Article information:
To cite this document:
Jacqueline Ann Blackmore, (2004),"A critical evaluation of academic internal audit", Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 12 Iss
3 pp. 128 - 135
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09684880410548753
Downloaded on: 09 March 2015, At: 18:56 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 32 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 1911 times since 2006*
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 273599 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit
www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
Introduction
A critical evaluation of
academic internal audit
Jacqueline Ann Blackmore
The author
Jacqueline Ann Blackmore is Faculty Quality Officer at
Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool, UK.
Keywords
Internal auditing, Higher education, Standards
Abstract
This account of internal audit is set within the context of higher
education in the UK and a fictitiously named Riverbank
University. The study evaluates the recent introduction of
Internal Academic Audit to the University and compares the
process with that of the internationally recognised ISO 19011
Guidelines for Auditing Quality Management Systems, used both
in the private and public sectors. A thorough review of the
literature on audit theory was conducted in order to gauge best
and worst practices. The aim was to identify any theory-practice
gaps between the British Standard guidelines and actual internal
academic audit performance, as well as any possible reasons for
them. Finally, it is suggested that when compared with the
British Standards model the internal academic audit process is
somewhat less robust, particularly in terms of auditor selection
and training.
Electronic access
The Emerald Research Register for this journal is
available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is
available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0968-4883.htm
128
129
130
131
Auditor training
A two-hour training session was scheduled for the
selected panel members. At this session each
received a copy of the Process Guide for
Participants an internal Riverbank University
document. The role of the faculty member was
discussed in more depth and it was clarified that
their role was one of critical friend. At the
training session it was emphasised that the focus of
the audit would be solely on outcomes, not inputs
and processes.
132
Audit events
A series of six audits was scheduled, one per
faculty, commencing December 2003 and
continuing into January 2004. A three-day audit
process was conducted as follows: Day one The
audit team met one another for the first time to
formulate the agenda and proposed programme
for the audit and reviewed the evidence provided
by each faculty. The evidence included, inter alia,
minutes of meetings; external examiner reports;
faculty and school policies on appointing and
responding to external examiners, teaching and
learning, and peer observation schemes; list of
programmes and external examiners; and an
example of programme self assessment documents
(annual reports from programme leaders) for each
school. Procedures were not asked for.
Based on their consideration of such evidence,
the audit team determined what additional
documentation they wished to see and which
personnel they wanted to meet on days two and
three of the audit.
In the lead-up to day one, the faculty quality
officers within each faculty collated the
documentation required for their submission. This
culminated in the submission of three box files of
paperwork containing examples of programme
annual reports, all external examiner reports,
minutes of various committee meetings, a
statement on the process of appointment of
external examiners, and responses to external
examiner reports, a statement from each school on
any peer observation schemes, and lists of current
programmes and external examiners. Each faculty
was also invited to provide a statement on any
areas of good practice they wanted to disseminate
to other faculties. However, this was not an
absolute requirement.
Some of the processes, although in operation,
had to be formalised so that they could be
submitted as evidence, for example, the school
processes on responding to external examiner
reports. This enquiry regarding processes was out
of alignment with the originally stated scope of the
audit, which was to examine outcomes only.
The list of programmes required an indication
of whether a definitive programme document
was available for scrutiny if required. This resulted
in various activities across one particular faculty,
ranging from one school arranging for programme
leaders to meet with the FQO and indicate by use
of a programme box checklist that all the necessary
information was available to another school
making their own, less public, arrangements. From
another school, one colleague enquired as to
whether the University would be open at the
weekend so that she could finish writing the
Conclusions
Earlier in this paper, it was stated that the role of
quality audit was to measure the achieved
improvements as well as the effectiveness of the
quality system. There is limited evidence to
suggest that some improvements had been
identified within the case study University during
the internal audit process. For example, schools
133
References
Beckford, J. (1998), Critical Introduction, Routledge, London.
Beeler, D.L. (2003), Internal auditing: the big lies, Quality
Progress, Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 73-8.
Better Regulation Task Force (2002), Higher Education: Easing
the Burden, The Cabinet Office and Publicity Team,
London.
BSI (1994), BS EN ISO 9001: Quality Systems: Model for Quality
Assurance in Design, Development, Production,
Installation and Servicing, BSI, London.
BSI (1999), Education and Training: Guidance Notes on the
Application of ISO 9001 for Quality Management Systems
in Education and Training, BSI, London.
BSI (2000a), BS EN ISO 9000: Quality Management Systems
Fundamentals and Vocabulary, BSI, London.
BSI (2000b), BS EN ISO 9001: Quality Management Systems
Requirements, BSI, London.
BSI (2000c), BS EN ISO 9004: Quality Management Systems
Guidelines for Performance Improvements, BSI, London.
BSI (2002), EN ISO 19011:2002: Guidelines for Quality and/or
Environmental Management Systems Auditing, BSI,
London.
BSI (n.d.), available at: www.BSI-global.com (accessed
1 March 2004).
Carroll, M. (2003), Does auditing HE against standards
encourage masterpieces or paint-by-numbers?,
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, Vol. 28
No. 3, pp. 297-307.
Chan, F.Y., Willborn, W., Xiao, H. and Li, H. (1993), An expert
system for quality management auditing, Asia Pacific
Journal of Quality Management, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 65-72.
Crosby, P.B. (1979), Quality Is Free, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Dale, B.G. (1999), Managing Quality, 3rd ed., Blackwell, Oxford.
Deming, W.E. (1986), Out of the Crisis, MIT Press, Cambridge,
MA.
Douglas, A., Coleman, S. and Oddy, R. (2003), The case for ISO
9000, TQM Magazine, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 316-24.
Farmer, F. (2003), ISO 9001:2000, to deadline and beyond,
Quality World, December, pp. 10-12.
HEFCE (2003), HEFCE Information on Quality and Standards in
Higher Education: Final Guidance, HEFCE Publications,
Bristol.
HMSO (1997), Higher education in the learning environment,
Report of the National Committee of Inquiry into Higher
Education, HMSO, London.
134
Appendix. Glossary
FQO
HE
HEFCE
HEI
QAA
TQI
UK
135