adherence to the
MQS by 242 Affiliated Colleges as given in the following Table.
It is interesting to note that out of the 6 colleges that fall in the “W” category (Excellent), 4
were from Balochistan province while, in AJK , none of the colleges included in the study
was in the substandard categories “Y” and “Z”. Overall, about 29% of the colleges lie in the
“Z” category i.e. unsatisfactory.
HEC has taken another major step for training of Principals, Vice –Principals and Senior
teaching staff of the colleges on MQS issues. So far, 280 persons have undergone this
training but this number is insignificant compared with the total number.
HEC is now undertaking a detailed study on Affiliated Colleges under TESP to assess the
current situation of Affiliated Colleges with the objective of formulating Recommendations
for improving the quality of education in Affiliated Colleges. Findings and Recommendation
on QA aspects of the Affiliated Colleges based on various studied and data collected from
QECs are given below.
9.3.2 Findings
As is highlighted in the World Bank Report No. 47, quality of Affiliated Colleges is the
weakest link in the Higher Education sector. In Pakistan, survey of 242 Affiliated Colleges
based on Minimum Quality Standards indicated that performance of 29% of the surveyed
colleges was “unsatisfactory” (HEC report for 2013-14 on DLI 4).
The QA system is non- existent/very weak at all tiers of management of Affiliated Colleges.
HEC has not assigned the responsibility of QA to any officer in QAA-QAD. The person
looking after affairs of Affiliated Colleges in the Acad. Division of HEC is mainly
responsible for curriculum development. The provincial HEDs have not taken up the
responsibility of colleges yet.
Only 8 QECs out of 14 responded to the query if the university had any mechanism of QA
for Affiliated Colleges. The answer from 43% QECs and 14% non-QEC respondents was
“Yes” while 14% of the QECs and 7% non-QEC respondents said “No” and 43% of QECs
and 79% of the non-QEC respondents did not respond (Annex. XIX).
Three QEC respondents out of the 14 informed that the university had notified quality
standards in addition to the HEC Guidelines while another 3 said ‘No’ in reply to this query
and 8 did not respond.
Similarly, 3 QECs informed that the colleges not meeting the standards were de-affiliated
immediately while 4 QECs said that they were given time to make up deficiencies. All QECs
informed that not a single college had been de-affiliated in the past 5 years because of non-
compliance to the standards.
Apart from the Affiliation Committee, the universities have no mechanism of looking after
the affairs of the Affiliated Colleges. QECs of universities are not dealing with the QA
system of the affiliated colleges while there is no QEC at the college level. The QEC of a
college as mentioned in the Draft Report of the Consultant Affiliated Colleges was actually
an informal committee comprising teachers which looked after the matters like cleanliness
and attendance of teachers in classes (Consultant Affiliated Colleges, personal
communication).
The private Group of Colleges was found to be more conscious about quality aspect of the
franchised colleges in the Group.
Affiliation branch is staffed in the Registrar’s office and is involved in processing of
applications for affiliation while the Controller’s office is responsible for conduct of
examinations. Affiliation Committee makes site visits to the colleges to make
recommendations on the applications for affiliation. It rarely makes subsequent visits of
quality checks to determine if the MQS were being met.
Due to the increase in the number of affiliated colleges there is heavy workload on the
Affiliation Committee and offices of the Registrar and Controller of Examination leading to a
loose regulatory control. Many a times the universities relax conditions of affiliation, e.g.
establishment of functional Governing Councils is not ensured.
HEC has included improvement of College education as DLI 4 in the Tertiary Education
Support Project supported by the World Bank.
Provincial governments of the Punjab and KPK have created Endowments specifically for
the improvement of educational standards of the public sector Affiliated Colleges. They have
allocated funds mainly for faculty development and provision of facilities at colleges and
provision of laptops.
As mentioned in the Draft Report of the Consultant Affiliated Colleges, the public sector
colleges are accountable to their respective Directorates of Education for quality education.
However, the quality checking is primarily based upon the reporting of clerks in colleges and
random visits of Directors (or representative) to the colleges.
The colleges adhere to HEC’s standards for grant of post graduate degrees.
A perusal of the list of colleges Affiliated by different universities provided by Ms. Amana
Qayyum of HEC shows that University of Sargodha which is relatively a young university
affiliated maximum number of colleges (463) including colleges located in major cities like
Lahore, Rawalpindi, Faisalabad and DI Khan (KPK province).
The colleges of Teachers Education in Punjab refused to get accreditation from NACTE, the
Accreditation Council established by HEC.
World Bank report mentioned high rate of unemployment of graduates in Pakistan. The
graduate unemployment rate in 2005/6 was 7%, which was higher than the overall
unemployment rate of 6%. In 2007/8 this rate was 16.2% which was much higher than the
rest of the educational levels.
9.3.3 Recommendations
Quality Assurance system needs to be established/strengthened immediately at all tiers of
management i.e. HEC, Affiliating universities and the Affiliated Colleges as follows:
1. HEC may immediately assign the responsibility of Quality Assurance of Affiliated
Colleges to a senior level officer in QAA-QAD along with adequate resources, while
the curriculum development may remain with the Acad. Division. HEC needs to
strengthen its relevant section to undertake regular monitoring of the working of the
Affiliation Committees.
2. At universities, a separate Desk with enough resources may be established in the QECs
to look after the QA aspects of the Affiliated Colleges such as review and monitoring of
the implementation of quality criteria by the colleges. This Desk should serve as a
liaison office for colleges, HEC, Affiliation Committee of the University and offices of
Registrar and Controller of Examinations at the university.
3. At the college level, a system of IQA, similar to the universities, needs to be established
urgently. At least one person from the academia should be designated exclusively to
implement the quality criteria and conduct Self- Assessment reviews periodically.
Based on survey under DLI 4, immediate steps may be taken by the provincial governments
to improve quality of the colleges with “unsatisfactory” performance i.e. 29% of the colleges
included in the survey. The survey may be extended to 100% of the colleges in coordination
with the provincial authorities.
As recommended in the World Bank Report, merging of colleges, clustering of colleges or
even closing down of colleges with “unsatisfactory” performance should be considered on
priority.
Good leadership needs to be developed at the College level keeping in view the model of
defunct Govt. College, Lahore. The scope of Training Programs of HEC for Principals/senior
faculty may be extended to include leadership aspects.
Universities may reduce their reliance on Affiliation fees for revenue generation and strictly
apply the Affiliation Criteria to all colleges and de-affiliate colleges not meeting the
standards.
As recommended by the Consultant Affiliated Colleges, affiliation by the universities may be
restricted to certain geographical area for which some principles may be developed by HEC.
The provincial governments may consider to assign the responsibility of affiliated colleges to
the Higher Education Department on the pattern of HEC-Universities relationship, to fortify
College education. It should focus especially on the Quality of education in colleges.
Provincial Departments and HEC should arrange trainings of the teaching staff in colleges
based on Course contents along with the Pedagogical skills.
The provincial governments should make the accreditation of Teachers Education Colleges
by NACTE mandatory.
Semester system may be introduced in all colleges and suitable mechanism may be devised
for conduct of examination by the university.
Curricula may be revised in consultation with representatives of colleges to discourage rote
learning and encourage critical thinking and problem solving.
9.4 EXTERNAL DEGREE PROGRAMS
9.4.1 Background / Quality Assurance system
As mentioned earlier, use of “External Degree” mode of education in HEIs is inevitable to
meet demand for higher degrees. Also, another very important mode of education is of
“Private students” who only register with an HEI to be able to appear in the examination.
HEC feels that these students need to be grouped with the External Degree students for
improving their facilitation and quality of education (see Project Objectives of PC-1 of HEC
for Establishment of Directorates of Distance Education).
The information gathered by the Consultant External Degree Programs about the enrolment
in these programs and registration of private students for 5 selected universities is given in
the following Table.
Session wise Enrolment in distance education and private candidates
Enrolment Enrolment Enrolment

Enrolment
Name of University (2011-2013) (2012-2014) (2013-2015) (2014-
2016)
Distance Private Distance Private Distance Private Distance Private
University three 31452 37035 4616 43174 6872

University two 210 13081 112 13209 111 11810 19
University four 1472 43235 1240 39072 1893 35429 1512
University one 23 63
University five 331 371 316
The universities prefer to enroll students in Postgraduate Programs although many students
are also enrolled in undergraduate programs and diploma courses. It is worth noting that the
number of private students registered for examination purpose was manifold higher than the
students enrolled in the External Degree Programs of these universities.
The Consultant has reported the following pattern of enrolment in Master degree programs
of one of the selected universities.
MPhil programs (with Enrolment) Offered by University three
Sr # Subjects Enrolment (2014-2016)
1 Arabic 52
2 Commerce 42
3 communication study 42
4 Criminology 18
5 Education 64
6 English 50
7 Geography 57
8 History 53
9 International Relation 72
10 Islamic Studies 38
11 Library Science 46
12 Mass Com 60
13 Mathematics 46
14 Pak Studies 64
15 Political science 23
16 Psychology 98
17 Public Administration 22
18 Sociology 55
19 Special Education 54
20 Urdu 16
Total 972
The HEC approved a PC-I for establishing Directorates of Distance Education in the
following 6 universities to improve quality of education of External students. However,
another 7 universities including one private university have established Directorates of
Distance Education under the direction of HEC.
1. University of the Punjab, Lahore.
2. University of Peshawar, Peshawar.
3. University of Karachi, Karachi.
4. University of Sind, Jamshoro.
5. Gomal University, D.I. Khan.
6. Bahauddin Zakariya university, Multan
The PC-I had the following objectives:
1. To facilitate private candidates at Graduate and Master level who cannot afford the
facility of getting education as regular students.
2. To narrow the quality gap between private and regular students.
3. To increase the success ratio of private students in the examinations and to ultimately
improve the opportunities of employment for them.
4. To build capacity of large public sector universities to deliver quality education to
private students.
5. To build capacity of universities to deliver material for private students.
6. To streamline administrative procedures for provision of quality education to private
students.
The Project life was of two years and was to be converted into recurring budget of
universities afterwards. This PC-1 had the following 3 Phases for completion:
a. Phase I.
Six Directorates of Distance Education will be established at six larger universities
during this phase.
b. Phase II.
The HEC project unit and task force will work for capacity building of faculty
members involved in the task and staff of Directorates of Distance Education.
c. Phase III.
Learning packages and curriculum/content development will be done during this

phase.
Apparently, the HEC tried to build structure for an effective “Distance” mode of education
and quality assurance mechanism specifically for education of “Distant” and private students.
Unfortunately, the activity did not bring the desired results due to lack of continuous
financial support from HEC and proper set up at HEC for follow-up and monitoring of
External Degree programs of the universities.
9.4.2 Findings
The phenomenon of starting External degree Programs by the universities engaged in on-
campus education is new one in Pakistan. These universities had no previous experience of
imparting Distance Education (DE) or faculty trained in DE. These universities did not create
adequate facilities before starting External Degree programs. Apparently, the universities
thought this mode of education was a good source of additional income for the university.
The ‘Private students’ was another important source of income for the universities but the
universities did not contribute in any manner to facilitate these students except for
conducting their exams for the award of degree. No instruction material was provided by the
university to these students.
HEC does not have any effective set up for overseeing the Quality issues of the External
Degree Programs or Private students. However, HEC took an important step of establishing
Directorates of Distance Education in 6 universities under the Development program (PC-1)
and encouraging other universities for the same. After the completion of the Project, there
was no follow-up program.
The responsibility of looking after QA issues of External Degree programs is assigned to a
Deputy Director in QAD along with many other responsibilities and he, therefore, is not able
to give attention to the issues of DE. In response to the Questionnaire sent to him, he
informed that he was not satisfied with the mechanism of QA for these programs.
At the university level, the Directorate of External Degree programs (EDP) is supposed to
look after all aspects of the program including the QA aspects.
Information gathered by the Consultant EDP shows that that there is great diversity of actual
mechanism used for Distance Education. Some universities had established Centers for face
to face contact with the External students but most of the universities did not establish this
facility. Some of the universities provided face to face contact facility at the main campus by
assigning the responsibility to their regular faculty on weekly /twice a week basis. In rare
cases, faculty was exclusively hired for the purpose.
Some faculty members complained about the difficulties faced in the ‘face to face’ teaching
at the university campus at the weekends as the facilities of IT labs, library and attendants
were not available.
The strong point of the External Degree Program was that the admission requirements, the
curricula followed and the examination system followed was exactly the same as for the on-
campus students. All Rules and Regulations of Semester system were strictly applied to the
External students including submission of Assignments. The private students were, however,
examined only under the Annual Examamination system.
The HEC has directed the universities to conduct MPhil programs at the main campus only.
According to the Consultant EDPs most of the Directors felt that Distance Education through
ICT based learning was helpful in improving its quality.
Learning Management System (LMS) was being used in universities where Directorates of
Distance Education were functional. In most cases, there were technological problems in the
use of LMS due to lack of training of teachers for interacting with the students and the
technical persons to run and the information was not being updated on daily basis.
Response to the Questionnaire sent to QECs about QA for External students was poor and
only few QECs and very few non-QEC persons responded to various questions (see Annex.
XIX).Out of the 4 QECs who informed that their universities had EDP, 2 informed that they
had special Cell for Quality Assurance of EDP. However, all of them were satisfied with the
QA mechanism of Distance Education. Apparently, these data are not dependable.
9.4.3 Recommendations
HEC’s Role
In addition to the regular students enrolled in HEIs, HEC needs to give immediate attention
to the QA issues of the students of External Degree Programs, Affiliated Colleges and
Private students. Either the role of PD (QECs) may be extended to “all” students by
upgrading the office of PD under a Director (QECs) or a separate “Desk” may established for
the above three categories in the QAA-QAD Division.
HEC needs to set aside sufficient funds for improving quality of education through the above
modes of education as these students outnumbered the students enrolled in mainstream
education of the universities.
HEC should immediately develop Guidelines, Criteria and Manuals for implementation of
QA system in HEIs for the students enrolled under the above 3 modes of education. HEC
should urgently arrange video conferences with the Heads of QECs and Directorates of
Distance Education to spotlight the urgency of QA for the 3 modes of education.
HEC should increase its capability of providing training to the staff of HEIs for ICT based
learning and use of LMS, or outsource it to selected Teachers Training Institutes for quick
results.
HEIs’ Role
Universities having no External Degree programs, may give the responsibility of QA of
Affiliated Colleges and private students to a separate “Desk” established in QEC. However,
in the universities having Directorates of Distance Education, the QA responsibility for the
three modes of education may be assigned to a new Desk created in the Directorate of
Distance Education.
The Directorates of Distance Education need to be made effective through proper training
and strengthening with human and financial resources to deliver their responsibilities. They
should be equipped with functional LMS.
The universities must ensure dissemination of information to private students in time by
regularly updating it on the university and college websites. The instruction material for
External students may be uploaded on the website for the benefit of private students.
At least two ‘face to face’ meetings with a Mentor at the main campus/ Centers i.e., one soon
after the registration and the other about two weeks before the final examination may be
ensured for the guidance of the private students.
HEC, in consultation with the provincial governments, may develop the strategy of taking
strict action against the HEIs who do not follow HEC’s Guidelines for Distance Education,
private students and affiliation of colleges.
10. ASSESSMENT OF THE COORDINATION BETWEEN QUALITY
ASSURANCE AND QUALIFICATIONS FRAMEWORK
10.1 Background
Because of the urgency to develop an agreed system of cross-border acceptance of
qualifications/degrees and employability of the graduates, development of Qualifications
Framework and issues of Distance Education have been the hot topics of discussion in
various International Conferences held during the past few years.
National Qualifications Framework is defined as a ‘national instrument for the classification
of qualifications according to a set of criteria for specified levels of learning achieved’. It
aims to integrate and coordinate national qualifications subsystems and improves the
transparency, access, progression and Quality of Qualifications in relation to the labor market
and civil society. It aims at achieving relatively uniform standards of learning outcomes
worldwide for each recognized qualification.
National Qualifications Framework provides clearly defined levels of Knowledge, Skills and
Competencies to be acquired by each graduate that are easy to comprehend by students,
employers and human resource development policy makers.
The ninth session of the Committee of the Regional Convention on the Recognition of
Studies, Diplomas and Degrees in Higher Education in Asia and the Pacific was held in
Seoul in the year 2007, while the Report of the Department of Education, Employment and
Workplace Relations of the Australian Government on Recognition of Higher Education
Qualifications across the Brisbane Communique Region was published in March, 2008. The
Recommendation # 4 of the Committee was to ‘Support the development of National
Qualification Frameworks’.
Bologna initiative resulted in major reforms of higher education in many countries and more
countries are voluntarily using the process to promote inter-intra-country mobility of students
and credit hours, promotion of collaborative research and relatively uniform standards and
learning outcomes. In 2014, over 100 countries have developed their National Qualifications
Frameworks for Higher Education.
The main objectives of the 1999 Bologna Declaration included:
(i) Adoption of a system of easily readable and comparable degrees
(ii) Adoption of two main cycles system (Undergraduate/Graduate)
(iii) Establish a system of credits transfer (ECTS)
(iv) Promote mobility by overcoming legal recognition and administrative obstacles
(v) Promote cooperation in Quality Assurance.
In 2010, the Prague Declaration of the European Ministers of Education included the goal of
mutual recognition of degrees offered by recognized universities as one of the objectives. It
also called for promoting Quality of instruction at all higher education institutions.
Objectives of the NQF
The NQF has been structured to:
• Help learners to make informed decisions about the qualification required
• Help the employers to assess what qualification a candidate has achieved
• Help in establishing the national standards of qualifications
• Provide a basis for comparison of qualifications at national as well as international
level
• Help in international recognition of academic qualifications
• Facilitate the trans-national mobility of graduates and learners
• Be used as an instrument for qualitative reforms in education system
• Help promote the linkages between industry and education system
The NQF encompasses a comprehensive list of all quality assured qualifications in Pakistan.
Each accredited qualification offered in Pakistan has been assigned a level. It consists of
Entry Level 1 to Level 8, describing the difficulty of qualifications at each level.
Programs by levels and credit hours requirements of all qualifications in Pakistan are
summarized in the following Table, while the qualifications by number of years (old system)
are shown in the diagram.
Details of all Higher Education Qualifications in examples of Associate Degree, and 2-year
Bachelor (Pass) Degree Programs are given as follows.
It was observed in the study of World Bank (Discussion Paper Report No. 47) that, according
to NUFFIC, the Bachelor (Pass) Degree in Arts, Science and Commerce awarded in Pakistan,
is only comparable to a Dutch VWO diploma and a Bachelor (Hons.) Degree is comparable
to only 1 year of the university education (WO) in the Netherlands. However, as confirmed
by the HRD Division of HEC, the scholars sent for higher studies to various countries
including Netherlands were given admission in MPhil on the basis of 4-year Degree, and in
PhD on the basis of MPhil awarded by universities of Pakistan.
10.2 Methodology
Information was gathered from International publications and mainly from the HEC
publication of ‘National Qualifications Framework of Pakistan 2015 sent by the DD NQF at
QAD, HEC who, however, was unable to respond to the questions asked by the Author. The
topic was also discussed with Dr. Mahmud-ul-Hassan Butt, Adviser/Consultant Chairperson
Office, who gave his input.
10.3 Findings
HEC has made good progress in the development of National Qualifications Framework,
published it on HEC Website and shared it with HEIs which is a remarkable achievement.
National Qualifications Frame Work and Quality Assurance
Higher Education Commission of Pakistan started developing a Qualifications Framework
for Higher Education in 2009. It has used the Bologna Principles to bring about Qualitative
Reforms in higher education and is consistently striving to implement the National
Qualifications Framework. The new revised version of the Framework is designed to further
sustain the Qualitative Improvement of programs of higher education qualifications offered
in the country and one of the major objectives of the NQF is that it will be used as an
instrument for Qualitative Reforms in education system. Some of the important steps taken
by HEC for ensuring quality of qualifications are as under.
1. HEC has developed criteria for award of MPhil and PhD degrees which are strictly
applied by all institutions awarding these degrees. The HEIs are required to adhere to
the rules, regulations and Quality Assurance criteria laid down by HEC and the
respective Accreditation Councils, and the compliance is regularly monitored.
2. Quality of Undergraduate degree is maintained through an IQA mechanism of Self-
Assessment and EQA mechanism through Program Reviews and accreditation by
relevant Accreditation Councils.
3. The 2-yearundergraduate degree has been converted into 4-year degree program.
4. Semester system for the undergraduate BS degree program (8 semesters, 124-140
credit hours) has been introduced in the universities.
5. The old 2-year undergraduate program has been converted into with Associate
Degree programs of 68 credit hours. This intervention opens the door to initial level
employment and further study to complete the 4-year degree program.
6. The Framework has clearly outlined the admission, retention and graduation
requirements for graduate programs.
7. For other Tertiary Education diplomas, and Secondary and Higher Secondary
qualifications etc, HEC relies on the Quality Assurance mechanisms adopted by the
relevant departments.
8. A National Qualifications Register is maintained by HEC having lists of all the
chartered Higher Education Degree Awarding Institutions and Programs offered by
them. It also includes detailed HEC approved policy on implementing semester-based
assessment of learning outcomes and grading to ensure Uniform Standards of Quality
of Qualifications offered by all chartered universities/DAIs and postgraduate degree
colleges.
The reliability of qualifications included in the National Qualifications Framework is
protected and maintained by legislation and Quality Assurance arrangements for
qualifications and authorized issuing organizations.
According to the NQF document, the NQF is protected by:
1. Legislation that provides for the accreditation of qualifications and organizations
authorized to issue qualifications by accrediting authorities.
2. Quality assurance arrangements for qualifications and authorized issuing
organizations.
3. Nationally consistent and correct use of qualification titles/Nomenclature.
The In-charge NQF program is working in the QA Division of the HEC to ensure a
meaningful coordination between NQF and Quality assurance program of the HEC.
Quality of all degree programs of the HEIs have IQA mechanism of Self-Assessment and
EQA mechanism through Program Reviews and accreditation by the relevant Accreditation
Councils to ensure that their graduates meet the standards of learning outcomes as per
The National Qualifications Register is being maintained by HEC.
The degrees awarded by universities in Pakistan are recognized for admissions in foreign
universities in relevant higher degree programs.
10.4 Conclusions and Recommendations
There is good coordination between Quality Assurance Agenda of the HEC and the National
HEC has developed the NQF and the National Qualification Register on the basis of
information obtained from the concerned Institutions and published data. It has relied on the
mechanisms of Quality Assurance adopted by the concerned departments/organizations.
It is recommended that Third Party Validation (TPV) may be undertaken to verify
authenticity of NQF and NQ Register.
An awareness campaign about Qualification Framework should be started to train concerned
personnel in HEIs about requirements of QF.
11. GENERAL CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
National Quality Assurance Committee should play its role more actively. It should guide the
QAA-QAD about new requirements of Quality Assurance of the Higher Education sector of
Pakistan in line with the International trends, while keeping the local perspective in view.
A holistic approach of QA at the HEI level needs to be followed. QEC office needs to be
strengthened and made responsible for all QA activities including awareness campaigns,
documentation, Institutional review, Program reviews, liaison with ACs, and International
bodies concerned with QA system of HEI.
The baseline input of resources for QA program should be increased immediately. QAA-
QAD at HEC needs to be strengthened manifold to meet the challenges of expansion in the
HE sector and new initiatives being taken by HEC for EQA.
Steps may be considered by NQAC/HEC to make QAA an autonomous body to oversee all
QA programs including GOP-Accreditation Councils for effective implementation of QA
program in the country.
The Vice-Chancellors/Rectors need to attend briefing sessions by NQAC to understand the
real worth of QA program and its requirements at their universities. They need to be
convinced that relatively small investment in QA program shall bring large dividends in
terms of quality of their graduates.
The office of QEC should be made highly respectable by taking suitable steps such as
making a Provost as head of the QA program at the university and by increasing its human
and financial resources.
Extra burden on QECs may be reduced. For example, Annual Ranking of Universities may
be changed to Ranking after every 3 years to reduce burden of data collection by the QECs.
High level of awareness among students about the fact that implementing QA program in the
university will have very high impact on their employment prospects will greatly empower
the students to generate internal pressure in the university to implement QA programs.
Both the low quality of students entering the universities and increased number of admissions
disproportionate to the facilities in the universities is a serious issue. Universities need to
properly weigh the advantage of increase in income through increased admissions against the
impact on quality of its graduates.
Practical training at undergraduate level in very weak and ‘particularly’ undergraduate labs
are poorly equipped urgent steps are needed to remove this deficiency.
QAA-QAD needs to revise its Quality Standards and Manuals after every 5 years or so and
publish new Editions.
Documentation status at the HEI level and HEC level is weak. Universities may be provided
Campus Management and Learning Management Solutions (LMS) for a satisfactory
documentation process at HEIs.
A Task Force may be developed to address the issues of Distance Education, Affiliated
colleges and Private students, and status of the Recommendations of the previous Reviews
may be examined.
All existing Councils including GOP-Councils may be pursued to have their external
evaluation by International bodies.
Many countries including China, Japan & Vietnam have established Institutes of QA.QAA
needs to expand its role and have a research unit of its own, or have the ability to outsource
some research projects to experts in QA Institutes such as Institute of Quality and
Technology Management, Univ. of the Punjab, Lahore.
Some countries have implemented mandatory accreditation of each academic program. HEC
may consider it as a future strategy.
Many countries are doing accreditation of both undergraduate and postgraduate programs. In
Pakistan, we may start with Accreditation/Rating of PhD programs.
12. REFERENCES
ABET. 2000. Self-Study Questionnaire for Review of Engineering Programs.

Batool, Z. and R.H. Qureshi. 2005. Good Practices for Quality Assurance for Accreditation
Councils in Pakistan. Higher Education Commission, Islamabad.
Batool, Z., R.H. Qureshi and A. Rauof. 2010. Performance Evaluation Standards for the HEIs.
Higher Education Commission, Islamabad.
HEC (Acad. Division). MQS Guidelines Manual for Affiliated Colleges. Higher Education
Commission of Pakistan, Islamabad.
HEC and World Bank TESP. 2014. DLI-4 Performance Evaluation Report for the year 2013-
14. Higher Education Commission of Pakistan, Islamabad.
Lee, L.S.Y. 2011. Affiliated Colleges in South Asia: Is Quality Expansion Possible? World
Bank Discussion Paper Report No.47.
Rana, R.A. and N. Reid. 2009. Dimensions of Quality Assurance in Higher Education. In:
Rauof et al. Quality in Higher Education-Challenges and Practices. Press and
Publications Dept., University of the Punjab, Lahore. Pp 39.
Rauof, A. 2006. Self-Assessment Manual. Higher Education Commission, Islamabad.
Rauof, A. 2010. Institutional Performance Evaluation Process – Manual for eleven Standards.
Higher Education Commission, Islamabad.
Reid, N. 2009. Quality Assurance in Higher Education in Pakistan-Focus on the Learner. In:
Rauof et.al. Quality in Higher Education-Challenges and Practices. Press and
Publications Dept., University of the Punjab, Lahore. Pp 91.
13. RESPONSE TO THE COMMENTS OF THE REVIEWER
13.1 Comment
The weakest parts of the study are those dealing with External Degree Programs and
Affiliated Colleges-admittedly areas where data are missing. The Chapter on the linkages
between QA and Qualifications Framework is also very light.
13.2 Response
Early coordination between the Author of the Report and Consultants of two other studies i.e.
Quality Assurance of Affiliated Colleges and External Degree programs as envisaged in the
study did not become possible. After getting access to the Draft Reports of the two
Consultants and consulting other Reports, the Author has rewritten the Chapter on Quality
Assurance of Affiliated Colleges and External Degree programs which have been greatly
strengthened. The Chapter on linkages between QA and QF has also been beefed up,
although HEC sources were unable to provide any further help in this regard.
13.3 Comment
More in depth discussions would have been welcome on (i) the role of NQAC, (ii) the degree
of autonomy of the QAA and (iii) the interaction between QAA and QAD in HEC.
13.4 Response
(i) Role of NQAC

NQAC was constituted as a policy making and advisory committee for overall Quality
Assurance program of the HEC. It was first constituted in 2003 i.e. soon after the
establishment of HEC with Dr Abdul Rauof as its Chairman and various Vice- Chancellors
as its members. NQAC held regular meetings and provided an overall framework of QA at
the HEC level. All QA initiatives of HEC such as establishment of QECs and QAA were
placed before the NQAC for approval. Dr Rauof (Chairman NQAC), in his personal capacity,
contributed a lot in preparation of Manuals for implementation of Quality Criteria and their
implementation which were also approved by the NQAC.
In 2015, after a lapse of 12 years, the HEC has revised the constitution of the Committee as
follows.
1. Prof. Dr. Abdul Rauof (Patron)

2. Engr. Muhammad Asghar, Rector, NUST, Islamabad (Chairman)
3. Dr. Javed Ashraf, Vice-Chancellor, Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad
4. Prof. Dr.Habib Ahmad,Acting Vice-Chancellor, Hazara University, Hazara
5. Prof. Dr. Muhammad Hafizullah, Vice-Chancellor, Khyber Medical University,
Peshawar
6. Prof. Dr. Muhammad Aslam Uqaili, Vice-Chancellor, Mehran University of
Engineering &Technology, Jamshoro
7. Prof. Dr. Mujahid Kamran, Vice-Chancellor, University of Punjab, Lahore
8. Prof. Dr. Muhammad Qaiser, Vice-Chancellor, University of Karachi, Karachi
9. Prof. Dr. Rasul Jan, Vice-Chancellor, university of Peshawar, Peshawar
10. Prof. Dr. Javeid Iqbal, Vice-Chancellor, University of Baochistan, Quetta
11. Prof. Dr. Iqrar Ahmed Khan, Vice-Chancellor, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad
12. Maj Gen (R) Prof. Muhammad Aslam, Vice-Chancellor, University of Health
Sciences, Lahore
13. Prof. Dr. Fazal Ahmad Khalid, Vice-Chancellor, University of Engineering and
Technology, Lahore
14. Prof. Dr. Razia Sultana, Vice-Chancellor, Shaheed Benazir Bhutto Women
University, Peshawar
15. Ms. Shanaz Wazir Ali, President, Shaheed Zulifqar Ali Bhutto Institute of Science
and Technology, Karachi
16. Prof. Dr. Sohail H Naqvi, Vice-Chancellor, Lahore University of Management
Sciences,Lahore.
Ex-Officio Members from HEC:
17. The Executive Director, HEC, Islamabad
18. The Head of Quality Assurance Division
19. The Head of Quality Assurance Agency
As can be seen, Rectors/Vice Chancellors of all the major universities of the country are
represented on the NQAC which is a very good move politically, as it will greatly increase
acceptability of decisions of the NQAC by the universities of the country. The previous
Chairman of the Committee Dr Abdul Rauof is the Patron of the new Committee which is
also a welcome step as it will provide continuity to the philosophy and activities of NQAC.
However, the new Chairman will have to ensure regular meetings of the Committee and
consider immediate measures such as development of a roadmap for Quality Assurance
Program for Affiliated Colleges, External Degree Programs and Private students. Also, it
must deliberate immediately on the future role of QAA.
(ii) The Degree of Autonomy of the QAA
QAA was established in the light of the clause 10 (e) of the HEC ordinance which reads as
follows:
“Set up national or regional evaluation Councils or authorize any existing Council or

similar body to carry out accreditation of institutions including their departments, faculties
and disciplines by giving them appropriate ratings. The Commission shall help build
capacity of existing Councils or bodies in order to enhance the reliability of the evaluation
carried out by them.”
The degree of autonomy of QAA is a sensitive issue which has many political ramifications
and implications. HEC visualized QAA as a body having an overarching role for
implementing and monitoring of QA program in the HEIs through existing Accreditation
Councils and establishment of new Councils.
At the moment, the relationship between the QAA and GOP-Councils as well as the legal
authority of HEC-Councils is vague and unclear.
In view of the 18th Amendment in the Constitution of Pakistan, the provinces may not
endorse any legislative move to provide the required level of autonomy to QAA. HEC has
not been able to provide required funds even for optimal functioning of the QAA in the
present shape, while an Autonomous QAA will need much more funds to function properly
and discharge its responsibilities satisfactorily. I would recommend that the issue of degree
of autonomy of the QAA may be thoroughly deliberated in NQAC before taking any step in
that direction.
However, in my view, the future QAA should look after affairs of HEC-Councils including
issues of their legal authority, establish new Councils, develop meaningful coordination with
GOP-Councils, coordinate with provincial authorities for improving quality of education in
Affiliated Colleges, Distance Education students and private students, improve rigor and
monitor EQA system for HEIs and academic programs, undertake review of QECs and
Accreditation Councils, review Quality Criteria and Manuals developed by HEC and thus
play an over-arching role for implementing QA measures in the HE sector. The IQA
management through QECs may be may transferred to QAD.
(iii) The Interaction between QAA and QAD
Historically, in view of the lack of legislative and financial support, QAA was housed in the
QA&LI Division of HEC which was headed by Adviser (QA&LI). Later on, a Managing
Director was appointed In-charge of the QAA with the responsibility of establishing
Accreditation Councils. Keeping in view heavy workload of QA&LI ( presently QAD) and
relatively less workload of QAA, the responsibilities were redistributed between the two
entities. Thus, QAD and QAA are practically sharing work load with each other in
undertaking responsibilities of various QA programs of HEC sharing. I would consider them
as one unit in the current form to be named as QAA-QAD. However, looking after QECs as
an instrument of IQA by QAA and monitoring of QA programs (EQA) indicate conflict of
interest for QAA in the excising set-up. This issue should also be discussed by NQAC along
with the issue of autonomy for QAA and the exact relationship between QAA and QAD will
depend on the future rote of QAA.
Annexure I : Questionnaire for QECs
IMPLEMENTATION, VALUE, IMPACT & FOLLOW-UP OF

INSTITUTIONAL REVIEWS (Including IPES)
Personal Information
{of each individual filling this proforma i.e. Registrar(Reg),Focal person (FP), two senior
faculty members, Director/in charge (QEC) } (The person responsible to answer is indicated
against each Question)
Name: ………………………………………………………..
Name of University/Department:…………………………..
Designation :………………………………………………….
E-Mail Address:………………………………………………
Cell No.:……………………………………………………….
I: INSTITUTIONAL REVIEWS
Who should respond (Please give date when review was carried out)
(all people mentioned below)
A: Implementation of Institutional Performance Standards (IPES)
FP, Reg , Two senior A1:What is %age (approximate) of people aware of IPES & IPES
faculty members & QEC Reviews?
(a) Faculty Members…………………………. Percent

(b) Administrative staff……………………… Percent
(c) Students………………………………….. Percent
Reg & QEC A2: What attributes were considered for the selection of Focal
Person?
(Please use circles to answer)
(a) Seniority
(b) Relevant Experience
(c) Relevance of job
FP A3:Who trained/briefed the Focal Person?

(a)HEC
(b)Institution/University
FP & QEC A4: What Procedure is adopted to implement the recommendations

of the Review Panel?
(a) By notification after approval of the competent authority
(b) Monitoring of implementation
Reg, FP,& QEC A5:Which recommendations have been implemented/are under

process for implementation?
(Please give list)
Reg & FP A6: Which Recommendation of the Review Panel was not
implemented and why?
(a) Due to lack of funds
(b) Due to lack of infrastructure
(c) Difficult to implement
(d) Conflict with the policy of the Institution
(e) Any other (please specify)
Reg, FP, QEC & two senior A7: What should be the cycle of Review?
faculty members
(a) After every two years

(b) After every three years
(c) After every five years
QEC & two A8:What are your three most important recommendations for
senior faculty members improving the implementation and Review process?
(1) ………………………………………
(2) ………………………………………
(3) ………………………………………
B: Value
QEC & two B1: What is your perception about the Value of the Review?
senior faculty members
(a) No value
(b) Valuable
(c) Highly valuable
Reg, FP & two B2: How did you determine the value of the Review?
(a) Your own perception
(b) Your own experience
(c) Discussion with colleagues
(d) Any survey conducted
EC & two B3:Which aspect /recommendation of the Review Panel you

senior faculty members found very useful and consider that it should be implemented
immediately?
(a) Documentation against performance criteria &

preparation of Self-Assessment Report
(b) Administrative aspec t

(c) Teaching aspect
(d) Research aspect
(e) Financial aspect
(f) Social aspect
(g) Any other (please specify)
Reg, FP & two B4: Are you satisfied with the outcome of the Review?
(Yes/No)
C: Impact
Reg, FP, QEC & two C1: improvement Which recommendation of the Review Panel
senior faculty members has given major improvement? (Please mention the
recommendation & nature of the with documentary evidence if
any)
(a) Recommendation no………………….

(i) Improvement in Administration
(ii) Teaching/Research
(iii) Financial management
(iv) Planning
(v) Any other (please specify)
(b) Recommendation No……………….. etc.

(Add more recommendations if appropriate)
Reg & FP C2: Did Review help in improving quality of University
Portfolio Report (UPR)?
(a) Yes
(b) No
Reg , FP & QEC C3: Did it help improving Ranking of the University?
(a) Yes
(b) No
Reg, FP, QEC & two C4: Did it help in working of university?
(a) Yes
(b) No
Reg, FP, QEC & two C5: Was there any other major impact of the Review?
senior faculty members (please specify
D: Follow Up
Reg & FP D1: Please describe briefly the follow up mechanism on

recommendations of the Review Panel as adopted by your
university
…………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………
Reg & FP D2: Who is the responsible for the follow up at the
university level?
(a) VC office
(b) Registrar
(c) Focal person
(d) QEC
Reg & FP D3: Did you get any letter from QAA (HEC) for follow up
on recommendations of the Review? (Please attach copies of
the letters from HEC)
(a) Yes
(b) No
Reg & FP D4: Did you respond to the follow up letters of HEC?
(please attach copy of the response)
(a) Yes
(b) No
Reg & FP D5: Please provide copies of letters written to concerned

department/people on follow up action on
recommendations of the Review Panel.
(II) PROGRAM REVIEWS

(Please give date when each Review was carried out)
A: Implementation of Program Reviews

QEC, Reg & two A1:What is the % age (approximate) of people aware of Program
senior faculty members Reviews?
(a) Faculty members………………………Percent

(b) Students………………………………Percent
(c) Administrative staff…………………..Percent
QEC & Reg A2: Does the present Director/In charge of QEC work
whole time for the QEC?
(a) Yes
(b) No
QEC & Reg A3: How was Director/in charge QEC appointed?
(a) Selection against an advertised post

(b) Additional charge given to a faculty member to work part time
(c) Transfer of a faculty member to work whole time
QEC & Reg A4: What is the pay scale of the current full time Director/
in-charge QEC?
…………………………………………
QEC & Reg A5: What is the pay scale of the part time in charge QEC?
…………………………………………
QEC A6: Did Director/in charge QEC get any training from:
(a) HEC (Yes/No)
(b) University (Yes/No)
QEC & Reg A7: What is the full time staff other than Director/In
charge QEC currently employed in QEC.?
(please give name, designation and pay scale of each)
……………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………
QEC A8: How was the staff of QEC trained?

(a) Personal briefing
(b) Formal training by HEC
(c) Formal training by University
A9: How were department representatives (Program team) trained for preparation of
Self Assessment Report of the program
(a) Personal briefing
(b) Formal training by HEC
(c) Formal training by University
QEC A10: What level of co-operation did you receive to complete
the Program Review cycle? (e. g. less than 25% , 25-50%,
75% or more than 75% against each)
(a) Dept. Chairman/in-charge program
(b) Faculty members
(c) Students
(d) Assessment teams
(e) Program teams
(f) Administration
QEC & Program A11: After how many years the same program is to be reviewed
in-charge again?
(a) 2 years
(b) 3 years
(c) 5 years
(d) No decision
QEC & Program A12: How did you select the Assessment Team?
in-charge
(a) From other departments within the university
(b) From outside the university
QEC A13: How many programs were reviewed since

establishment of the (give date of establishment of QEC)
_____________________________________
QEC A14: When was your progress reviewed by HEC?
(give date)
……………………………………………………….
QEC A15: What is the grade (score) of QEC determined by

HEC?
………………………………………………………
QEC & Program A16: Which recommendations of the Assessment Team were
in-charge accepted by authorities?
(give list)
QEC & Program A17: What %age of recommendations are being implemented for
in-charge different programs?
(less than 25%, 25-50%, 50-75%, or more than 75%)
………………………………………………………….
QECA A18: What is the percentage of programs run by your

university Reviewed by HEC?
..………………………………………………………..
QEC & Program A19: What are the difficulties faced by QEC in undertaking
in-charge Program Reviews?
(mention level of difficulty e.g. small, medium or high)
(a) Capacity of the respective program/department
(Small/Medium/High)
(b) Lack of co-operation from Chairman/faculty member
(Small/Medium/High)
(c) Lack of human resources (Small/Medium/High)
(d) Lack of financial resources (Small/Medium/High)
B: Value
QEC & Program B1: To what extent the Program Review is considered valuable
in-charge & two senior on overall basis by:
faculty members
(a) Program in charge (low/medium/high)
(b) Faculty members (low/medium/high)
(c) Students (low/medium/high)
(d) University Admin. (low/medium/high)
QEC & Program B2: Was improvement observed due to the Review?
in-charge & two senior
faculty members
(Yes/No)
QEC & Program B3: What level of improvement took place in the program after
in-charge & two senior Review? (less than 25%,25-50%,75%,more than 75%)
faculty members
QEC & Program B4: Do you consider that awareness about the quality issues
in-charge & two senior among
faculty members the faculty staff and students created by the Review had value?
(a) Yes
(b) No
QEC & Program B5: Are you satisfied with the outcome of the Review?
in-charge & two senior
faculty members
(a) Yes
(b) No
C:Impact
QEC & Program C1: Did the Review help is creating awareness about quality
in-charge & two senior issues of the program?
faculty members
(a) Among faculty (Yes/No)

(b) Among students (Yes/No)
(c) Among administration (Yes/No)
QEC & Program C2: Was there any improvement in the conduct of the program
in-charge & two senior after the Review in terms of the following:
faculty members
(a) Increase in:

a1: Faculty (Yes/No)
a2; Space and facilities for offices, Labs.,
Lecture rooms (Please specify facilities) (Yes/No)
a3: Financial support from university (Yes/No)
(b) Better output of faculty:
b1: Teaching (Yes/No)
b2: Research publications (Yes/No)
b3: Regularity in classes (Yes/No)
b4: Better evaluation of teachers by students (Yes/No)
QEC, Reg C3: Was the grade/ranking of the QEC/HEI improved after
the completion of the Review?
(a) QEC (Yes/No)
(b) HEI (Yes/No)
D: FOLLOW UP
QEC & Program D1: Who is responsible for the follow up on the recommendations
in-charge & two senior of the Assessment Team?
faculty members
(a) QEC (Yes/No)

(b) Program Team (Yes/No)
(c) In charge Program (Yes/No)
QEC D2: Did QEC write letter to Program Teams/In-charge

Program for implementing recommendations of the
Assessment Team?
(please provide copy of the letter) (Yes/No)
QEC D3: Did QEC get response from the Program Team or In-
charge Program?
(Please provide copy of the response)
QEC D4: was the response:
(a) Prompt
(b) Delayed
(c) No Response
D5: What difficulties did you face in the conduct and implementation of Program
Reviews?
(a) Capacity of the QEC (Yes/No)
(b) Lack of appropriate authority with
Director/in charge QEC (Yes/No)
(c) Slackness of Program in charge (Yes/No)
(d) Slackness of faculty members (Yes/No)
(e) High work load of QEC. (Yes/No)
(f) Less co-operation/support from
Administration (Yes/No)
(g) Finding appropriate Assessment Team (Yes/No)
(h) Less co-operation from Assessment Team (Yes/No)
E: Scope of improvement
QEC E1: Please give in order of priority actions that will bring
improvement in conduct of Program Reviews:
(a) Increase in permanent human resources of QEC.
(b) Proper training of Director and staff of QEC.
(c) Better status of Director/in charge QEC.
(d) Increase in financial allocation for QEC.
(e) Better training of Program Team (PT).
(f) Development of more elaborate guideline Manual for
conduct of Program Reviews.
(g) Better training of Program Assessment Teams.
(h) Increase in payment to Assessment Team.
F: Better “buy in” by faculty staff
QEC & two senior F: 1 Do you recommend the following for the better “buy in”?
faculty members
(a) Running strong awareness campaigns for faculty staff

writing in letters and holding focused group meetings
emphasizing expected improvement quality of the
Program due to Self-Assessment and Review process
QEC, Reg & two senior (b) Incorporating the role of Program Reviews as agenda item in
faculty members Academic Council meetings once a year
VC/QEC & Reg (c) Improving status of the permanent Director, QEC by giving it scale
equal to a Professor.
VC/QEC & Reg (c) Improving status of the permanent Director, QEC by giving it scale
equal to a Professor.
VC/QEC & Reg (d) Appointing a permanent Director, QEC.
VC/QEC & Reg (e) The Director, QEC should report directly to the VC/Rector.
III SELF ASSESSMENT REVIEWS

A: Implementation
QEC A1: How many Self-Assessment Reviews have been
undertaken by HEI for the university/HEI?
(give date of each Review)
A2: How did the Review help:
(a) Improvement in teaching and research
(b) To prepare for Accreditation of programs
(c) Any other
(please specify)
QEC A2: Were the Self Assessment Reports prepared by
properly trained persons of:
(a) QEC (Yes/No)
(b) Focal person (Yes/No)
(c) Concerned Program in charge (Yes/No)
QEC A3: How was the information given in the SAR verified?
(a) By QEC (Yes/No)
(b) By Teams reviewing the program (Yes/No)
(c) By Accreditation Council (Yes/No)
QEC A4: Is Self-Assessment :
(a) A statutory Requirement except for the
Accreditation Purposes (Yes/No)
(b) HEC Directive (Yes/No)
(c) Initiative of university/institution (Yes/No)
B: OBJECTIVITY
QEC B1: Do you think SAR ( Self Assessment Report) has a high
objectivity?
(Yes/No)
QEC B2: How did you verify the objectivity?
(a) By checking if SAR was based on published data (Yes/No)
(b) Is the information given in SARs verifiable (Yes/No)
(c) Is the person preparing SAR properly
trained for an approach for this work (Yes/No)
QEC B3: How is evaluation of teacher by students verified?
(a) By discussion withy students (Yes/No)

(b) By matching with reputation peers (Yes/No)
QEC B4: Who get relevant proform as filled by:
(c) Students
(d) Aluminae
VALUE
QEC B1: Does SAR help in getting accreditation of a program?

B2: Does SAR help in highlighting the deficiencies of a
program?
B2: Does SAR assist in creating awareness about quality
issues?
D: IMPACT
QEC D1: Which Programs have been accredited on the basis of
SAR?
(give list)
D2: Which Programs were reviewed on the basis of SAR?

(give list)
D3: What are major improvements made in programs as a
result of SAR?
(give list)
IV: ASSESSMENT OF EFFICIENCY AND CAPACITY OF THE QUALITY

ASSURANC AGENCY & QECs IN PERFORMING THEIR DUTIES
QEC B1: Which SARs were prepared under the guidance of

QEC
(Please give year wise list)
QEC B2: Since establishment how many awareness campaigns
were launched by QEC at:
(a) University level for faculty/students
(b) Program level for faculty/students
QEC B3: Which guidelines for conduct of Program Review and

preparation of SAR were developed / improved by the
QEC?
QEC B4: Provide figures of the year wise Annual budget (other
than pay & allowances) of QEC since its establishment
QEC B5: How fast you get response to your queries?

(a) From faculty staff :
Quick , within expected time ,
Late very late
(b) From students:
late , very late
(c) From University administration:
late , very late
(d) From HEC:
late , very late
B6: How prompt is your response given to queries from:
(a) HEC
late , very late
(b) Academic departments of your university:
late , very late
B7: Please give list of major achievements of QEC

(other than those mentioned above) since its establishment.
V: EVALUATION OF ACCREDITATIONCOUNCILS (ACs)

(To be filled by In-charge QEC)
A1: Which programs in universities require accreditation?
(give list)
A2: Which programs have been accredited so far?
(give list)
A3:Did AC provide proper guidance to HEIs regarding
preparation for accreditation of their programs?
A4: What was the mode of guidance?
(a) Manual for preparation of Self-Assessment Report
(b) Briefing to concerned Focal Person
(c) Report of zero visit
A5: Was enough time given from making preparation?

A6: Did the University admit any students in the program
before the accreditation?
A7: Was the program accredited before passing out of the
first batch of students admitted?
A8: What fee was paid to AC for accreditation for the first
time?
A9: Are you satisfied with the accreditation process?
(mention any shortcoming)
A10: Are you satisfied with the accreditation outcome?
(mention any shortcoming)
VI: EVALUATION OF THE ACCREDITATIONSYSTEMS & CRITERIA AND

COMPLIANCE WITH DECISIONS
(For Private HEIs only; to be filled by the Registrar)
Q1: How was your University/Institute Accredited?

(a) By HEC
(b) By Provincial Authority
(c) By Both
Q2: Which programs (give list) in your university are:

(a) Accredited
(b) Not Accredited
Q3: Are you satisfied that accreditation process and

accreditation criteria are applied with even hand vis-a-vis
public HEIs?
(Give reason if dis-satisfied) (Yes/No)
Q4: Which Criteria are different for private HEIs

compared with the public HEIs
(Give reason for the difference if any)
VIII: ASSESSMENT OF QUALITY ASSURANCESYSTEM OF AFFILIATED

COLLEGESEXTERNAL DEGREE PROGRAMS
(All Questions may be responded by In charge, QEC and Chairman, Affiliation

Committee & In-charge external Degree Program)
Q1: Does your university have a mechanism for Quality

Assurance for affiliated colleges? (Yes/No)
(please describe it)
Q2: Are there quality standards notified by your
university
other than the guidelines of HEC (Yes/No)
Q3: How strictly the Quality standards are applied to
Affiliated Colleges?
(a) De-affiliated immediately

(b) Give time to make up deficiencies
Q4: How does the University implement Quality standards

in large number of colleges affiliated with it?
(a) Regular monitoring
(Yes/No)
(b) Snap checking
(Yes/No)
Q5: How many affiliated colleges were de-affiliated for

non- compliance to the university standards in the last five
years?
Q6: How many new colleges were affiliated in the last 5
years?
Q7: Do you have External Degree program (Distance
Education program) in your University?
(Yes/No)
If yes then proceed further.
Q8: Do you have a Special Cell (department) /other
mechanism in university for Quality Assurance of Distance
Education?
(please explain)
Q9: What is the number of staff working in the
department of Distance Education?
Q10: How many students are enrolled in Distance
Education Program at this stage?
Q11: How many private students (on an average) every
year by your university?
Q12: How much faculty is dedicated for the Distance
Education Program?
Q13: What facilities are provided to the Distance
Education students?
Q14: Are you satisfied with the Quality Assurance
Mechanism of Distance Education?
(Yes/No)
Q15: If answer to Q14 is ‘No’ then give list of shortcomings
in the Quality Assurance System of Distance Education.
Annexure II: Institutional Performance Evaluation Standards
(IPES)
Standard 1
Mission and Goals
1. Statement of the Standard One
1.2 Context
1.3 Fundamental Elements of Mission and Goals
1.4 Evidence1 for Fulfillment of the Standard On
1.5 Institutional Effectiveness
Standard 2
Planning and Evaluation
2 Statement of the Standard Two
2.1 Institutional Planning
2.2 Evaluation
2.3 Context
2.4 Fundamental Elements of Planning and Evaluation2
2.5 Evidence for Fulfillment of the Standard Two
Standard 3
Organization and Governance
3 Statement of the Standard Three
3.1 Organization
3.2 Governance
3.3 Context
3.5 Fundamental Elements of Organization and Governance
3.6 Evidence for Fulfillment of the Standard Three
Standard 4
Integrity
4 Statement of the Standard Four
4.1 Context
4.2 Fundamental Elements of Integrity
4.3 Evidence for Fulfillment of the Standard Four
Standard 5
Faculty
5 Statement of the Standard Five

5.1 Context
5.2 Fundamental Elements of Faculty
5.3 Evidences for Fulfillment of the Standard Five
Standards 6
Students
6 Statement of the Standard Six

6.1 Context
6.2 Fundamental Elements of Student Admissions
6.3 Evidences of Fulfillment of Standard Six
Standard 7
Institutional Resources
7 Statement of the Standard Seven
7.1 Context
7.2 Fundamental Elements of Institutional Resources
7.3 Evidence for Fulfillment of the Standards Seven
Standard 8
Curricula and Academic Programs
8 Statement of the Standard Eight

8.1 Context
8.2 Fundamental Elements of Academic Programs and
Curricula
8.3 Evidence for Fulfillment of the Standard Eight
8.4 Institutional Effectiveness:
Standard 9
Public Disclosure and Transparency
9 Statement of the Standard Nine
9.1 Context
9.2 Fundamental Elements of Public Disclosure and
Transparency
9.3 Evidence for Fulfillment of the Standard Nine
Standard 10
Assessment & Quality Assurance
10 Statement of the Standard Ten
10.1 Context
10.2 Assessment
10.3 Quality Assurance
10.4 Fundamental Elements of Assessment & Quality
Assurance
10.5 Evidence for Fulfillment of the Standard Ten
Standard 11
Student Support Services
11 Statement of the Standard Eleven
11.1 Context
11.2 Fundamental Elements of Student Support Services
11.3 Evidence for Fulfillment of the Standard Eleven
Annexure. III. Questionnaire Filledby PD (IPES)
Name : Muhammad Shoaib

Designation : Project Director
Email Address:mshoaib@hec.gov.pk /
showbee@gmail.com
Cell No. : 0332 5135300
QUESTIONNAIRE
(1) Do you feel that IPES being used are actually Accreditation Standards rather
than Performance Standards?
(Yes/No) NO
(2) Which other Country or Organization or International body uses the IPES
followed by HEC for assessment of performance of HEIs?
HEC has developed its own document “Institutional Performance Evaluation
Standards” (IPES) by consulting other international documents (references are
mentioned in footnote of IPES document)
(3) Please provide any publication/reference in support of the IPES being used by
HEC.
External Quality Assurance in Pakistani Universities, Asia Pacific Quality
Network (APQN) Conference -2014 held in Hanoi, Vietnam, 7-8 March, 2014
(4) Are criteria used for ranking of HEIs more relevant for IP review?
Ranking of universities/HEIs is referred to desk monitoring whereas IP
Evaluation is on-site evaluation. Therefore relevancy may not be found.
IMPLEMENTATION
(1) From how many HEIs did you face resistance in the implementation of IPES?
As such there is no resistance from HEIs. Due to HR Capacity constraint at
QAA, all HEIs are not evaluated.
(2) Which was the most difficult standard to implement/ for assessment?
Organization and Governance
(3) Have these IPES been reviewed since first round of implementation and by
whom?
Review/Updation of IPES is a planned activity at QAA. For the purpose, a
training of key IPE Panel members is planned at QAA – UK which will be
helpful while updating IPES.
(4) To what extent you feel that the recommendations of the Review Panel were
implemented by HEIs?
(less than 25%, about 50% , about 75% or more)
(5) Did you carry out any awareness campaign about IPES?
(Please explain)
Yes
At initial level, a copy of IPES was circulated among all Vice Chancellors of
Public and Private HEIs.
Briefing upon IPES is given many times at Vice Chancellor’s meetings and
suggested them for Institutional Performance Evaluations.
In QEC meetings arranged by QAA, importance of Institutional Performance
Evaluation is always briefed to QEC representative of HEIs.
(6) Did you carry out training program for Focal Persons in HEIs about
preparation of University Portfolio Report (UPR) or Self- Assessment Report
Initially, it was regular practice that PD of IPE Program visits the HEI one day
before the evaluation visit to provide help for preparations of Evaluation Visit.
No formal training sessions are held except in 2012, 10 focal persons were invited
at HEC to attend a briefing session on “How to conduct IP Evaluation”.
However telephonic sessions are always conducted by PD with focal persons to
help them while doing preparations for IP Evaluation.
(7) Did you publish any Manual to help implementation of IPEs?
(Pending)
(8) What criteria is used for selection of members of the Review Panel?
Initially, Those Director QECs which have international exposure/experience of
Quality Assurance, were selected as IPE Panel members.
Later on, IPE Panel members were selected on the basis of their performances
reflected in annual QEC rating (conducted by QAA).
(9) What is your satisfaction level regarding implementation (Evaluation) for IPES
& what are basis for this satisfaction?
(25%,50%,75% or more)
(10) Please list various staff members (with designation) working with you for
monitoring of implementation of IPES.
No staff member is currently working
(11) Do you grade (give scores) to HEIs on the basis of IPES review of HEIs?
No
(12) After how many years the reviews will be repeated? (2 years,3 years,5 years, No
decision)
No decision, however 5 years is under consideration
(13) How do you facilitate Institutional performance Evaluation?
All activities from letter submission to Vice Chancellor for conduction of
Institutional Performance Evaluation till the submission of report to university.
In addition to these activities, I also visit as IPE Panel member.
(14) Any suggestion for improving implementation (Evaluation)?
There is a dire need of secretarial staff for smooth conduction IP Evaluations
and other planned activities.
Value/Impact
(1) How do you gauge the value of IP Evaluation?

From action taken reports submitted by evaluated HEIs
(2) Did you conduct any survey to evaluate value of IP Evaluation?
Yes. Third Party Validation was conducted.
(3) Are you satisfied with the quality of the Evaluations?
(4) Yes. Best possible efforts are made for the conduction of IP Evaluations.
(5) To what extent you feel that implementation of IPES has improved as a result of
review process (Evaluations)?
(low, average, high)?
(Pending)
(5) What impact of IPES review (Institutional Performance Evaluation) has been
observed by you?
Impact assessment has not been conducted so far. However Action Taken
Reports/Feedback from evaluated institutions is good.
Follow UP
(1) How many recommendations of the IPES Review Panel have been implemented
by HEIs & HEC?
(approximate %age)
Follow up mechanism is not yet formulated.
(2) Did you write letters to HEIs to inquire about the implementation of the
recommendations for Review Panel?
Follow up mechanism is not yet formulated.
(3) What action did you take in case of non-implementation/no response & did it
improve the situation?
(4) Follow up mechanism is not yet formulated.
ANNEXURE IV: Analysis of Data For Institutional Performance
(I): INSTITUTIONAL REVIEWS A: Implementation of Institutional Performance
Number of individuals reported about IPES

people aware of IPES &
Reported by 31% - 61% 91% -
its Review
0% - 30% 60% 90% 100%
QEC Person 0 5 9 4
S1QA1a: Faculty
Non QEC 2 3 6 1
Members
person
S1QA1b: QEC Person 1 7 5 5
Administrative staff Non QEC 2 2 4 2
person
QEC Person 7 6 4 1
S1QA1c: Students Non QEC 4 3 2 1
person
TABLE#1 for S1QA1
Attributes for the selection

of Number of individuals reported about focal person
Reported by
focal person Not
Considered Considered
QEC Person 5 12
QA2a: Seniority
Non QEC person 3 4
S1QA2b: Relevant QEC Person 10 7

Experience
Non QEC person 3 4
QEC Person 12 5
S1QA2c: Relevance of job
Non QEC person 2 5
TABLE#2 for S1QA1
TABLE#1 for S1QA2
Reported by Percent of individuals reported or aware about IPE

people aware of IPES & its
Review 61% 90% 91% - 100% T
0% - 30% 31% - 60%
QEC Person 0 28 50 22
S1QA1a: Faculty Members
Non QEC person 17 25 50 8
S1QA1b: Administrative QEC Person 6 39 28 28

staff
S1QA1c: Students
TABLE#2 for S1QA2
T
Attributes for the selection

of Percent of individuals reported about focal person
Reported by Not
focal person T
Considered Considered
QEC Person 29 71
S1QA2a: Seniority
Non QEC person 43 57
S1QA2b: Relevant QEC Person 59 41
TABLE#1 for S1QA4
TABLE#2for S1QA4
Procedure adopted to Reported by

implement Percent of individuals reported
the recommendation of
review panel Yes No NA/NR Remarks
S1QA4a: notification after QEC Person 92 8
approval
S1QA4b: Monitoring of QEC Person 38 62

implementation
Procedure adopted to Reported by
implement Number of individuals reported
the recommendation of
review panel Yes No NA/NR Remarks
S1QA4a: notification after QEC Person 12 1
approval
Non QEC person 3 1
S1QA4b: Monitoring of QEC Person 5 8

implementation
Non QEC person 2 2
TABLE#2 for S1QA3
Trained/Briefed the focal Reported by

person Percent of individuals reported
Yes No NA/NR Remarks
QEC Person 40 60
S1QA3a: HEC
S1QA3b: QEC Person 73 27

Institution/University
TABLE#1 for S1QA3
Trained/Briefed the focal Reported by

person Number of individuals reported
QEC Person 6 9
S1QA3a: HEC
Non QEC person 1 3
S1QA3b: QEC Person 11 4

Institution/University
Non QEC person 3 1
Experience Non QEC person 43 57
QEC Person 71 29
S1QA2c: Relevance of job
TABLE#1 for S1QA5
Recommendations have Reported by

been implemented/ Number of individuals reported
are under process for
implementation? Remarks
TABLE#1 for S1QA6
T
Which Recommendation of Reported by
the Review panel Number of individuals reported
was not implemented &
why? Yes No NA/NR Remarks
S1QA6a: Due to lack of QEC Person 2 5
funds
Non QEC person 1 1
S1QA6b: Due to lack of QEC Person 4 3

infrastructure
Non QEC person 0 2
S1QA6c: Difficult to QEC Person 1 7

implement
Non QEC person 0 2
S1QA6d: Conflict with QEC Person 3 4

policy of the institution
Non QEC person 1 1
Content
S1QA6e: Any other(please QEC Person 0 5 Analysis
specify) Non QEC person 0 1
TABLE#2 for S1QA6
Which Recommendation of Reported by

the Review panel Percent of individuals reported
was not implemented &
why? Yes No NA/NR Remarks
S1QA6a: Due to lack of QEC Person 29 71
funds
S1QA6b: Due to lack of QEC Person 57 43

infrastructure
S1QA6c: Difficult to QEC Person 13 88

implement
S1QA6d: Conflict with QEC Person 43 57

policy of the institution
TABLE#1 for S1QA7
Content
S1QA6e: Any other(please QEC Person 0 100 Analysis
specify) Non QEC person 0 100
What should be the cycle Reported by
of Review? Number of individuals reported
S1QA7a: After every two QEC Person 6 12

years
Non QEC person 5 8
S1QA7b: After every three QEC Person 10 8 T

Content
S1QA5: Provide a list QEC Person analysis
Non QEC person
TABLE#1 for S1QA8
T
What areyears
your 3 most Non QEC person
Reported by 6 7
important
recommendations Number of individuals reported
for improving the
implementation & Review
process? Remarks
Content
S1QA8a: The data should QEC Person analysis
be collected online Non QEC person
S1QA8b: Awareness QEC Person

Seminars/Workshops
Non QEC person
S1QA8c: Categorization QEC Person

concept such as W, X, Y &
Z Non QEC person
TABLE#2 for S1QA7
What should be the cycle Reported by

of Review? Percent of individuals reported
S1QA7a: After every two QEC Person 33 67

years
S1QA7b: After every three QEC Person 56 44

years
S1QA7c: After every five QEC Person 11 89

years
Non QEC person 8 92
QEC Person 0 100

S1QA7d: NOT DECIDED
TABLE#1 for S2QB1
What is your perception Reported by

about the value of Review? Number of individuals reported
QEC Person 0 16
S2QB1a:No value
Non QEC person 0 14
QEC Person 6 10
S2QB1a:Valueable
Non QEC person 7 7
QEC Person 10 6
S2QB1a:Highly Valuable
Non QEC person 7 7
S1QA7c: After every five QEC Person 2 16
years
Non QEC person 1 12
QEC Person 0 8
S1QA7d: NOT DECIDED
Non QEC person 1 6
T
TABLE#1 for S2QB2
How did you determine the Reported by

value of the review ? Number of individuals reported
S2QB2a: Your own QEC Person 4 13

perception
Non QEC person 3 10
S2QB2b: Your own QEC Person 12 5

experience
Non QEC person 9 4
S2QB2c: Discussion with QEC Person 10 7

colleagues TABLE2
Non QECfor S2QB2
person 9 4
How did youAny
S2QB2d: determine
surveythe Reported
QEC by
Person 0 17
value of the review ?
conduct Percent of individuals reported
Non QEC person 0
Yes 13
No NA/NR Remarks
S2QB2a: Your own QEC Person 24 76

perception
S2QB2b: Your own QEC Person 71 29

experience
S2QB2c: Discussion with QEC Person 59 41

colleagues
S2QB2d: Any survey QEC Person 0 100

conduct Non QEC person 0 100
TABLE#2 for S2QB1

T
What is your perception Reported by
about the value of Review? Percent of individuals reported
QEC Person 0 100

S2QB1a:No value
QEC Person 38 63
S2QB1a:Valuable
QEC Person 62.5 37.5

T
S2QB1a:Highly Valuable
TABLE#1 for S2QB3
Which Reported by
aspect/recommendation of
the Review Panel Number of individuals reported
you found very useful & T
considered for implement Yes No NA/NR Remarks
S2QB3a: Documentation QEC Person 8 6
against performance
criteria Non QEC person 7 3
S2QB3b: Administrative QEC Person 7 8
aspect Non QEC person 4 7
QEC Person 5 10
S2QB3c: Teaching aspect
Non QEC person 3 8
QEC Person 6 9
S2QB3d: Research aspect
Non QEC person 4 7
QEC Person 3 12
S2QB3e: Financial aspect
Non QEC person 3 8
TABLE#2 for S2QB3
Which Reported by
aspect/recommendation of
the Review Panel Percent of individuals reported
you found very useful &
considered for implement Yes No NA/NR Remarks
S2QB3a: Documentation QEC Person 57 43
against performance
criteria Non QEC person 70 30
S2QB3b: Administrative QEC Person 47 53
aspect
QEC Person 33 67
S2QB3c: Teaching aspect
QEC Person 40 60
S2QB3d: Research aspect
QEC Person 20 80
S2QB3e: Financial aspect
QEC Person 0 100

S2QB3f: Social aspect
Non QEC person 9 91
S2QB3g: Any other (please QEC Person 0 100

specify)
QEC Person 0 15
S2QB3f: Social aspect
Non QEC person 1 10
S2QB3g: Any other (please QEC Person 0 14
specify)
Non QEC person 0 10
TABLE#1 for S2QB4
Are you satisfied with the Reported by

outcome of the Review? Number of individuals reported
S2QB4: Satisfied with the QEC Person 11 4

outcome of the review
TABLE#2 for S2QB4
Non QEC person 9 3

outcome of the Review? Percent of individuals reported
S2QB4: Satisfied with the QEC Person 73 27

outcome of the review
T
TABLE#1 for S3QC1a
S3QC1a: Reported by
Recommendation
no……………. Number of individuals reported
(i) Improvement in QEC Person 4 7

Administration
Non QEC person 6 5
QEC Person 6 5
(ii)Teaching/Research
Non QEC person 8 3
QEC Person 2 9
(iii)Financial management
Non QEC person 1 10
TABLE#2
QEC Person
for S3QC1a 4 7
(iv)Planning
S3QC1a: Reported
Non by
QEC person 5 6
Recommendation
(v)Any other (please
no……………. QEC Person 0 11 individuals reported
Percent of
specify)
Non QEC person Yes
1 No
10 NA/NR Remarks
(i) Improvement in QEC Person 36 64

Administration
QEC Person 55 45
(ii)Teaching/Research
QEC Person 18 82
(iii)Financial management
Non QEC person 9 91
QEC Person 36 64
(iv)Planning
(v)Any other (please QEC Person 0 100

specify)
Non QEC person 9 91
TABLE#1 for S3QC1
Which recommendation of Reported by

the Review Panel has
given Number of individuals reported
up major T
improvement?(Please
mention …) Remarks
Recommendation & nature Content
of the improvement QEC Person analysis
with documentary evidence
if any Non QEC person
(I): INSTITUTIONAL REVIEWS C: Impact
T
TABLE#1 for S3QC2
Did review help in Reported by

improving quality of
University Number of individuals reported
S3QC2: Did review help in QEC Person 15 0

improving quality of Uni.
Non QEC person 7 0
TABLE#2 for S3QC2
Did review help in Reported by

improving quality of
University Percent of individuals reported
S3QC2: Did review help in QEC Person 100 0

improving quality of Uni.
TABLE#1 for S3QC1b
Recommendation Reported by
no……………. Number of individuals reported
Remarks
S3QC1b:(Add more Content

recommendations if QEC Person analysis
appropriate) Non QEC person
TABLE#1 for S3QC3
Did it help improving Reported by

Ranking of the University? Number of individuals reported
S3QC3: Did it help QEC Person 8 6

improving ranking of
University? Non QEC person 6 0
TABLE#2 for S3QC3
Did it help improving Reported by

Ranking of the University? Percent of individuals reported
S3QC3: Did it help QEC Person 57 43

improving ranking of TABLE#1 for S3QC4
University? Non QEC person 100 0
Did it help in working of Reported by
university? Number of individuals reported
S3QC4: Did it help in QEC Person 15 1
working of university?
Non QEC person 12 0
TABLE#2 for S3QC4 T
TABLE#1 for S4QD2

T
T
Who is the responsible for Reported by
the follow up at Uni. level Number of individuals reported
QEC Person 6 9
S4QD2a: VC office
Non QEC person 1 5
TABLE#1 for S3QC5
QEC Person 8 7
Was there any other major Reported by
S4QD2b: Registrar Number of
Non QEC person 3 3 individuals reported
QEC Person 4 11
S4QD2c: Focal Person
Non QEC person 2 4
QEC Person 11 4
S4QD2d: QEC
Non QEC person 3 3
TABLE#1 for S4QD1
Describe briefly the follow Reported by

up mechanism on Number of individuals reported
recommendations of
review Panel as adopted by
Univ. Remarks
Content
S4D1: Follow up QEC Person analysis
mechanism Non QEC person
TABLE#1 for S3QC5
Was there any other major Reported by

impact of the Review? Number of individuals reported
Remarks
S3QC5.1: Better Content

documentation system QEC Person analysis
emerged Non QEC person
impact of the Review?
Remarks T
Content
S3QC5: Any other major QEC Person analysis
impact of review?(Specify) Non QEC person
Did it help in working of Reported by

university? P ercent of individuals reported
S3QC4: Did it help in QEC Person 94 6

working of university?
(I): INSTITUTIONAL REVIEWS D: Follow up
TABLE#2 for S4QD2
TABLE#1 for S4D4

Did you respond to the Reported by
follow up letters of HEC? Number of individuals reported
T
Remarks
Content
S4QD4:Did you respond to QEC Person analysis
follow up letters of HEC? Non QEC person
TABLE#1 for S4QD4

follow up letters of HEC? Number of individuals reported
S4QD4: Did you respond QEC Person 5 7
to follow up letters of
HEC? Non QEC person 2 3
Who is the responsible for Reported by
the follow up at Uni. level P ercent of individuals reported
QEC Person 40 60
S4QD2a: VC office
QEC Person 53 47
S4QD2b: Registrar
QEC Person 27 73
S4QD2c: Focal Person
QEC Person 73 27
S4QD2d: QEC
TABLE#1 for S4D3
Did you get any letter from Reported by

QAA(HEC) for follow up Number of individuals reported
Remarks
Content
S4QD3: Letter for follow QEC Person analysis
up (attach copies) Non QEC person
TABLE#2 for S4QD3

Letter for follow up Reported by Percent of individuals reported

S4QD3: Letter for follow QEC Person 33 67
up
TABLE#1 for S4QD3
Letter for follow up Reported by Number of individuals reported

S4QD3: Letter for follow QEC Person 5 10

up
Non QEC person 1 4
T
TABLE#1 for S4D5
Provide copies of letters Reported by

written to concerned depts. Number of individuals reported
Remarks
Content
S4QD5: Copies of letters & QEC Person analysis
follow up actions Non QEC person
TABLE#2 for S4QD4

follow up letters of HEC? Percent of individuals reported
T
S4QD4: Did you respond QEC Person 42 58
to follow up letters of
HEC? Non QEC person 40 60
T
Annexure V: Questionnaire Filled in by PD
(QECs)
Name: Abaidullah Anwar
Designation: Assistant Director
Email Address:aanwar@hec.gov.pk
Cell No. : 03339891305
QUESTIONNAIRE
(1) What is the No. of technical staff working for you to oversee QECs in HEIs?
 Two assistants
 Both are shared with another section of QAA.
 Both are non-technical
 Both are temporary, hired on contingent basis
(2) How many QECs have been established so far?

 152
(3) How many QECs have been reviewed by HEC so far?

 So far QAA-HEC has undertaken quantitative assessment of IQA mechanism in 116
HEIs. Out of which, 110 have been assessed quantitatively by means of score card.
(4) Please describe the process of review of QECs?

 QAA-HEC is supposed to assure the implementation of Quality Assurance mechanism
by means of following strategies:
i. Capacity building of QECs’ staff at HEIs:

Workshops are conducted w.r.t. Concepts of Quality Assurance, its techniques such as
6 sigma, blooms taxonomy etc., role of QAA, program self-assessment, role of QECs
etc.
ii. Conducting progress review meetings
After workshops, targets are assigned to QECs and then before quantitative
assessment, their progress is reviewed by calling their review meetings in groups. iii.
Doing monitoring / review visits
QAA-HEC is supposed to do informed / surprised review visits, randomly, but because
of lack of HR, it is not being done.
iv. Assessing progress quantitatively by means of score card.
HEIs are assessed against 3 main indicators of internal quality mechanism:
a. Establishment of QECs: includes parameters w.r.t. allocation of budget, appointment
of staff etc.
b. Incorporation of program self-assessment mechanism: includes parameters w.r.t.
conducting of assessment surveys, preparation of program selfassessment against 8
criterion and 31 standards etc.
c. Empowerment of QECs: includes parameters
w.r.t. membership of QECs in international bodies, capacity building of its staff by
giving them national / international exposure etc.
(5) How do you select Review Teams for QECs?

At present, since the review visits are not being conducted, review panels are not
selected. However, whenever it would needed to be, it would be done on analogy of
PhD/IPE Review Panels i.e. by selecting a team of 3-4 eminent Professors/Directors of
QECs, belonging to the HEIs other than that is being reviewed. Further, each review
panel may be accompanied by a representative/coordinator from QAA-HEC.
(6) Have you identified the difficulties in proper review of QECs?

Yes, difficulties are there in all of the three strategies:
 In progress review meetings, since the sizes of the groups were very large, the
participants could not be given enough time to present / discuss their issues or best
practices etc. Further, administrative problems were also there in managing a large
group of participants.
Now the sizes of the groups, for review meetings, have been reduced to 15 HEIs.
Although the groups are now manageable but it has increased the number of review
meetings / annum, that in view of already short HR, is getting difficult to manage.
 Because of HR shortage in QAA, review visits are not done, at all.
 In quantitative assessment a number of problems have been observed:

o Poor mechanism of data collection and analysis. Although, it’s been now, a bit
improved by developing models in MS Excel, however, it needs to be automated by
developing a web based MIS. oPoor evidences in support of yearly progress report (YPR).
Evidences are sent manually, along with YPR. Because of workload and lack of HR,
establishing its authenticity is difficult, that makes the whole assessment questionable. By
developing a web based MIS, having ability of cross verification, it may be overcome. oLack
of reviews of the program self-assessment process. oLack of reviews of quantities
assessment criteria.
o Dependence of quantitative assessment upon one individual officer. It, not only
creates monopoly on IQA relevant information and biasedness in quantitative assessment but
also be risky in case the individual leaves or any accident occurs. oBecause of HR shortage,
succession planning is not possible.
o Poor archive. Lack of space and system. Although, it’s been very improved now,
however, it still needs improvement. Better if could be converted into paperless. oLack of
relevant HR. Only one officer, supported by two (shared, temporarily hired) assistants. In
view of the work scope, it is highly insufficient.
(7) How many QECs have appointed staff according to the HEC guidelines?
Out of 110 HEIs, those submitted their Yearly Progress Reports (YPRs), the status is as
under:
Nos. and %age in
terms of:
Quality No. of
Dimensions of Quality Indicators %age
Indicator HEIs √ Satisfactory
× Unsatisfactory
No. of HEIs having FULL TIME QEC Head 55 50%
Hiring No. of HEIs having QEC Head on √ 103 94%
of 48 44%
ADDITIONAL CHARGE
HEAD
No. of HEIs having NO QEC HEAD 7 6% ×7 6%
No. of HEIs employed MINIMUM 2
71 65%
OFFICERS in QEC
√ 90 82%
Hiring of
No. of HEIs SHORT of 1 OFFICER 19 17%
Officer
× 20
No. of HEIs employed NO OFFICER 20 18% 18%
Hiring of No. of HEIs employed FULL SUPPORT √ 103

103 94% 94%
Support STAFF
Staff No. of HEIs with NO SUPPORT STAFF 7 6% ×7 6%
(8) How do you award scores to QECs?

HEIs are assessed against 3 main indicators of internal quality mechanism, already
mentioned at section 4 (iv) of this questionnaire. Following procedure is followed for
assessment and awarding score:
i. Data is collected annually using an enriched MS Excel file, called YPR (attached).
ii. HEIs also submit evidences, in hard form, in support of the information claimed in YPR
iii. The claimed information is verified with the provided evidence and score is awarded as per
the formula given in the score card (attached).
iv. Total marks are 100. The HEIs are graded in different quality levels as per the following
score ranges they fall in:
QEC Score 85% - 100% 68% - 51% - Up to

Rating Range: 84% 67% 50%
Criteria: Quality
W X Y Z
Level:
v. The detailed score is communicated to HEIs having approval of the CA.

(9) What improvements in the structure of QECs have been made so far?
 As such no. Since its inception, the same structure is followed. However, a suggestion is
under consideration that the size of QECs should be determined in view of the size of the
HEI. Whereas, the size of HEI depends upon the number of academic programs it offers. On
people aware of Reported by Number of individuals reported about IPES
Program Reviews
0% - 30% 31% - 60% 61% -90% 91% - To
100%
S1QA1a: Faculty QEC Person 1 3 8 6 18
Members Non QEC 1 2 5 2 10
person
S1QA1b: QEC Person 6 7 5 0 18
the basis of the number of programs HEIs offer, they may be categorized as Small, Medium
and Large HEIs. The structure of QECs may be recommended accordingly.
(10) Are you satisfied with the level of input made by HEC for improving working of
QECs? (Yes/No)
 No
(11) If the answer is No, please explain the shortcomings.

 Shortcomings / problems have been mentioned in section 6 of this questionnaire.
ANNEXURE VI: Analysis of Data for Program Reviews
(II): PROGRAM REVIEWS A: Implementation of Program Reviews
TABLE#1 for S1QA1

Administrative staff Non QEC 3 4 1 1 9
person
S1QA1c: Students QEC Person 5 5 3 5 18
Non QEC 3 3 0 3 9
person
TABLE#2 for S1QA1
TABLE#1 for S1QA3
How was director/in charge QEC Reported by Percent of individuals rep orted about focal person
appointed?
people aware of Program Reviews Reported by Percent of individuals reported or aware about IPES
0% - 30% 31% - 60% 61% - 91% - To
90% 100%
S1QA1a: Faculty Members QEC Person 6 17 44 33 10
Non QEC person 10 20 50 20 10
S1QA1b: Administrative staff QEC Person 33 39 28 0 10


TABLE#1 for S1QA2

present Director/In charge of Reported by Number of individuals reported
QEC work whole time for QEC
Yes No NA/NR Remarks To
S1QA2: Present Director of QEC QEC Person 9 9 18
work whole time for QEC Non QEC person 2 1 3
TABLE#1 for S1QA2

present Director/In charge of Reported by Percent of individuals reported
QEC work whole time for QEC
S1QA2 QEC Person 50 50 10
Non QEC person 67 33 10
Considered Not To
Considered
S1QA3a: Selection against an QEC Person 53 47 10
advertised post Non QEC person 100 0 10
S1QA3b: Additional charge given QEC Person 53 47 10

to a faculty member to work part Non QEC person 100 0 10
time
S1QA3c: Transfer of a faculty QEC Person 53 47 10
member to work whole time Non QEC person 100 0 10
S1QA3d: Transfer from the other QEC Person 15 85 10

post. Non QEC person 0 100 10
How was director/in charge QEC Reported by Number of individuals reported about focal person
appointed?
Yes No To
S1QA3a: Selection against an QEC Person 9 8 17
advertised post Non QEC person 2 0 2
S1QA3b: Additional charge given QEC Person 9 8 17

to a faculty member to work part Non QEC person 2 0 2
time
S1QA3c: Transfer of a faculty QEC Person 9 8 17
member to work whole time Non QEC person 2 0 2
S1QA3d: Transfer from the other QEC Person 2 11 13

post. Non QEC person 0 2 2
TABLE#1 for S1QA4

What is the pay scale of the Reported by Number of individuals reported
current full time Dir./in charge
QEC?
BPS-7 BPS-19 BPS-20 BPS-21 To
S1QA4 QEC Person 2 3 3 1 9
TABLE#1 for S1QA4

What is the pay scale of the Reported by Percent of individuals reported
QEC? BPS-7 BPS-19 BPS-20 BPS-21 To
S1QA4 QEC Person 22 33 33 11 10

TABLE#1 for S1QA4
What is the pay of the current full Reported by Number of individuals reported
time Dir./in charge QEC?
3000 45000 to 970000 140000 To
65000
TABLE#2 for S1QA3
TABLE#1 for S1QA5

What is the pay scale of the Reported by Number of individuals reported
QEC?
TABLE#1 for S1QA5

What is the pay scale of the Reported by Percent of individuals reported
QEC?
TABLE#1
TABLE#1 for
for S1QA5
S1QA4
What is the pay of the current full Reported by Percent of individuals reported
3000 45000 to 970000 140000 To
65000
S1QA4 QEC Person 20 40 20 20 10
Non QEC person
What is the pay of the current full Reported by Number of individuals reported
3000 100000 970000 140000 To
Non QEC 0 0 0 100 10

person
TABLE#1 for S1QA8

Trained/Briefed the focal person Reported by Number of individuals reported
S1QA8a: Personal briefing QEC Person 12 5 17
S1QA8b: Formal training by HEC QEC Person 8 10 18

S1QA8c: Formal training by QEC Person 10 8 18

University Non QEC person 0 1 1
TABLE#2 for S1QA9
TABLE#1 for S1QA5

What is the pay of the current full Reported by Percent of individuals reported
Trained/Briefed the focal person Reported by Percent of individuals reported
S1QA8b: Formal training by QEC Person 44 56 10

HEC Non QEC person 100 0 10

TABLE#1 for S1QA6
S1QA6a: HEC QEC Person 15 3 18
S1QA6b: Institution/University QEC Person 8 10 18

TABLE#2 for S1QA6

S1QA6a: HEC QEC Person 83 17 10
S1QA6b: Institution/University QEC Person 44 56 10

3000 100000 970000 140000 To

Non QEC person
level of co-operation did you Reported by Number of individuals reported about IPES
receive to complete program view
cycle
0% - 30% 31% - 60% 61% - 91% - To
90% 100%
S1QA10a: Dept. Chairman/in QEC Person 0 2 14 2 18
charge program Non QEC person 0 1 0 0 1
S1QA10b: Faculty members QEC Person 1 4 13 0 18


S1QA10d: Assessment teams QEC Person 0 1 17 0 18

S1QA10e: Program teams QEC Person 0 4 14 0 18

S1QA10f: Administration QEC Person 5 2 11 18

TABLE#1 for S1QA9
S1QA9b: Formal training by HEC QEC Person 0 17 17


University Non QEC person 0 0 14 14
TABLE#2 for S1QA9

S1QA9b: Formal training by HEC QEC Person 0 100 0 10

S1QA9c: Formal training by QEC Person 94 6 0 10

University Non QEC person 0 0 100 10
University Non QEC 0 100 10
person
0% - 30% 31% - 60% 61% - 91% - To
90% 100%
S1QA1a: Faculty Members QEC Person 0 11 78 11 10
S1QA1b: Administrative staff QEC Person 6 22 72 0 10


S1QA10d: Assessment teams QEC Person 0 6 94 0 10

S1QA10e: Program teams QEC Person 0 22 78 0 10

TABLE#1 for S1QA10

S1QA10f: Administration QEC Person 28 11 61 0 10
Non QEC 1 0 0 0 1
person
S1QA11b: After every three years QEC Person 33 67 10

S1QA11c: After every five years QEC Person 6 94 10

TABLE#1 for S1QA12
S1QA11d: NOT DECIDED QEC Person 17 83 10
TABLE#2 for S1QA10
TABLE#1 for S1QA11

After how many years the same Reported by Number of individuals reported
program is to be reviewed again?
S1QA11a: After every two years QEC Person 8 10 18
S1QA11b: After every three years QEC Person 6 12 18

S1QA11c: After every five years QEC Person 1 17 18

S1QA11d: NOT DECIDED QEC Person 3 15 18

TABLE#2 for S1QA11

After how many years the same Reported by Percent of individuals reported
program is to be reviewed again?
S1QA11a: After every two years QEC Person 44 56 10
How did you select the Reported by Number of individuals reported
Assessment Team?
S1QA12a: From other QEC Person 14 4 18
departments within the university Non QEC person 1 2 3
S1QA12b: From outside the QEC Person 4 8 12

university Non QEC person 3 0 3
TABLE#2 for S1QA12

How did you select the Reported by Percent of individuals reported
Assessment Team?
S1QA12a: From other QEC Person 78 22 10
departments within the university Non QEC person 33 67 10
S1QA12b: From outside the QEC Person 33 67 10

TABLE#1 for S1QA13

programs were reviewed since Reported by Number of individuals reported
establishment of the QEC?
10 to 20 21 to 40 40 to 100 100 to 150 To
TABLE#1 for S1QA13

programs were reviewed since Reported by Percent of individuals reported
establishment of the QEC?
Non QEC person
%age of recommendations are Reported by Number of individuals reported about IPES

being implemented for programs
0% - 30% 31% - 60% 61% - 91% - To
90% 100%
0% - 30% 31% - 60% 61% - 91% - To
90% 100%
TABLE#1 for S1QA17
TABLE#2 for S1QA17
percentage of programs run by Reported by Percent of individuals reported or aware about IPES
your university Reviewed by HEC 0% - 30% 31% - 60% 61% - 91% - To
90% 100%
S1QA18 QEC Person 29 14 43 14 10
level of co-operation did you Reported by Number of individuals reported about IPES
receive to complete program view Small Medium High To
cycle
S1QA19a: Capacity of the QEC Person 3 13 1 17
respective program/department Non QEC person 0 1 1 2
S1QA19b: Lack of co-operation QEC Person 9 7 1 17

from chairman/faculty members Non QEC person 1 1 0 2
S1QA19c: Lack of human QEC Person 9 6 2 17

resources Non QEC person 1 0 1 2
S1QA19d: Lack of financial QEC Person 7 5 5 17

resources Non QEC person 1 0 1 2
level of co-operation did you Reported by Percent of individuals reported or aware about IPES
receive to complete program view Small Medium High To
cycle
S1QA19a: Capacity of the QEC Person 18 76 6 0 10
respective program/department Non QEC person 0 50 50 0 10
S1QA19b: Lack of co-operation QEC Person 53 41 6 0 10

from chairman/faculty members Non QEC person 50 50 0 0 10
S1QA19c: Lack of human QEC Person 53 35 12 0 10

resources Non QEC person 50 0 50 0 10
S1QA19d: Lack of financial QEC Person 41 29 29 0 10
percentage of programs run by Reported by Number of individuals reported about IPES

your university Reviewed by HEC
0% - 30% 31% - 60% 61% - 91% - To
90% 100%
TABLE#1 for S1QA18
TABLE#2 for S1QA18
TABLE#1 for S1QA19
TABLE#2 for S1QA19

resources Non QEC person 50 0 50 0 10
TABLE#1 for S2QB1
TABLE#2 for S2QB1
Extent the Program Review is Reported by Number of individuals reported about IPES
considered valuable on overall
Low Medium High To
basis by:
S2QB1a: Program in charge QEC Person 0 15 4 19
S2QB1b: Faculty members QEC Person 1 16 2 19

S2QB1c: Students QEC Person 1 17 1 19

S2QB1d:University Admin. QEC Person 0 17 2 19

Extent the Program Review is TABLE#1

Reported byfor S2QB4
Percent of individuals reported or aware about IPES
considered valuable on overall Small Medium High To
basis by:
S2QB1a: Program in charge QEC Person 0 79 21 10
S2QB1b: Faculty members QEC Person 5 84 11 10

S2QB1c: Students QEC Person 5 89 5 10

S2QB1d:University Admin. QEC Person 0 89 11 10

Do you considered that awareness Reported
TABLE#1byfor S2QB2
about the quality issues Number of individuals reported
Was improvement observed due to Reported by
the faculty staff & students created
the Review? Number of individuals reported
by the Review had value? Yes No NA/NR Remarks To
QEC Person 18 1
S2QB4
Non QEC person
11 11
TABLE#2 for S2QB2
Was improvement observed due to Reported by

the Review? Percent of individuals reported
QEC Person 100 0
S2QB2
Non QEC person
91 9
TABLE#2 for S2QB2
What level of improvement took Reported by

place in the program after review Percent of individuals reported
0% - 30% 31% - 60% 61% - 91% -
90% 100% To
S2QB3
Non QEC person
11 11 78 0
TABLE#1 for S2QB3
What level of improvement took Reported by

place in the program after review Number of individuals reported
0% - 30% 31% - 60% 61% - 91% -
90% 100% To
QEC Person 5 5 9 0
S2QB3
Non QEC person
1 1 7 0
QEC Person 18 0
S2QB2
Non QEC person
10 1
TABLE#2 for S3QC1
TABLE#2 for S2QB4
Do you considered that awareness Reported by

about the quality issues Percent of individuals reported
the faculty staff & students created
by the Review had value? Yes No NA/NR Remarks To
QEC Person 95 5
S2QB4
Non QEC 50 50
Did the Review help is creating Reported by Percent of individuals reported
awareness about quality issues the
program? Yes No NA/NR Remarks To
S3QC1a: Among faculty QEC Person 100 0 10
S3QC1b: Among students QEC Person 83 17 10

S3QC1c: Among administration QEC Person 100 0 10

TABLE#2 for S2QB5
outcome of the Review? Percent of individuals reported
S2QB5 QEC Person 95 5
TABLE#1 for S3QC1

Did the Review help is creating Reported by Number of individuals reported
awareness about quality issues the
program? Yes No NA/NR Remarks To
S3QC1a: Among faculty QEC Person 19 0 19
S3QC1b: Among students QEC Person 15 3 18

S3QC1c: Among administration QEC Person 19 0 19

TABLE#1 for S2QB5

outcome of the Review? Number of individuals reported
QEC Person 18 1
S2QB5
Non QEC person
10 1
Non QEC person
91 9
person
TABLE#1 for S3QC2
TABLE#1 for S3QC2

Was there any improvement in Reported by Number of individuals reported
the conduct of the
Was there any improvement in the Reported by Percent of individuals reported
conduct of the program after the
Review in terms of the following: Yes No NA/NR Remarks To
S3QC2a1: Faculty QEC Person 94 6 10

S3QC2a2: Space & facilities for QEC Person 89 11 10

offices,labs,lecture rooms Non QEC person 100 0 10
S3QC2a3: Financial support from QEC Person 83 17 10

S3QC2b1: Teaching QEC Person 94 6 10

S3QC2b2: Research publications QEC Person 83 17 10

S3QC2b3: Regularity in classes QEC Person 82 18 10

S3QC2b4: Better evaluation of QEC Person 100 0 10

teachers by students Non QEC person 100 0 10
program after the Review in terms Yes No NA/NR Remarks To

of the following:
S3QC2a1: Faculty QEC Person 17 1 18
S3QC2a2: Space & facilities for QEC Person 16 2 18

offices,labs,lecture rooms Non QEC person 3 0 3
S3QC2a3: Financial support from QEC Person 15 3 18

S3QC2b1: Teaching QEC Person 15 1 16

S3QC2b2: Research publications QEC Person 15 3 18

S3QC2b3: Regularity in classes QEC Person 14 3 17

S3QC2b4: Better evaluation of QEC Person 17 0 17

teachers by students Non QEC person 4 0 4
TABLE#1 for S4QD1
Who is the responsible for the Reported by

follow up on the Number of individuals reported
recommendations the Assessment
Team? Yes No NA/NR Remarks To
QEC Person 17 1 18
S4QD1a: QEC
Non QEC person
2 1 3
QEC Person 6 10 16
S4QD1b: Program Team
Non QEC person
1 1 2
QEC Person 16 1 17
S4QD1c: In charge program TABLE#2 for S2QD1
Non QEC person
3 0 3
Who is the responsible for the Reported by
follow up on the Percent of individuals reported
recommendations the Assessment
Team? Yes No NA/NR Remarks To
QEC Person 94 6 10
S4QD1a: QEC Non QEC person
67 33 10
QEC Person 38 63 10
S4QD1b: Program Team Non QEC person
50 50 10
S4QD1c: In charge program QEC Person 94 6 10
TABLE#2 for S2QC3
Was the grade/ranking of the Reported by

Percent of individuals reported
QEC/HEI improved after the
completion of the Review? Yes No NA/NR Remarks To
QEC Person 78 22 10
S3QC3a:QEC
Non QEC person
100 0 10
QEC Person 67 33 10
S3QC3b:HEI
Non QEC person
100 0 10
TABLE#1 for S2QC3
Was the grade/ranking of the Reported by

Number of individuals reported
QEC/HEI improved after the
completion of the Review? Yes No NA/NR Remarks To
QEC Person 14 4 18
S3QC3a:QEC
Non QEC person
3 0 3
QEC Person 12 6 18
S3QC3b:HEI
Non QEC person
3 0 3
TABLE#2 for S4QD2
Did QEC write letter to Program Reported by

Percent of individuals reported
Teams/In charge Program for
implementing recommendations of
the Assessment Team? Yes No NA/NR Remarks To
QEC Person 94 6
S4QD2
Non QEC person
TABLE#1 for S4QD3 100 0
TABLE#1 for S4QD2
Did QEC get response from the Reported by Number of individuals reported
Did QEC write letter to Program Reported by
Number of individuals reported
Teams/In charge Program for
implementing recommendations of
the Assessment Team? Yes No NA/NR Remarks To
QEC Person 15 1
S4QD2
Non QEC person
1 0
TABLE#1 for S4QD4
Was the Response Reported by Number of individuals reported

QEC Person 8 8 16
S4QD4a: Prompt
Non QEC person
0 0 0
QEC Person 8 8 16
S4QD4b:Delayed
Non QEC person
0 0 0
QEC Person 0 16 16
S4QD4c:No Response
Non QEC person
0 0 0
program Team or In charge Yes No NA/NR Remarks To
Program?
QEC Person 11 0
S4QD3
Non QEC person
1 0
Non QEC
person 100 0 10
TABLE#1 for S4D5
TABLE#2 for S4QD3
Did QEC get response from the Reported by Percent of individuals reported
program Team or In charge Yes No NA/NR Remarks To
Program?
QEC Person 100 0
S4QD3
Non QEC person
100 0
TABLE#2 for S2QD4

What difficulties did you face in Reported by Number of individuals reported
the conduct & Program Reviews?
S4QD5a: Capacity of QEC QEC Person 7 10 17

S4QD5b: Lack of appropriate QEC Person 4 13 17

authority with Dir./in charge Non QEC person 0 1 1
Program
S4QD5c: Slackness of Program in QEC Person 7 11 18
charge Non QEC person 0 1 1
S4QD5d: Slackness of faculty QEC Person 7 10 17

members Non QEC person 0 1 1
S4QD5e: High work load of QEC QEC Person 14 4 18

S4QD5f: Less cooperation/support QEC Person 5 13 18

from Administration Non QEC person 1 0 1
S4QD5g: Finding appropriate QEC Person 4 13 17

Assessment Team Non QEC person 0 1 1
S4QD5h: Less co-operation From QEC Person 3 14 17

Assessment Team Non QEC person 0 1 1
Was the Response Reported by Percent of individuals reported

QEC Person 50 50 10
S4QD4a: Prompt Non QEC person
0 0 0
QEC Person 50 50 10
S4QD4b:Delayed Non QEC person
0 0 0
QEC Person 0 100 10
S4QD4c:No Response Non QEC person
0 0 0
TABLE#1 for S4D5
What difficulties did you face in Reported by Percent of individuals reported
the conduct & Program Reviews?
S4QD5a: Capacity of QEC QEC Person 41 59 0 10
S4QD5b: Lack of appropriate QEC Person 24 76 0 10

authority with Dir./in charge Non QEC 0 100 0 10
Program
person
S4QD5c: Slackness of Program in QEC Person 39 61 0 10
charge Non QEC person 0 100 0 10
S4QD5d: Slackness of faculty QEC Person 41 59 0 10

members Non QEC person 0 100 0 10
S4QD5e: High work load of QEC QEC Person 78 22 0 10
TABLE#1 for S5QE1

Please give in order of priority Reported by Number of individuals reported
actions that will bring
improvement in conduct of Minimum Maximum Frequent Remarks To
Program Reviews: Rank Rank Rank
S5QE1a: Increase in permanent QEC Person 0 8 3
human resources of QEC Non QEC person
S5QE1b: Proper training of QEC Person 0 7 2

Director & staff of QEC Non QEC person
S5QE1c: Better status of QEC Person 0 8 1

Director/in charge QEC Non QEC person
S5QE1d: Increase in financial QEC Person 0 7 7

allocation for QEC Non QEC person
S5QE1e: Better training of QEC Person 0 7 4

Program Team(PT) Non QEC person
S5QE1f: Development of more QEC Person 1 8 1

elaborate guideline Manual for
conduct of Program Reviews Non QEC person
S5QE1g: Better training of QEC Person 0 8 7

Program Assessment Teams Non QEC person
S5QE1h: Increase in payment to QEC Person 0 8 8

Assessment Team Non QEC person
S4QD5f: Less cooperation/support QEC Person 28 72 0 10

from Administration Non QEC person 100 0 0 10
S4QD5g: Finding appropriate QEC Person 24 76 0 10

Assessment Team Non QEC person 0 100 0 10
S4QD5h: Less co-operation From QEC Person 18 82 0 10

Assessment Team Non QEC person 0 100 0 10
TABLE#1 for S1QF1

Do you recommend the following Reported by Number of individuals reported
for the better"buy in"?
S6QF1a: Running strong QEC Person 17 0 17
awareness Non QEC person 10 0 10
campaigns for faculty staff
about improvement in the
program's quality
S6QF1b: Incorporating the role of QEC Person 18 0 18
Program Reviews as agenda item Non QEC person 8 2 10
in Academic Council
meetings once a year.
S6QF1c: Improving status of the QEC Person 16 3 19
permanent Non QEC person 2 6 8
Director,QEC by giving
it scale to a Professor
S6QF1d: Appointing a permanent QEC Person 17 2 19
Director,QEC Non QEC person 2 6 8
S6QF1e: The Director,QEC QEC Person 17 2 19

should report directly to the Non QEC person 2 6 8
VC/Rector
TABLE#1 for S1QF1

Do you recommend the following Reported by Percent of individuals reported
for the better"buy in"?
S6QF1a: Running strong QEC Person 100 0 10

awareness Non QEC person 100 0 10
campaigns for faculty staff
about improvement in the
program's quality
S6QF1b: Incorporating the role of QEC Person 100 0 10
Program Reviews as agenda item
in Academic Council
meetings once a year.
S6QF1c: Improving status of the QEC Person 84 16 10
permanent Non QEC person 25 75 10
Director,QEC by giving
it scale to a Professor
S6QF1d: Appointing a permanent QEC Person 89 11 10
Director,QEC Non QEC person 25 75 10
S6QF1e: The Director,QEC QEC Person 89 11 10

should report directly to the Non QEC person 25 75 10
VC/Rector
ANNEXRE VII: Recommendations of Program Review Assessment Teams Implemented by Islamia
University, Bahawalpur.
SN Departments Weaknesses identified Actions taken
for which
Implementatio
n plan
finalized/
approved
01 Management i. Lab upgradation i. MS faculty appointed
Sciences ii. Lack of local & Regional Industrial linkages ii. Computer Lab up graded
iii. Implementation of course file iii. More Industrial Lin
iv. Lack of MS/PHD / HECs approved PhD established
Faculty iv. Semester Calendar developed
v. Orientation day/Sports
celebrated
vi. Maintenance of Course file
regular basis
02 Physics i. M.sc Curriculum revised i. M.sc Curriculum revised
ii. Semester Calendar, Course files ii. Semester Calendar, Course fil
updated
iii. Orientation day/sports day
Orientation
iii. day/sports
iv. Seminar/workshop celebrated
v. Lab up gradation iv. Seminar/workshop conducted
vi. Professional Visits v. Lab up graded
vi. Professional Visits paid
03 Library and i. Semester Calendar i. Semester Calendar, Orientatio
Info Sciences ii. iii. Orientation day day celebrated
ii. Course files maintained
iv. Course files iii. Seminar/workshop conducted
v. Seminar/workshop iv. HEC digital Lab up graded
vi. vii. HEC digital Lab up gradation v. Alumni established
viii. vi. Training /Workshop for facult
Alumni of the Department
vii. PhD Faculty hired
Training /Workshop for faculty
PhD Faculty may be hired
04 Applied i. ii. Focus on IT & oral Commutation Course i. Orientation / Sports days, Cou
Psychology iii. iv. Course Counseling Center files
v. vi. Conferences & Workshops Organization celebrated
Thesis display ii.
Establishment of counsel
Local & regional industrial linkages HEC iii.
center
approved PHD supervisors in the
department Faculty members sent for Ph
university Scholarships
iv. HEC supervisory applied
05 Education i. Focus on IT oral Communication skills i. Semester Calendar, Orientatio
ii. iii. Accreditation ii. , Course files
Course files Seminar/workshop conducted
iv. “Educators” Alumni link iii. Multimedia lab established Pro

v. vi. Departmental web link iv. accredited
Conference /Workshop
06 University i. International ,Local & regional Linkages i. ii. Semester Calendar, Orientat
College of ii. iii. Workshops Counseling / Sports day, C
Agriculture & Lack of Laboratories & Equipment, and files
Environmental fulfillment of program PC-1 has approved from HE
Sciences accreditation requirements establishing new laboratories
purchase of equipment.
07 Arabic i. Orientation day, i. Orientation day celebrated
ii. iii. Semester Calendar 30.10.2012
iv. Lack of HECs approved PhD Faculty ii. Semester Calendar prepared
v. vi. Sports day iii. Dr. Raheela Khalid acquire
Alumni and Web link HEC approved supervisory
Conference /Seminar entitlement
iv. Sports day celebrated
02.02.2013
v. Alumni & departmental weblin
been created
vi. Conference is going to
scheduled this year
08 Geography i. Orientation day, Course files i. Orientation day celebrated
ii. iii. Alumni, departmental web link, 30.10.2012, Departmental
iv. Lack of HECs approved PhD Faculty Lack Semester calendar & Course fi
of local & Regional Industrial linkages implemented
v. Conference Seminars ii. Alumni & departmental web li
vi. Exhibition activated
vii. Alumni of the Department iii. Application of Dr. Asad Ali
viii. ix. Poster Exhibition for HEC approved supervisory
Long/Study Tour entitlement in is process
iv. International Geographic
(IGU), Association of America
Geographers has been initiated
v. Seminar on Remote Se
application for environment
been conducted on 20.12.2012
vi. GIS Map Exhibition held on
07/02/2013
vii. 1st meeting of the Alumni w
held in 2nd week of May
viii. Poster Exhibition held
31.05.2013 at 10 am
ix. Study tour of Khanspur
organized on 13.06.2013
23.6.2013 in which stu
surveyed Village
Rayala,Touheedabad
Khanspur
09 Law i. Orientation/ Career day, Students attendance i. Orientation day celebrated
focus, Implementation of course file, Web 22/10/12, ii. Career day
organized on June, 20th 2013. Mr
ii. page & email of the department, Ashraf Khan, Lecturer performe
Alumni not exists functions of career counselor.
course files implemented
iii. HEC approved supervisor iv. Webpage of the department on
media network created for al
iv. Conference /seminars law@iub.edu.pk activated
v. Sports day ocal & Regional Linkages v. Dr. A.Q Sial and M. Hafee
vi. L pursing for the same
vi. Department organized a semin
Judicial System in Pakistan
Lecture delivered by a British S
&Expert through webinar.
Law moot competitions will orga
during the next semester. (Dec
2013)
vii. Sports day celebrated on 03/1/13
Seminar on “Clinical Legal
Education” by Open So
Initiative Pak. ix. Departmen
nominated Mr. Fraz Ashraf
Lecturer for these purposes.
x. Electronic Conversation has been
with Intellectual Property Organi
has been done and remaining
formalities will be done in due cou
xi. Electronic communication with H
University for Credit Transfer
10 Department of i. Advance Lab Equipment i. Furniture received and insect

Entomology ii. Celebration of Sports Gala ii. rearing cabin prepared Sports
iii. Alumni Activities organized 20-22 March,2013
iv. Local & Regional Industrial Linkages Annual function/cultural show
v. Departmental web link organized on 31 May,2013
iii. Entomologist.iub@groups.fac
ok.com
iv. Departmental web link
entomology@iub.edu.pk
activated
11 Department of i. Advance Lab Equipment i. Laboratory equipment receive
Plant Breeding ii. Celebration of Sports Gala ii. functioning started (molecular
& Genetics iii. Alumni Activities studies)
iv. Local & Regional Industrial Linkages Sports Gala organized 20-22
v. Departmental web link March,2013 , Annual
function/cultural show was
organized on 31 May,2013
iii. pbgucagroups@facebook.com
updated
iv. Linkages with potential growe
are in Line
v. pbguca@iub.edu.pk activated
12 Education i. Mission & Vision statement of
the department
ii. Display of Program Mission, Objectives and
intended outcomes
iii. Oral and written skills of the students
iv. Accreditation of the Program
v. Employer survey
vi. Celebration orientation/ sports /cultural and career
day
vii. Alumni of the Department
viii. Local & Regional linkages, International linkages
and collaborative projects
ix. Course files
x. Organization of
Conference/Seminars/Workshops xi. Lacking
of Ph.D. faculty
xii. Updating of Departmental web link. Faculty
profiles at IUB web server
xiii. Activation of faculty members Turnitin and
IUB VPN services accounts
13 Management i. Mission & Vision statement of the
Sciences department
ii. Display of Program Mission,
Objectives and intended outcomes
iii. Oral and written skills of the students
v. Employer survey
vi. Celebration orientation/ sports
/cultural and career day
vii. Alumni of the Department
viii. Local & Regional linkages,
International linkages and
collaborative projects
ix. Course files
x. Organization of
Conference/Seminars/Workshops
xi. Lacking of Ph.D. faculty
xii. Updating of Departmental web link. Faculty
profiles at IUB web server
xiii. Activation of faculty members Turnitin and
IUB VPN services accounts
14 Commerce i. Mission & Vision statement of the
department
ii. Display of Program Mission,
Objectives and intended outcomes
iii. Teacher students ratio
v. Employer survey
vi. Curricular and co-curricular activities of
department
vii. Local & Regional linkages, International linkages
and
collaborative projects
viii. Course files
ix. Organization of
Conference/Seminars/ Workshops
x. IT training for admin staff
xi. Updating of Departmental web link.
Faculty profiles at IUB web server xii.
Activation of faculty members Turnitin
and IUB VPN services accounts
15 Forestry, Wild- Accreditation council v
life & Range department for Pro
i. Shortage of Senior and experience faculty
Management accreditation
ii. Insufficient text books, reference books and
IT facilities iii. Inadequate facilities for filed
visit
16 Food Sciencei. Shortage of faculty i/c senior and qualified faculty Accreditation council v
Technology ii. lack of requisite labs department for Pro
iii. Existing teaching faculty of two members required accreditation
training for improving teaching skills
iv. Lack of books in Library
ANNEXURE VIII: Recommendations of Self-

All Deptt. All Date o
Name (e.g. QEC Review of the PT Report Submi
Program Date of
Department of Name PT sion o
AT AT Exit AT
Engineering) Offered Formati Execu
PT Report Formation Meeting
[Repeat Deptt. by on Date PT Report ve
PT Report Resubmission Date[attac with the
Sr. Name every HEI(e.g. [attach Report h name Dean,
Submissi Summ
time a notifica Submission Date after
BS
Date QEC Review
Finalizati list] PT & on Date ry
program name Enginee tion] on Date VC b
[if applicable] Faculty
is ring) QEC
mentioned]
50 0 50 39 38 38 36 34 34 34
Plant
26- 13- 25- 1-May
1 Breedin PhD. 1-Jul-08 30-Oct-08 13-Feb-09 2-Apr-09
Feb08 Feb09 Feb09 09
g & Genetics
Plant
M.Sc.(H 26- 13- 25- 1-May
2 Breedin 1-Jul-08 30-Oct-08 13-Feb-09 2-Apr-09
ons) Feb08 Feb09 Feb09 09
g & Genetics
Plant
B.Sc. 26- 13- 25- 1-May
3 Breedin 1-Jul-08 30-Oct-08 13-Feb-09 2-Apr-09
(Hons) Feb08 Feb09 Feb09 09
g & Genetics
26- 1-Feb
4 Plant Pathology PhD. 1-Oct-09 30-Oct-09 31-Oct09 31-Oct-09 1-Nov09 1-Jan-10
Feb08 10
M.Sc.(H 26- 1-Feb

5 Plant Pathology 1-Oct-09 30-Oct-09 31-Oct09 31-Oct-09 1-Nov09 1-Jan-10
ons) Feb08 10
B.Sc. 26- 1-Feb

6 Plant Pathology 1-Oct-09 30-Oct-09 31-Oct09 31-Oct-09 1-Nov09 1-Jan-10
(Hons) Feb08 10
Soil &
26- 1-Feb
7 Environmental Ph.D. 5-Oct-09 30-Oct-09 31-Oct09 31-Oct-09 1-Nov09 1-Jan-10
Feb08 10
Sciences
Soil &
M.Sc.(H 26- 1-Feb
8 Environmental 5-Oct-09 30-Oct-09 31-Oct09 31-Oct-09 1-Nov09 1-Jan-10
ons) Feb08 10
Sciences
Soil &
B.Sc. 26- 1-Feb
9 Environmental 5-Oct-09 30-Oct-09 31-Oct09 31-Oct-09 1-Nov09 1-Jan-10
(Hons) Feb08 10
Sciences
Assessment Teams Implemented by KPK Agri. Uni. Peshawar
t
B.Sc. 26- 1-Mar
10 Rural Sociology 1-Jan-10 30-Jan-10 6-Feb10 6-Feb-10 1-Jan10 1-Feb-10
(Hons) Feb08 10
Food Science & M.Sc.(H 26- 1-Mar

11 1-Jan-10 30-Jan-10 6-Feb10 6-Feb-10 1-Jan10 1-Feb-10
Technology ons) Feb08 10
Food Science & B.Sc. 26- 1-Mar

12 1-Jan-10 30-Jan-10 6-Feb10 6-Feb-10 1-Jan10 1-Feb-10
Technology (Hons) Feb08 10
M.Sc.(H 26- 24- 13-Apr- 4-May

13 Plant Protection 15-Dec-10 8-Jan-11 24-Feb-11 9-Apr11
ons) Feb08 Feb11 11 11
B.Sc. 26- 24- 13-Apr- 4-May

14 Plant Protection 15-Dec-10 8-Jan-11 24-Feb-11 9-Apr11
(Hons) Feb08 Feb11 11 11
M.Sc.(H 26- 25- 4-May

15 Weed Science 11-Jan-11 19-Jan-11 25-Feb-11 4-Apr11 5-Apr-11
ons) Feb08 Feb11 11
B.Sc. 26- 24- 4-May

16 Weed Science 15-Dec-10 8-Jan-11 24-Feb-11 4-Apr11 5-Apr-11
(Hons) Feb08 Feb11 11
Institute of Bio-
technology &
M.Sc.(H 26- 11- 30-Mar
17 Genetic 1-Jan-11 22-Feb-11 11-Apr-11 3-Feb12 21-Feb12
ons) Feb08 Apr11 12
Engineering
(IBGE)
Institute of Bio-
technology &
B.Sc. 26- 11- 30-Mar
18 Genetic 1-Jan-11 22-Feb-11 11-Apr-11 3-Feb12 21-Feb12
(Hons) Feb08 Apr11 12
Engineering
(IBGE)
M.Sc.(H 26- 19- 19- 20-Dec

19 Agronomy 11-Mar-11 15-Mar-11 19-Apr-11 1-Oct-11
ons) Feb08 Apr11 Sep11 11
B.Sc. 26- 19- 19- 20-Dec

20 Agronomy 11-Mar-11 15-Mar-11 19-Apr-11 1-Oct-11
(Hons) Feb08 Apr11 Sep11 11
Agricultural M.Sc.(H 26- 16- 21- 20-Dec

21 14-Jan-11 29-Jan-11 16-Apr-11 9-Jun-11
Chemistry ons) Feb08 Apr11 May11 11
Agricultural B.Sc. 26- 16- 21- 20-Dec
22 14-Jan-11 29-Jan-11 16-Apr-11 9-Jun-11
Chemistry (Hons) Feb08 Apr11 May11 11
M.Sc.(H 26- 26- 20-Dec
23 Horticulture 22-Apr-11 28-Apr-11 26-May-11 9-Jun11 12-Jul-11
ons) Feb08 May11 11
B.Sc. 26- 26- 20-Dec

24 Horticulture 22-Apr-11 28-Apr-11 26-May-11 9-Jun11 12-Jul-11
(Hons) Feb08 May11 11
Livestock M.Sc.(H 26- 15- 17-Dec

25 16-Jun-11 16-Aug-11 6-Sep11 6-Sep-11 14-Dec12
Management ons) Feb08 Nov12 12
M.Sc.(H 26- 9- 30-Jun

26 Entomology 12-May-11 18-May-11 1-Jun-11 1-Jun-11 11-Jun12
ons) Feb08 May12 12
B.Sc. 26- 9- 30-Jun

27 Entomology 12-May-11 18-May-11 1-Jun-11 1-Jun-11 11-Jun12
(Hons) Feb08 May12 12
Agri. Extension
M.Sc.(H 26- 17- 11- 30-Jun
28 Education 20-Sep-11 17-Nov-11 17-Nov-11 25-Jun12
ons) Feb08 Nov11 Jun12 12
Agri. Extension B.Sc. 26- 17- 11- 30-Jun

29 20-Sep-11 17-Nov-11 17-Nov-11 25-Jun12
Education (Hons) Feb08 Nov11 Jun12 12
Agricultural M.Sc.(H 26- 20-

30 20-May-11 30-Jul-11 20-Nov-11
Economics ons) Feb08 Nov11
Agricultural B.Sc. 26- 20-

31 20-May-11 30-Jul-11 20-Nov-11
Economics (Hons) Feb08 Nov11
Human 26- 15-Oct

32 Ph.D. 5-Jul-11 15-Jul-11 15-Jul11 15-Jul-11 3-Oct12 10-Oct-12
Nutrition Feb08 12
Human M.Sc.(H 26- 15-Oct

33 5-Jul-11 15-Jul-11 15-Jul11 15-Jul-11 1-Oct12 10-Oct-12
Nutrition ons) Feb08 12
Human B.Sc. 26- 27- 15-Oct
34 5-Jul-11 15-Jul-11 15-Jul11 15-Jul-11 10-Oct-12
Nutrition (Hons) Feb08 Sep12 12
Animal M.Sc.(H 26- 26- 25-Jun

43 29-Jun-14 5-Sep-14 2-Jan-15 4-Mar15 16-Jun15
Nutrition ons) Feb08 Nov14 15
How did the review help Reported by Number of individuals reported about
foc
Yes No NR
S1QA2a: Improvement in teaching & research QEC Person 15 1 3
Non QEC 0 0 12
person
S1QA2b: To prepare for Accreditation of programs QEC Person 11 5 3
Non QEC 2 0 10
person
S1QA2c: Any other (please Specify) QEC Person 1 14 4
Non QEC 0 2 10
person
ANNEXURE IX: Analysis of Data for SARs
TABLE#1 for S1QA1
Were the Self-Assessment Reports prepared by Reported by Number of individuals reported about
properly trained person foc
Yes No NR
S1QA3: Were the Self-Assessment Reports prepared QEC Person 6 8 5
by properly trained person Non QEC 2 0 10
person
S1QA3a: Focal Person QEC Person 7 7 5
Non QEC 2 0 10
person
S1QA3b: Concerned Program in charge QEC Person 12 4 3
Non QEC 2 0 10
person
TABLE#1 for S1QA2
TABLE#2 for S1QA2
Were the Self-Assessment Reports prepared by Reported by Percent of individuals reported about foc
properly trained person Yes No NR
S1QA3: Were the Self-Assessment Reports prepared QEC Person 32 42 26
by properly trained person Non QEC 17 0 83
person
How many Self-Assessment Reviews have been Reported by Number of individuals reported
undertaken by Uni. /HEI Below 30 30 to 50 Above NR/PS
50
S1QA1: Programs Reviewed QEC Person 2 (26 and 3 (34,36 1
27) and 39) (132)
Non QEC 0 0 0
person
How did the review help Reported by Percent of individuals reported about foc
Yes No NR
S1QA2a: Improvement in teaching & research QEC Person 79 5 16
Non QEC 0 0 100
person
S1QA2b: To prepare for Accreditation of programs QEC Person 58 26 16
Non QEC 17 0 83
person
S1QA2c: Any other (please Specify) QEC Person 5 74 21
Non QEC 0 17 83
person
TABLE#1 for S1QA3
TABLE#2 for S1QA3

S1QA3a: Focal Person QEC Person 37 37 26
Non QEC 17 0 83
person
S1QA3b: Concerned Program in charge QEC Person 63 21 16
Non QEC 17 0 83
person
S1QA3c: Program Teams QEC Person 5 5 89
Non QEC 0 0 100
person
How was the information given in SAR verified? Reported by Number of individuals reported about
foc
How was the information given in SAR verified? Reported by Percent of individuals reported about foc
Yes No NR
S1QA4a: By QEC QEC Person 79 5 16
Non QEC 17 0 83
person
S1QA4b: By Teams reviewing the program QEC Person 74 16 11
Non QEC 8 8 83
person
S1QA4c: By Accreditation Council QEC Person 32 42 26
Non QEC 0 17 83
person
Yes No NR
S1QA4a: By QEC QEC Person 15 1 3
Non QEC 2 0 10
person
S1QA4b: By Teams reviewing the program QEC Person 14 3 2
Non QEC 1 1 10
person
S1QA4c: By Accreditation Council QEC Person 6 8 5
Non QEC 0 2 10
person
S1QA3c: Program Teams QEC Person 1 1 17
Non QEC 0 0 12
person
Is Self-Assessment Reported by Percent of individuals reported about foc
Yes No NR
S1QA5a: A statutory Requirement except for the QEC Person 5 68 26
Accreditation Non QEC 8 8 83
person
S1QA5b: HEC Directive QEC Person 89 0 11
Non QEC 25 0 75
person
S1QA5c: Initiative of university/institution QEC Person 32 47 21
TABLE#1 for S1QA4
TABLE#2 for S1QA4
TABLE#1 for S1QA5
TABLE#2 for S1QA5
Is Self-Assessment Reported by Number of individuals reported about

foc
Yes No NR
Non QEC 8 8 83
person
How did you
S1QA5a: verify the
A statutory objectivity?except for the
Requirement Reported by
QEC Person Percent
1 of individuals
13 reported
5 about foc
Accreditation Non QEC 1 1 10
person
S1QA5b: HEC Directive QEC Person 17 0 2
Non QEC 3 0 9
person
S1QA5c: Initiative of university/institution QEC Person 6 9 4
Non QEC 1 1 10
person
TABLE#1 for S1QB1
TABLE#2 for S1QB1
TABLE#1 for S1QB2
TABLE#2 for S1QB2
Do you think SAR(Self-Assessment report) has a Reported by Number of individuals reported about
high objectivity? foc
Yes No NR
S2QB1 QEC Person 17 0 2
Non QEC 2 0 10
person
Do you think SAR(Self-Assessment report) has a Reported by Percent of individuals reported about foc
high objectivity? Yes No NR
S2QB1 QEC Person 89 0 11
Non QEC 17 0 83
person
How did you verify the objectivity? Reported by Number of individuals reported about
foc
Yes No NR
S2QB2a: By checking if SAR was based on QEC Person 12 3 4
published data Non QEC 2 0 10
person
S2QB2b: Is the information given in SARs v QEC Person 16 1 2
erifiable? Non QEC 2 0 10
person
S2QB2c: Is the person preparing SAR properly QEC Person 13 1 5
trained for an objective Non QEC 2 0 10
person
Yes No NR
S2QB2a: By checking if SAR was based on QEC Person 63 16 21
published data Non QEC 17 0 83
person
S2QB2b: Is the information given in SARs v QEC Person 84 5 11
erifiable? Non QEC 17 0 83
person
S2QB2c: Is the person preparing SAR properly QEC Person 68 5 26
trained for an objective Non QEC 17 0 83
person
TABLE#1 for S1QB3
TABLE#2 for S1QB3

How is evaluation of teacher by students verified? Reported by Number of individuals reported about
foc
Yes No NR
S2QB3a: By Discussion with students QEC Person 12 4 3
Non QEC 2 0 10
person
S2QB3b: By Matching reputation with peers QEC Person 10 3 6
Non QEC 1 1 10
person
How is evaluation of teacher by students verified? Reported by Percent of individuals reported about foc
Yes No NR
S2QB3a: By Discussion with students QEC Person 63 21 16
Non QEC 17 0 83
person
S2QB3b: By Matching reputation with peers QEC Person 53 16 32
Non QEC 8 8 83
person
Who get relevant profomas filled by : Online Reported by Number of individuals reported about
System foc
Yes No NR
S2QB4a: Students QEC Person 13 1 5
Non QEC 2 0 10
person
S2QB4b: Aluminae QEC Person 8 5 6
Non QEC 1 1 10
person
Who get relevant profomas filled by : Online Reported by Percent of individuals reported about foc
System
Yes No NR
S2QB4a: Students QEC Person 68 5 26
Non QEC 17 0 83
person
S2QB4b: Aluminae QEC Person 42 26 32
Non QEC 8 8 83
person
Does SAR help in getting accreditation of a Reported by Number of individuals reported about
program? foc
Yes No NR
S3QC1 QEC Person 16 1 2
Non QEC 2 0 10
person
TABLE#1 for S1QB4
Does SAR help in getting accreditation of a Reported by Percent of individuals reported about foc
program?
Yes No NR
Non QEC 17 0 83
person
Does SAR help in Highlighting the deficiencies of a Reported by Number of individuals reported about
program? foc
Yes No NR
Non QEC 2 0 10
person
TABLE#2 for S1QB4
TABLE#1 for S1QC1
TABLE#2 for S1QC1
Does SAR assist in creating awareness about quality Reported by Number of individuals reported about
issues? foc
Yes No NR
Non QEC 2 0 10
person
Non QEC 17 0 83
person
TABLE#1 for S1QC2
TABLE#2 for S1QC2
TABLE#1 for S1QC3
TABLE#2 for S1QC3
Does SAR help in Highlighting the deficiencies of a Reported by Percent of individuals reported about foc
program? Yes No NR
Non QEC 17 0 83
person
Does SAR assist in creating awareness about quality Reported by Percent of individuals reported about foc
issues? Yes No NR
ANNEXURE X: Questionnaire for HEC-Accreditation Councils
NAME OF THE COUNCIL ---------------------------------------------------------

Name of the Respondent ----------------------------------------------------------
Designation of the Respondent ----------------------------------------------------------
E-mail address ----------------------------------------------------------
Cell Number ----------------------------------------------------------
QUESTIONNAIRE
1: Do you feel that without a proper legal authority, the Council is not able to bring any
positive change in the quality of the program?
2: How has the score / category of each Institution/Program improved as a result of the
reviews?
3: What is your annual budget?
4: What is the percentage of budget met through own resources?
5: How long would it take for the Council to become financially autonomous?
6: Is the Council independent in taking its administrative and financial decisions?
7: What is the technical staff working for you
(please give their names and designations)
ANNEXURE XI: Questionnaire for GOP-Accreditation Councils
Name of the Accreditation Council …………………………………………

Year of passing Act. …………………………………………………………...
Name of the Person filling the Questionnaire:………………………………..
Designation:…………………………………………………………………….
E-mail Address:………………………………………………………………..
Cell No. :.……………………………………………………………………….
QUESTIONNAIRE
(1) How many Institutions/programs have been accredited by your Council since its
establishment?
(2) On an average, how long does it take to accredit a program after an application,
complete in all respects, is received by the Council?
(3) How is the Accreditation Team appointed?
(4) Do you provide guidance to the concerned Institutions as how to prepare for the visit
of the Accreditation Team?
(5) How are Accreditation Teams trained?
(6) In case an Institution contests the decision of the Council, how is the dispute
resolved?
(7) When were the criteria for accreditation of the program reviewed/revised?
(please mention the nature of revision made)
(8) How is the issue of conflict of criteria of the Council with criteria of HEC is
resolved?
(9) Are there still some outstanding issues of conflict in criteria with HEC and when are
they expected to be resolved?
(10) How do you assure quality of education in the program after accreditation by your
Council?
(11) Do you think that the accreditation criteria currently in vogue need to have inbuilt
flexibility to accommodate innovative ideas & new developments?
(12) To what extent the currently practiced accreditation criteria are aligned with
international practices of teaching/learning to produce highly knowledgeable &
skilled graduates comparable with the international Institutions?
(13) Do you focus in the criteria on enhancement of employability of graduates in the
international market e.g. through introduction of courses on communication,
management skills, internship with industry etc.?
(14) Do you have a mechanism of “SelfAssessment” for the Council?
(please describe it)
(15) How is your Council accredited by any International Body?
ANNEXURE XII: Questionnaire for Director QAA/PD
(Accreditation Councils)
Name : Nasir Shah
Designation : Director QAA
Email Address : nrshah@hec.gov.pk
Cell No. : 0300-5960299
QUESTIONNAIRE
(1) What is the number of technical staff working with you?
One officer; Ms. Humaira Quddus Assistant Director QAA
(2) How do you monitor the progress of ACs established by HEC?
QAA-HEC regularly requests HEC established accreditation Councils for sharing status
of program accredited on quarterly basis.
Moreover, As prevailing practice, HEC established Accreditation Councils may be
asked to share its annual action plan at closure of every financial year along with the
audited utilization report.
QAA also supports funds to organizing training workshops by foreign experts for the
programs evaluators of the respective Councils in order to increase the pool of the
program evaluators for all Accreditation Councils.
Moreover, QAA-HEC regular publishes the advertisement of Parent/student alert
biannually, for increase awareness among stake holders i.e Parents/Student regarding
getting admission in the accredited programs.
(3) What is the progress of reviews & follow up of the reviews by these ACs?
Already answered on above;
(4) How many programs have been reviewed by each Council since its establishment?
Reference table: KPI- 10 Number of Program accredited by HEC established
Accreditation Councils - Quality Assurance Agency.
(5) Has the legal status of these Councils been determined by HEC & with what
authority?
The Chairman, HEC is the Competent Authority and the Commission of HEC.
(6) Which new Councils are under process of establishment by HEC?
Proposals for establishment of Life Sciences, Social Sciences and Medical Allied
Health Sciences are under consideration of the Commission, HEC.
(7) What is your relationship with the Professional Councils established by GOP
under Act?
HEC has signed a MoU with Pakistan Engineering Council on 15 May 2015. HEC has
already signed MoUs with Pakistan Council of Architects & Town Planner 09
September 2006, Pakistan Veterinary Medical Council dated 2006 & Pakistan Bar
Council dated 23 January 2014.
The coordination and relationship between HEC and respective Councils have been
more strengthened because of signing of MoU with them.
The first and foremost priority of HEC to sing MoU with rest of Signing MoUs with the
Councils namely Pakistan Nursing Council, Pharmacy Council of Pakistan, National
Homeopathy Council and National Council for TIBB.
(8) How the conflict between HEC standards & standards approved by Professional
Councils are resolved?
Two Crash training programs have been arranged by QAA-HEC in coordination with
PVMC for graduates of non-accredited universities/institutes for giving chance to
students for getting registration for DVM degree.
QAA-HEC also provided financial Support to the passed out students of HEC-Cuba
Scholarship to PM&DC; training course designed by PM&DC.
QAA-HEC has also been arranged test for students of Ex-affiliated institutes/college of
Al-hamd in coordination with NACTE.
(9) Are there such outstanding issues which need to be resolved in the future?
No issues.
ANNEXURE XIII: Activities of NAEAC Training Programfor
Evaluators
Three-Day TrainingWorkshop for

Program Evaluators/Experts of NAEAC
PROGRAM
Resource Person: Prof. Dr. Jianxin Zhang

Director of the Research Sector of HERI in Yunnan University, China
Advisor of the Council of Yunnan Provincial Education Department, China
Chief expert of Yunnan Higher Education Evaluation Center, China
Board member of APQN (Asia-Pacific Quality Network)
Advisor of the International Quality Group (CIQG), U.S.A
Organized by HECin collaboration with NAEACJuly 29-31, 2015

Day 1
Inaugural Session
Time Topic / Activity Responsibility
9:00-9:30 Registration NAEAC staff
9:30-9:35 Tilawat One of the
Participants
9:35-9:45 Welcome Address by DG QAA Dr. M. Rafiq Baloch
9:45-9:50 Address by Secretary NAEAC Mr. NaseerAlam
Khan
9:50-9:55 Address by the Resource Person of the Prof. Dr. Jianxin
Workshop Zhang
9:55-10:05 Address by Chief Guest: Member (HRD)HEC Prof. Dr. Ghulam
Raza BhattiMember
(HRD) HEC
10:05-10:15 Vote of thanks by DG QAA
10:15-10:30 Tea/Refreshment
MODULE 1:Quality Assurance In Higher Education
10:30-10:45 Methodology of Workshop and Accreditation :
SWOT Analysis Prof. Dr.Jianxin
Zhang
10:45-11:30 Quality Assurance in Higher Education in the
World
11:30-12:00 Quality Assurance of NAEAC in Pakistan Mr. NaseerAlamKhan
12:00-12:30 Quality Assurance in China Prof. Dr.Jianxin
Zhang
12:30-12:45 Discussion of SWOT Analysison NAEAC QA
12:45-13:00 Presentations on SWOT Analysis on NAEAC QA Group Work
13:00-14:00 Lunch and Prayer Break
MODULE 2:The Process of NAEAC Accreditation
14:00-14:15 Feedback on Morning Session Participants
Prof. Dr.Jianxin
14:15-15:10 The Procedure of NAEAC Accreditation
Zhang
Prof. Dr.Jianxin
15:10-15:40 SWOT Analysisof NAEAC Seven Criteria
Zhang
15:40-16:10 Discussion of SWOT Analysison NAEAC Seven Criteria
16:10-16:30 Presentations on SWOT Analysis on NAEAC Seven Group Work
Criteria
17:00 Conclusion of First Day Workshop
Day 2
MODULE 3:The Development of NAEAC AccreditationInspection

9:00 -9:10 Feedback on Day I Participants
Prof. Dr.Jianxin
9:10-10:10 Development of the Field Inspection
Zhang
10:10-10:40 Tips of NAEAC Field Inspection Mr. NaseerAlam Khan
Prof. Dr.Jianxin Zhang
11:10-12:10 Comparison of NAEAC Field Inspectionwith China
12:10-12:45 Discussion of SWOT Analysison Field Inspection
Group Work
12:45-13:00 Presentations on SWOT AnalysisonField Inspection
13:00-14:00 Lunch and Prayer Break
MODULE 4: A Code of Conduct and Ethics for Evaluators
14:00-14:10 Feedback on Morning Session Participants
Prof. Dr.Jianxin
14:10-15:10 Code of Conduct for ProgramEvaluators
Zhang
Roles and Responsibilities of NAEACProgram Evaluators Mr. NaseerAlam Khan
15:10-15:40
15:40-16:10 Discussion of SWOT Analysison Ethics for Evaluators
16:10-16:30 Presentations on SWOT Analysis on Ethics for Evaluators Group Work
17:00 Conclusion of First Day Workshop
Day 3
J
MODULE 5: Format of the AIC Report u
9:00 -9:10 Feedback on Day 2 Participantsl
9:10-10:00 Format of the Report of the Field Prof. Dr.Jianxin Zhangy
Inspection
10:00-10:20 Tips of Format of AIC Report Mr. NaseerAlam Khan
3
10:20-10:30 Tea/Refreshment 1
10:30-11:00 Methodology for Program Evaluators Prof. Dr.Jianxin Zhang

,
11:00-12:30 How to finish AIC Report emphasizing on
SWOT Analysis 2Group Work
0
12:30-14:00 Lunch and prayer Break
1
Closing Session
14:00-14:05 Tilawat One of the Participants5
14:05-14:10 Welcome address Dr. M. Rafiq Baloch
14: 10-14:20 Participant
Comments of the participants
14: 20-14:30 Comments of the Resource Person Prof. Dr. Jianxin Zhang
14: 30-15:00 Comments of the Chief Guest and Prof. Dr. Riaz Hussain
Distribution of Certificates Qureshi
15:00-15:00 Group Photo NAEAC
15:00 Conclusion of the Workshop
ANNEXURE XIV: Questionnaire Filled by Pakistan Engineering
Council (PEC)
Name of the Accreditation Council : Pakistan Engineering Council
Year of Passing Act : 1976
Name of the Person filling the Questionnaire: Engr.: Osaf Mahmood Malik
Designation : Deputy Registrar (Accr.)
Email Address : osaf@pec.org.pk
Cell No. : 03334979005
QUESTIONNAIRE
(1) How many institutions/programs have been accredited by your council since
itsestablishment?
Overall Accreditation Statistics up to 75th EA&QEC/EAB (December 2015):
1. Accredited Engineering Programs till date = 326

2. Under Process Engineering Programs = 100+
3. Accredited Engineering Programs as per Accreditation Manual 2014 (OBE) = 17
4. Engineering Universities/HEIs = 114
5. Engineering Disciplines accredited so far = 30
(2) On an average, how long does it take to accredit a program after an application,
complete in all respects, is received by the council?
As per PEC Manual of Accreditation (Second Edition, 2014) steps involved in accreditation
process are as follows:
SAR submitted to PEC Secretariat; first scrutiny carried out by PEC
Accreditation Department as per the qualifying requirements, and the
STEP 1
Institution is asked to provide any further data / information, if
required. This step is considered complete when the SAR along with
all the requisite data is available with PEC Secretariat.
Visit planning, scheduling and selection of visitation team by PEC
EAB. Visitation Team is provided with SAR along with the archives of
STEP 2
previous accreditation reports and last EAB decision, if any, for the
program. PEC representative will coordinate with team members and
the institute for providing any additional information, if required.
STEP 3 Pre-visit meeting conducted, On-site visit starts with a meeting with
Head of the Institution, following the visit schedule, i.e. presentation
by the program head, visit to Laboratories, Libraries, Workshops, and
other Infrastructure/Facilities, meeting with administrative staff,
faculty, students and other stakeholders such as alumni, employers,
parents.
Exit meeting with the Management, Principal/Deans to briefly share
the strengths and weaknesses of the program. At this stage the
STEP 4
institution may decide to withdraw the program from consideration for
accreditation.
STEP 5 Discussion among team members followed by compilation of Visit
Report and submission to EAB. EAB also sends a copy of the report to
the institution without team’s recommendations. These
recommendations are for the considerations of EAB decision.
Institution may submit Rejoinder/Comments on the report within 30
STEP 6 days of its receipt. If the Institutional rejoinder is not received by the
due date, it will be assumed that the Institution agrees to the
observations of the Team.
Consideration of the Report and the Rejoinder by EAB’s ADM for
STEP 7
final decision.
STEP 8 Communicating the Accreditation Decision to PEC GB/Chairman and
the concerned Institution, uploading on PEC website, followed by
Gazette Notification (SRO) for the benefit of the public.
(3) How is the Accreditation Team appointed?

The Visiting Team consists of a Convener, two PEVs, and a member from PEC staff to
provide secretarial support. The Visiting Team includes senior academicians/ engineers
having no conflict of interest with the institution to be visited, and who are selected on the
basis of their high standing in the profession, ability to assess curricula, competence in
appraisal based on overall objectives and performance towards the achievements of set goals.
The PEVs from academia will have an earned doctorate and minimum of five years of
teaching, research and practical experience. Representative from industry possessing
minimum Master’s qualification and considerable professional experience may be included
as a PEV.PEVs are selected based on relevant qualification, professional experience and
accreditation training. PEC secretariat will maintain an updated list of qualified PEVs
pertaining to all engineering disciplines. PEC shall arrange and conduct accreditation training
workshops for potential PEVs.
Upon finalization of evaluation team, institution may request for certain designated PEVs to
be excluded from the team in case of any conflict of interest by submitting a justified reason
in writing to PEC within a week after receiving the schedule of visiting team. In case of valid
reason(s), Convener / Chairman EAB will replace the designated evaluation team member(s).
(4) Do you provide guidance to the concerned Institutions as how to prepare for the
visit of the Accreditation Team?
Yes, the complete guideline is illustrated in the Manual of Accreditation which include
Activities and schedule of the visiting team for execution of successful Accreditation Visit.
Schedule of the visiting Accreditation team is shared with concerned Institution to prepare
for the visit.
The Convener will hold a pre-visit meeting with members in connection with evaluation of
the program, preferably in the evening before first day of the evaluation. The meeting should
focus on the points of concern noted by the team members and exchange of views on the
provided information / SAR, and also the progress made on the observations of previous
accreditation visit.
The institution shall arrange an exhibit-room for displaying the following documents:
i. Samples of minutes of meetings; policy documents; faculty profile; syllabi; research
publications; project reports.
ii. Details pertaining to faculty members to verify their requisite qualifications and to
ensure their continuity and effectiveness for teaching, learning& research pursuits.
iii. Program curriculum, evidence of regular review and consistency with PEC / HEC
guidelines and adoption of Outcome Based Education (OBE) system.
iv. Course files for the subjects offered in the program.
v. Evidence for continuous assessment and improvement of the program and
implementation plan.
vi. Random check of students’ work, question papers and answer sheets and student
attendance record.
vii. Annual budgets for the period under review
viii. Details of laboratories with equipment, its supporting staff and lab manuals
ix. Measures taken for provision of general safety, health and environment.
x. Availability of training aids for imparting quality education.
xi. Mapping of Program Educational Objectives /Course Learning Outcomes
(PEOs/CLOs) with Program Outcomes.
xii. Other additional document(s) required in support of the program.
Day One
i. Opening meeting with senior administration of the institution;
ii. Presentation by the Head of the Department of program being evaluated and ensuing
discussion;
iii. Assessment and analysis of documents displayed in the exhibit room;
iv. Visit of program laboratories and allied facilities;
v. Interaction with students;
vi. Visit to supporting and interdisciplinary departments and discussion with supporting
staff;
vii. Visit to allied facilities such as library, computing, internet, medical, sports, hostels
etc.;
viii. Discussion with alumni, employers and other stakeholders; ix. Meeting with the
faculty members;
x. Second review meeting of team members regarding assessment of the program.
Day Two
xi. The evaluation team may request for any additional information / data or facts for
clarifications to resolve issues or queries;
xii. Third review meeting of team members on overall assessment of the program;
xiii. Sharing observations (strong and weak areas of the program) with the higher
management of HEI;
xiv. Final meeting (post-visit) of the team members for compilation of draft visit report;
xv. Submission of final visit report to EAB.
(5) How are Accreditation Teams trained?

Accreditation teams are trained through National/International training sessions, workshops
and seminars, which are regularly conducted for Program Evaluators (PEVs) through reputed
international resource persons. Moreover participation of PEVs in international accreditation
visits, Accreditation Decision Meetings (ADMs) and workshops/symposia conducted by
Washington Accord (WA) Signatory Countries enable them to enhance their analytical
abilities and skills.
(6) In case an Institution contests the decision of the Council, how is the dispute
resolved?
In case an institution wishes to appeal for a review of the action on accreditation taken by the
EAB, a written application along with the prescribed fee should be sent to the Secretariat
within 30 days of the date of notification of the action. On receipt of such an application, and
being satisfied about its prima facie case, the Chairman PEC may appoint a special
Committee, consisting of a minimum of three members including Vice Chairman PEC as
Chairman and two subject specialists who were not initially involved in the visitation, to
conduct the appeal review. A meeting of the committee will be convened, wherein the
institution and the members of EAB may be invited to present their cases. The committee
may also visit the institution, if necessary. The recommendations of this committee will be
considered by the Chairman PEC for making final decision; the same will be communicated
to EAB.
(7) When were the criteria for accreditation of the program reviewed/revised?
Over a period of time the process of accreditation was formalized and the first Manual of
Accreditation was published in 2007 for implementation by Engineering Accreditation and
Qualification Equivalence Committee (EA&QEC). This manual included concepts of quality
assurance in Engineering Education adopted by developed countries. After achieving the
Provisional Signatory status of Washington Accord (WA) of International Engineering
Alliance (IEA) in 2010, the revision of Accreditation Manual was undertaken to harmonize
with the practices of WA-Signatories. The Engineering Accreditation Board (EAB), formally
known as EA&QEC is now carrying out the assessment of various engineering programs in
the country and has published the 2nd Edition 2014 incorporating WA guidelines and the
feedback of local stakeholders, various relevant international forums as well as WA-
Mentors. Whereas the Higher Education Commission (HEC) of Pakistan is responsible for
quality assurance on institutional level; EAB, which works in harmony with HEC, is
responsible for the accreditation of engineering programs in the country.
(8) How is the issue of conflict of criteria of the Council with criteria of HEC is
resolved?
A memorandum of understating has been signed between HEC and PEC for smooth conduct
of affairs pertaining to engineering qualification recognition.
ARTICLE-12 of The Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between HEC and PEC
explicitly states that:
“In case of any conflict with the interpretation of matters pertaining to the
accreditation/recognition or substantial equivalence of Engineering Programs, the issue will
be referred to five members Committee headed by Chairman HEC consisting of two
nominees each of the PEC and HEC for its possible resolution inline with
national/international best practices.”
(9) Are there still some outstanding issues of conflict in criteria with HEC and when
are they expected to be resolved?
As elaborated above (Answer to Question No. 8) any conflict between HEC and PEC will be
resolved as per the procedure agreed in ARTICLE-12 of The Memorandum of Understanding
(MoU). There are number of issues which need to be resolved with HEC and mutual
consultation is underway in this regard, e.g. recognition of foreign engineering
programs/campuses in the country, dual degree/double degree program jointly offered with
foreign HEIs, curriculum formulation and revision etc.
(10) How do you assure quality of education in the program after accreditation by
your council?
To assure the quality of education all the weak areas reported by the visitation team are
observed and keenly discussed during the consecutive accreditation visit. As far it is a
continuous process therefore zero visit, interim visit and accreditation visit reports are
considered to enumerate the weak areas, subsequently confirmatory visit if need be, is
conducted to ensure HEIs/Universities compliance for the improvement of core weak areas.
(11) Do you think that the accreditation criteria currently in vogue need to have
inbuilt flexibility to accommodate innovative ideas & new developments?
Yes, the Accreditation Criteria currently in vogue are in-line with International Bodies and
Forums having inbuilt flexibility to accommodate innovative ideas and new developments.
The Manual of Accreditation (Second Edition 2014) is the revised version and hence
implemented from April, 2014 as per Outcome Based Education (OBE) which is in
accordance with Washington Accord (WA) and Federation of Engineering Institution of Asia
and Pacific (FEIAP) guidelines. It is an internationally accepted system of education and
accreditation.
(12) To what extent the currently practiced accreditation criteria are aligned with
international practices of teaching/learning to produce highly knowledgeable &
skilled graduates comparable with the International institutions?
PEC accreditation criteria are in-line with Washington Accord (WA) and Federation of
Engineering Institutions of Asia and Pacific (FEIAP) accreditation guidelines as Pakistan is
provisional signatory of WA and member of FEIAP recognized for substantial equivalence of
engineering qualification/accreditation system at Asia-Pacific level duly endorsed by United
Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).
(13) Do you focus in the criteria on enhancement of employability of graduates in the
international market e.g. through introduction of courses on communication,
management skills, internship with industry etc.?
The Scope and Objectives of Accreditation Manual-2014 are as follows:
i. To ensure that the graduates of PEC accredited programs possess 3 sufficient
academic background and knowledge for pursuing their professional career in
engineering
ii. To assure potential stakeholders and public at large in identifying those specific
programs which meet the PEC standards for compliance to accreditation criteria.
iii. To encourage improvement of standards of professional engineering education in the
country through implementation of CQI.
iv. To provide guidelines for the up-gradation of existing programs and for the
development of new programs.
Furthermore, the following 12 Graduate Attributes as per the PEC Accreditation
manual-2014 comprehensively focus on attainment of skills/attributes by the
graduates resulting in enhanced cross border mobility and acceptability for global job
market.
(i) Engineering Knowledge
(ii) Problem Analysis
(iii) Design/Development of Solutions
(iv) Investigation
(v) Modern Tool Usage
(vi) The Engineer and Society
(vii) Environment and Sustainability
(viii) Ethics
(ix) Individual and Team Work
(x) Communication
(xi) Project Management
(xii) Lifelong Learning
(14) Do you have a mechanism of “Self-Assessment” for the council?

(Please describe it)
PEC submits annual progress report to the Ministry of Science and Technology Islamabad,
Government of Pakistan. Regularly reports to international forums/bodies (WA, IPEA,
FEIAP etc) through annual/biennial reporting.
(15) How is your Council accredited by any International Body?
Pakistan represented by PEC has been provisional signatory of Washington Accord (WA)
and International Professional Engineers Agreement (IPEA) of International Engineering
Alliance (IEA) through established mechanism as per IEA guidelines which include:
i. Submission of application from PEC
ii. Continued mentoring through WA signatory countries
iii. Training/capacity building of Program Evaluators (PEVs)
iv. Biennial progress reporting to WA
v. Nomination of Review Panel by WA comprising experts from three WA signatory
countries
vi. Participation in Annual meetings (International Engineering Alliance Meeting -
IEAM) and presentation on progress towards full signatory status
vii. Final Review visit– (expected in the near future) Final submission of the review panel report
to WA Executive Council and decision/recognition of full signatory status – (review visit
awaited)
Similar mechanism was followed by the Federation of Engineering Institutions of Asia and
the Pacific (FEIAP) after which Pakistan (PEC) was declared / recognized as the first
economy for substantial equivalence of engineering qualifications in Asia Pacific region.
PEC has also been nominated as reviewer and mentor for Asia Pacific region and the Central
Asian Republics.
ANNEXTURE XV: Analysis of Data for Accreditation Councils
TABLE#1 for S1QA3

Did AC provide proper guidance to HEIs Reported by Number of individuals reported
regarding preparationfor accreditation of their
programs?
Yes No NR Total
S1QA3 QEC 15 0 4 19
Person
TABLE#2 for S1QA3

Did AC provide proper guidance to HEIs Reported by Percent of individuals reported
regarding preparation for accreditation of their
programs?
Yes No NR Total
S1QA3 QEC 79 0 21 100
Person
TABLE#1 for S1QA4

What was the mode of guidance? Reported by Number of individuals reported
Yes No NR Total
S1QA4a: Manual for preparation of QEC 11 6 2 19
SelfAssessment Report Person
S1QA4b: Briefing to concerned Focal Person QEC 7 11 1 19
Person
S1QA4c: Report of zero visit QEC 15 3 1 19
Person
TABLE#2 for S1QA4

What was the mode of guidance? Reported by Percent of individuals reported
Yes No NR Total
S1QA4a: Manual for preparation of QEC 58 32 11 100
SelfAssessment Report Person
S1QA4b: Briefing to concerned Focal Person QEC 37 58 5 100
Person
S1QA4c: Report of zero visit QEC 79 16 5 100
Person
TABLE#1 for S1QA5
Was enough time given for making Reported by Number of individuals reported
preparation?
Yes No NR Total
S1QA5 QEC 17 1 1 19
Person
TABLE#2 for S1QA5

Was enough time given for making Reported by Percent of individuals reported
preparation?
Yes No NR Total
S1QA5 QEC 89 5 5 100
Person
TABLE#1 for S1QA6

Did the University admit any students in the Reported by Number of individuals reported
program before the accreditation?
Yes No NR Total
S1QA6 QEC 12 2 2 16
Person
TABLE#2 for S1QA6

Was enough time given for making Reported by Percent of individuals reported
preparation?
Yes No NR Total
S1QA6 QEC 75 13 13 100
Person
TABLE#1 for S1QA7

Was the program accredited before passing out Reported by Number of individuals reported
of the first batch of students admitted?
Yes No NR Total
S1QA7 QEC 7 10 2 19
Person
TABLE#2 for S1QA7

Was the program accredited before passing out Reported by Percent of individuals reported
of the first batch of students admitted?
Yes No NR Total
S1QA7 QEC 37 53 11 100
Person
TABLE#1 for S1QA9
Are satisfied with the accreditation process? Reported by Number of individuals reported
Yes No NR Total
S1QA9 QEC 17 0 2 19
Person
TABLE#2 for S1QA9

Are satisfied with the accreditation process? Reported by Percent of individuals reported
Yes No NR Total
S1QA9 QEC 89 0 11 100
Person
TABLE#1 for S1QA10

Are you satisfied with the accreditation Reported by Number of individuals reported
outcome?
Yes No NR Total
S1QA10 QEC 17 1 1 19
Person
TABLE#2 for S1QA10
Are you satisfied with the accreditation Reported by Percent of individuals reported
outcome?
Yes No NR Total
S1QA10 QEC 89 5 5 100
Person
ANNEXURE XVI: CHECKLIST Used By HEC For Recognition
of Newly Established HEIs/ DAIs
Nature of Requirement Norms /Standards Remarks
Financial
Endowment Fund (Secured in the Rs.15.0 million

name of (Not required in case of public
Trust/Society) universities )
Tangible assets in the form of Rs.25.0 million
land/building etc.
Working Capital Rs.10.0 million
(Not required in case of public
institutions, which are required
approval of PC-I ensuring recurring
&
developmental expenditures)
Total: Rs.50.0 million
Departments Minimum 1 department in
(Physics, Chemistry etc.) case of an institute
No. of Administrative Staff With Admin. staff: teacher

ratio of 1:2
Faculty At least 6 teachers per department
Name of teachers (full-time) Professor 1

required (cadre wise) per
Associate 1
department
Professor
Assistant 2
Professor
Lectures 2
Professor & Associate Must be holder of Ph.D. Degree
Professor
Library Subscription to at least 15 current
Journals journals of international repute with
impact factor of at least 1.00
Books required At least 1500 books from major

international publishers in the
relevant field.
Facilities 12 to 15 sq. ft. per student
Hall/Lecture theatres
No of rooms required 2 lecture rooms per

Department, 1 seminar room, 1
Library cum Reading room,
1 committee room
Teaching and Admn Staff 1 Staff room
Offices
1 Faculty office for each department
Required
Laboratories/Workshops/ At least 1 Lab. Per department with
PC/Internet service appropriate space
No. of laboratories required
Workshops 35 to 45 sq ft. per student
PC (desirable) 1 for 3 students in case of IT courses
Internet service 256 Kbytes access rate shall be

provided
Gross Area 3 – 1/3 acres at least (depending
upon the location having potential
Area in acres
for further development)
Built in/covered Area Minimum 100 sq ft. per

student
General facilities : office, staff room Basic facilities for staff and students
Hostel facilities
Scholarships and fee-ships At least 10% of the students to be
given scholarships
ANNEXURE XVII: Questionnaire for In-charge (HEC) Private
HEIs
Name : Hakim Ali Talpur
Designation : Deputy Director (A&A)
E-mail Address : htalpur@hec.gov.pk
Cell No. : 0333-5396460
QUESTIONNAIRE
(1) Are the minimum criteria (e.g. facilities required) for grant of NOC by HEC for
establishment of HEIs in private sector the same as for public sector?
Yes
(2) How many HEIs have been established since the year 2002 (after the
establishment of HEC)?
Total 87(a) in private sector (36) (b) in public sector (51)
(3) How does HEC resolve differences with Provincial Authorities to give
recognition to:
(a) Public HEIs (b) Private HEIs
As such, if such case arises, Provincial Authorities are requested on the basis of NOC
granted to public and private sector HEIs by HEC to resolve conflicts.
(4) Is there any difference in the application of quality criteria to public & private
HEIs?
No
(5) How many complaints received from private HEIs have been addressed by HEC
in the past one year?
Approximately 60
(6) What is the number of technical staff working for you to oversee working of
private HEIs?
Two officers:
1. Mr. Hakim Ali Talpur, Deputy Director (A&A) 2. Ms. Amna Qayyum, Assistant Director
(A&A)
Only two (2) support staff 1. Mr. Aamir Manzoor, Assistant 2. Mr. Jamil Akhtar, UDC
ANNEXURE XVIII: Questionnaire for In-charge
(HEC)forExternal Degree Programs
HEC focal person of External Degree Programs
Name : Muneer Ahmed
Designation:Dy . Director (QA)
E-mail Address : muahmed@hec.gov.pk
Cell No. : 0333-5623035
QUESTIONNAIRE
(1) How many universities (excluding AIOU & VU) have got External Degree
Program?
The directorate of distance education are established in 13 Universities in Pakistan.
They are expected to engage and replace private/external students as a distance
learners in direct or indirect manner.
(2) How many of these universities have established a separate Cell/Department to
oversee the working of External Degree Program & assure quality of education
through these Cells/Depts.?
The Universities were expected to establish directorate for facilitating private/external
students but after almost 7 years they are just providing facilitation to third stream of
education i.e. Open/Weekend/Blended Mode of Education besides Regular and
Private/External stream. It is observed that due to financial factor the private/external
students are not even discussed at any stage of implementation. There are significant
deviations observed about implementation of Distance Education project at
University and HEC Level. Narrowing Quality gap of regular and private/external
students was one of the main objectives mentioned in PC-1 for establishment of
Directorate of Distance Education. The Universities never bothered to implement PC-
1 in letter and Spirit.
(3) Has HEC reviewed the status & working of these Cells/Departments?
(please mention the number of Cells reviewed by HEC)
HEC and TESP officers were continuously monitoring these directorates and all
directorates are visited except The University of Faisalabad which is recently called
for meeting on March 25, 2016 but no one participated. It is worth to mention here
that after inclusion in TESP DLI5 the only concern was implementation of Learning
Management System. The main objectives of replacing private/External students
remained unchecked.
(4) To what extent are you satisfied with the quality of these programs?
(less than 25%, 25-50%, 50-75%, more than 75%)
Less than 25%
(5) How is the quality of External Degree programs in HEIs having no special
arrangements (e.g.Cell/Department) assured/monitored?
Quality of the private/external students is very poor in all public sector Universities
and that was the only reason for establishment of Directorates of Distance Education.
There is no defined parameters for QA mechanism of Distance Education being
offered through these directorates. However, some institutions have involved QEC for
the purpose.
(6) Are you satisfied with the QA system of AIOU & VU? Do they have QECs?
Not Applicable
(7) Has the QA system of AIOU and VU been reviewed by HEC and what was the
result?
Not Applicable
(8) What is number of technical staff working for you to oversee affairs of External
degree Programs
There is no staff for Directorate of Distance Education. One LDC is supporting
DD(QA) for all tasks assigned to him.
ANNEXTURE(XIX):ANALYSIS OF QUALITY ASSURANCE
DATA OF AFFILIATED COLLEGES AND EXTERNAL
DEGREE PROGRAMS
TABLE#1 for S1Q1
S1Q1: Does your university have a mechanism Reported Number of individuals
for Quality by reported
Assurance for affiliated colleges? Yes No N Tot
R al
S1Q1 QEC 6 2 6 14
Person
Non QEC 2 1 11 14
person
TABLE#2 for S1Q1

S1Q1: Does your university have a mechanism Reported Percent of individuals
for Quality by reported
Assurance for affiliated colleges? Yes No N Tot
R al
S1Q1 QEC 43 14 43 100
Person
Non QEC 14 7 79 100
person
TABLE#1 for S1Q2

S1Q2: Are there quality standards notified by Reported Number of individuals
your university other by reported
than guidelines of HEC? Yes No N Tot
R al
S1Q2 QEC 3 3 8 14
Person
Non QEC 2 1 11 14
person
TABLE#2 for S1Q2

S1Q2: Are there quality standards notified by Reported Percent of individuals
your university other by reported
than guidelines of HEC? Yes No N Tot
R al
S1Q2 QEC 21 21 57 100
Person
Non QEC 14 7 79 100
person
TABLE#1 for S1Q3

S1Q3: How strictly the Quality standards are Reported Number of individuals
applied to affiliated colleges? by reported
Yes No N Tot
R al
S1Q3a: De-affiliated immediately QEC 3 4 7 14
Person
Non QEC 0 2 12 14
person
S1Q3b: Give time to make up deficiencie QEC 4 3 7 14

Person
Non QEC 2 0 12 14
person
TABLE#2 for S1Q3

S1Q3: How strictly the Quality standards are Reported Percent of individuals
applied to affiliated colleges? by reported
Qui In Lat Very Tot
ck Tim e Late al
e
S1Q3a: De-affiliated immediately QEC 21 29 50 100
Person
Non QEC 0 14 86 100
person
S1Q3b: Give time to make up deficiencie QEC 29 21 50 100
Person
Non QEC 14 0 86 100
person
TABLE#1 for S1Q4

S1Q4: How does the University implement Reported Number of individuals
Quality standards in large by reported
number of colleges affiliated with it? Yes No N Tot
R al
S1Q4a: Regular monitoring QEC 7 0 7 14
Person
Non QEC 2 1 11 14
person
S1Q4b: Snap checking QEC 4 2 8 14
Person
Non QEC 3 0 11 14
person
TABLE#2 for S1Q4

S1Q4: How does the University implement Reported Percent of individuals
Quality standards in large by reported
number of colleges affiliated with it? Qui In Lat Very Tot
ck Tim e Late al
e
S1Q4a: Regular monitoring QEC 50 0 50 100
Person
Non QEC 14 7 79 100
person
S1Q4b: Snap checking QEC 29 14 57 100
Person
Non QEC 21 0 79 100
person
TABLE#1 for S1Q5

S1Q5: How many affiliated colleges were de- Reported Number of individuals
affiliated for non-compliance by reported
to the university standards in the last five years? Yes No N Tot
R al
S1Q5 QEC 0 1 13 14
Person
Non QEC 0 0 14 14
person
TABLE#2 for S1Q5

S1Q5: How many affiliated colleges were de- Reported Percent of individuals
affiliated for non-compliance by reported
to the university standards in the last five years? Yes No N Tot
R al
S1Q5 QEC 0 7 93 100
Person
Non QEC 0 0 10 100
person 0
TABLE#1 for S1Q7

S1Q7: Do you have External Degree program Reported Number of individuals
(Distance Education Program) by reported
in your university? Yes No N Tot
R al
S1Q7 QEC 4 5 5 14
Person
Non QEC 1 2 11 14
person
TABLE#2 for S1Q7

S1Q7: Do you have External Degree program Reported Percent of individuals
(Distance Education Program) by reported
in your university? Yes No N Tot
R al
S1Q7 QEC 29 36 36 100
Person
Non QEC 7 14 79 100
person
TABLE#1 for S1Q8
S1Q8: Do you have a Special Reported Number of individuals
Cell(department)/other mechanism in the by reported
university for Quality Assurance of Distance Yes No N Tot
Education? R al
S1Q8 QEC 2 2 10 14
Person
Non QEC 0 1 13 14
person
TABLE#2 for S1Q8

S1Q8: Do you have a Special Reported Percent of individuals
Cell(department)/other mechanism in the by reported
university for Quality Assurance of Distance Yes No N Tot
Education? R al
S1Q8 QEC 14 14 71 100
Person
Non QEC 0 7 93 100
person
TABLE#1 for S1Q14

S1Q14: Are you satisfied with the Quality Reported Number of individuals
Assurance Mechanism of by reported
Distance Education? Yes No N Tot
R al
S1Q14 QEC 4 1 9 14
Person
Non QEC 1 0 13 14
person
TABLE#2 for S1Q14

S1Q14: Are you satisfied with the Quality Reported Percent of individuals
Assurance Mechanism of by reported
Distance Education? Yes No N Tot
R al
S1Q14 QEC 29 7 64 100
Person
Non QEC 7 0 93 100
person

TESA Report - Quality Assurance

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

TESA Report - Quality Assurance

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FINAL REPORT

Prof. Dr. Riaz Hussain Qureshi

House 24, Street 25, Korang Town, Islamabad, Pakistan

HIGHER EDUCATION COMMISSION, ISLAMABAD

Annexure # Title Page #

ABET American Board of Engineering and Technology

(I) Implementation, value, impact and follow-up of institutional reviews (including

Implementation status of the Recommendations of the Review Panel by IUB asgiven is

1. Mission Statement and Goals

Sr.# Recommendations Action by / Responsibility Status

The university should consider reviewing its

2. Planning and Evaluation

3. Organization and Governance

The university should take appropriate steps to Director Advance

The university may consider providing dedicated All HODs

7.Academic Programs and Curricula

8. Assessment & Quality Assurance

For Training and Development of QEC officials.

There is a need to develop SOPs for integration of

Regarding Graduating Students

The Employer survey is third party evaluation of

There should be SOPs to check the M.Phil. / Ph.D.

4.3.5 Better ‘Buy-in’ by faculty staff

Department forms the PT that will be

QEC reviews the Document action within

QEC plans and fixes ATv visit

The AT conducts assessment and

The QEC submits an executive

Department prepares implementation

Follow up of the implementation plan by

Figure –:Self-Assessment Procedure

The Hamdard University, Karachi mentioned identification of deficiencies, hiring new

SN Name Designation Major Tasks

1 Dr. Mohammed Director General, QAA Heading the QA Division

2 Mr. Nasir Shah Director QAA Heading IQA Section of QAA

3 Mr. Muhammad Heading EQA-Institute Level Review.

5 Ms. Humaira Assistant Director Program Level Accreditation by means of

Professional Accreditation Councils.

Assisting Director QAA in dealing with 4

7 Mr. Muhammad Assistant Director Assisting Director General QAA in

8 Ms. Pakeeza Private Secretary to Assists DG QAA

11 Mr. Zulfiqar Assistant Assists Mr. Shoaib Irshad – AD (EQA

12 Mr. Mohsin Saleem DEO-Contingent Paid Assists AD (IQA) as well as AD

14 Mr. Rehan Naib Qasid

15 Mr. Anwar Naib Qasid

1 Muhammad Consultant QA Heading the QA Division

2 Ms Shamim Director QA Issuance of NOCs for launching of New

3 Ms Dur-e- Deputy Director Evaluation/Recognition of National Research

4 Muneer Ahmed Deputy Director Implementation of Plagiarism Policy Matters

5 M. Saleem Assistant Endorsement of TTS appointments/

7 Ms. Sadia Assistant Endorsement of TTS appointments/

10 Syed Computer Operator Assists DD QA-I

11 M. Rafaqat Awan Assistant Assist D QA

12 Muhammad Naeem LDC Assists DD QA-II

13 Farman Naib Qasid

14 Ansar Nawaz Naib Qasid

Provinces No. of Enrolment Faculty

Sindh 268 339,060 7,582

Enrolment Enrolment Enrolment

University three 31452 37035 4616 43174 6872

University four 1472 43235 1240 39072 1893 35429 1512

Learning packages and curriculum/content development will be done during this

ABET. 2000. Self-Study Questionnaire for Review of Engineering Programs.

(i) Role of NQAC