I. The ABEST21 Comprehensive Review
1. ABEST21 Accreditation Result
“ABEST21 (THE ALLIANCE ON BUSINESS EDUCATION AND SCHOLARSHIP FOR TOMORROW, a 21st century organization) hereby certifies that MASTER OF MANAGEMENT PROGRAM of the FACULTY OF ECONOMICS, UNIVERSITAS SRIWIJAYA, INDONESIA has generally met ABEST21 Management Accreditation Standards and the quality maintenance and improvement of education and research in the aforementioned program are promising and good. Accreditation commences April 1, 2019 for a five-year period.”
2. Comprehensive Review
In general, PRT thinks that the School has a good education program. The selection of the students was carried out using a set of procedures and standards.
The School has a Quality assurance system that is guided by the Quality assurance system set up by the University.
The program’s learning goals were also documented. However, the relationship among the School’s mission, learning goals, learning outcome, and curriculum are not clearly established.
The basic facilities and support system provided are adequate to the standard of business school.
3. Good Practice in Management Education
1) Title of Good Practice in Management Education
Financial Management Concentration
2) Reason for selecting the title stated above
Based on data provided in the report, the School has well established collaborations with various industry players. This offers many benefits to the students, the faculty members and the program itself, particularly from the practical perspective.
The School has a program called ‘Manager Teaches’. It is a program in which companies managers give lectures in their business offices (not on university premises). Students will come to the company’s manager office to attend lecture and have company orientation during the class. This method of teaching is considered a good way to learn business practice delivered by industry’s experts.
4. Matter to be noted
- Some of the tables and sentences are not written in English.
- There are many spelling errors in this report.
- The School should also develop action plans in improving the mission, learning goals, curriculum and the quality of both research and publication of its faculty members. Currently, most action plans are designed to improve competencies of staff trough training.
5. The Peer Review Team
|Leader||Dr. Sri Gunawan
Faculty of Economics and Business, Universitas Airlangga, Indonesia
|Member||Dr. Siti Zaleha Sahak
Arshad Ayub Graduate Business School, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Malaysia
|Member||Dr. Masyhuri Hamidi
Faculty of Economics, Universitas Andalas, Indonesia
6. The Peer Review Schedule
|Ratification of the ABEST21 Accreditation||Board of Trustees||Mar. 7, 2019|
|Recommendation of the ABEST21 Accreditation||Accreditation Committee||Mar. 7, 2019|
|Ratification of the PRT Review Report||Peer Review Committee||Mar. 6, 2019|
|Ratification of the Self-Evaluation Report||Peer Review Committee||Nov. 1, 2018|
|Implementation of the Peer Review Visit||Peer Review Team||Oct.12-13, 2018
Oct. 30, 2017
|Submission of the Self-Evaluation Report||–||Jun. 30, 2018
Jun. 30, 2017
|Ratification of the Quality Improvement Plan||Peer Review Committee||Nov. 9, 2016|
|Submission of the Quality Improvement Plan||–||Jun. 30, 2016|
II. PRT Comments on the Self-Check/Self-Evaluation Analysis
1. The School’s Mission Statement and Strategies
1) The School’s Mission Statement
The School has explained the mission statement and the effort to develop MM high skill professional program, through various teaching methods such as case studies, student active learning, fieldwork, guest lectures, workshops, tasks and discussions, and developing a “Business Plan” as well as innovative ideas in the areas of management and business.
However, the School’s vision, mission and goals are not clearly explained and supported by the curriculum. The School should provide more detailed explanation on how the vision, mission and goals are integrated that will be reflected in the curriculum development.
2) The School’s Strategies for Quality Improvement
The School’s strategies and implementation are listed on page 14 and 15, however it is not clear on how such strategies will improve the quality of MM Program. A detailed explanation should be provided on the importance of setting the strategies and the impact of those strategies in enhancing the quality of research and education of the School and connecting the strategies to the School’s vision and mission.
It’s recommended for the School to group and connect these 21 strategies according to the mission statement of the School. This may further assist the School in realizing its mission.
3) Humanizing the School’s Management Education
The School’s commitment to humanizing its management education is stated. Students’ involvement in CSR activities is an effort to improve their abilities to communicate with people from diverse societies.
Through the interview with the faculty members, PRT noted that, for instance, several CSR projects have been carried out.
A list of CSR activities is listed in the report. However, the impact of the activities is not reported and explained. It is better if the School provides explanation on how the activities will enhance the entrepreneurial spirit and communication skills of the students.
4) Collaborating with Industries in Management Education
The School provided the list of collaborations with industries in appendix 1 – 3. The report indicates that there are 141 collaborations with many institutions. Although there are many active engagements and partnerships that have been established, some of the collaborations are in the form of signing memorandum of understanding, without any specific activities involved.
It is advised that the School provides detailed explanation on the benefits of collaboration to the students, faculty members and staff of the MM Program.
5) Globalizing the School’s Management Education
The School reported to have collaboration with various education bodies and networks, both locally and internationally. This collaboration is just a start to globalize the School’s management education.
It is suggested that the School provides a more detailed analysis on how such collaboration will be utilized to meet the global standards of the School’s management education, such as establishing dual degree program, students/lecturers exchange, etc.
2. The School’s Educational and Research Activities
Chapter 1 Internal Quality Assurance
Standard 1: Administration and Governance
The School explained the administrative and governance structure quite clear. The SOPs of all activities are clearly explained using PDCA cycle.
The staff development training has been included in the report. The School acknowledges the needs for optimizing the staff training programs in improving the staff competencies.
Standard 2: Self-Check/Self-Evaluation
The School explained self-check/self-evaluation on the academic performance of the students and the lecturers. This evaluation is very important in enhancing the quality of the education.
However, the School should also report on the self-check/self-evaluation on how to ascertain that the administrative matters, the School’s mission, strategies and plan will be achieved, because the quality of the education will also be determined by the appropriateness of the strategies that are adopted in this changing environment.
Standard 3: Improvement of Education and Research Environment
The School explains the PDCA cycle for the improvement of education and research in detail. However, certain information about research activities carried out by the lecturers is not reported. For example, research work carried out by the faculty members in years 2017 and 2018 is not included in the report.
The School provided and analyzed a diagram/flowchart on how the process of quality control of education and research is carried out.
However, the impact of the faculty members’ research on productivity, public welfare, and environment is not clearly stated. The School should explain in detail on how to measure the faculty members’ research impact on productivity, public welfare, and environmental quality.
Chapter 2 Mission Statement
Standard 4: Mission Statement
The School’s mission is explained. It has 4 very long missions.
However, the relationships among the School’s vision, mission and curriculum are not clearly explained. The link between the School’s mission and the University’s mission should also be clarified.
The School’s mission was developed through the collaboration between the School and its various stakeholders, such as government and industry. The School’s mission is also published in many various forms, such as billboard, student’s handbook, and on the School’s website.
However, the School needs to explain on how to gather and document the information to review its mission statement regularly.
Standard 5: Mission Imperatives
The School provided explanation on its mission statement supports the mission of the university. Therefore, it is noted that the School has met this standard.
Standard 6: Financial Strategies
The School depends on the tuition fees to sustain its operations. It would be better if the School generated other revenues, e.g. by providing expert consultancy and research services to its stakeholders.
As reported, fund management is done together with the faculty. All finance-related matters are coordinated and discussed between the School and the Faculty of Economics, as the Schools is a part of the Faculty. Most of the financial strategies and policies are handled by the Faculty of Economics.
The University has good financial strategies and policies to develop the University and all the Schools.
However, The School acknowledges that it needs an autonomous budget to better deal with the requirements specific for the Business School.
Chapter 3 Educational Programs
Standard 7: Learning Goals
The School reported 6 learning goals of the program. The goals are reviewed periodically every 5 years. They are developed by involving the School’s stakeholders, such as alumni, practitioners, and industry.
During the PRT visit, in the interview with the School’s management, the students and the faculty members, PRT found out that the learning goal of the MM program is not clearly established and communicated. It is clear that learning goals are not always communicated to students and faculty members. Therefore, the School should state communication of learning goals as one of the issues to be improved.
Standard 8: Curriculum Policy
MM UNSRI has a good curriculum policy. The report clearly explains the policy set by the University in the development of the curriculum.
Standard 9: Management of Curriculum
He School clearly describes their policy of setting up the curriculum. External parties such as government, industry, alumni are involved in developing the curriculum. The curriculum is reviewed periodically using the SOP set up by the University. The School uses various teaching methods such as case discussions, company visits, business plan development, “Manager Teaches”. The School will initiate e-learning education, since the University has set up the e-learning platform, through e-learning.unsri.ac.id.
Currently, the School does not have a system of credit transfer. It is important for the School to have this credit transfer system. The Association of MM programs in Indonesia provides opportunity for credit transfer among the members of the association. The School explained its intention to coordinate with APMMI for this credit transfer system.
Standard 10: Improvement of Educational Quality
The School provided detailed explanation on its activities and efforts in improving the quality of its educational program. The number of subjects, class hours and grading criteria are stated clearly.
The Syllabi are reviewed every semester during a semester meeting among the lecturers and Head of the School.
Standard 11: Diploma Policy
The School has defined its diploma policy in accordance with the regulation/policy set by the Ministry of Research, Technology and Higher Education.
Standard 12: Learning Outcomes’ Review
The School explained the learning outcomes of the program and provided analysis on the systems that have been adopted for examining the learning outcomes. The mechanism of monitoring both the lecturers’ and students’ performance is explained clearly. Learning outcomes are reviewed every 5 years, with the involvement of the School’s various stakeholders.
The School keeps track of its graduates by conducting a tracer study for alumni. However, the School admitted that this tracer study is not conducted regularly, and the results are not implemented effectively in developing the School’s learning outcome.
Standard 13: Globalization of Educational Programs
The School reported to have engagement with several universities abroad. However, this collaboration is yet to be utilized and improved, not just in the form of signing up MOU.
The School should set strategies and plans to globalize its educational program.
Chapter 4 Students
Standard 14: Student Profile
The School explained its student profile clearly. The number of students enrolled has increased in the last 3 years.
Standard 15: Admission Policy
Student admission requirements and procedure are stated clearly. The School provides a detailed analysis on the procedure and flowchart related to the students’ admission policy and process.
Standard 16: Student Selection
The School explained the target profile of the students. Number of enrollments and the selection process are described in detail. The criteria as well as methods of selection are described and are considered good and fair.
Standard 17: Student Support
Currently, the School does not provide financial assistance to the students.
During interview with the Rector, it is explained that the University will provide scholarship for international students who study at the undergraduate as well as graduate programs in UNSRI.
The School reviews the student support system systematically and frequently.
Currently the School does not have support facilities for students with disabilities. The School acknowledges this issue and will provide such facilities in the future.
Suggestion for improvement is to provide training to the program management team and administration staff who handle students’ issues. This may further assist the School and the staff in managing any students’ issues.
Standard 18: Student Incentive
Currently, there is no incentive system to enhance academic progression of the students. A reward system is not established by the School. Suggestion for improvement is to provide both financial and non-financial rewards for students with good performance, apart from giving certificate of appreciation to the excellent students.
During the PRT visit, PRT found out that there are two groups of MM students. One of the groups is under the government sponsorship and they are taking sport management concentration. This is one of the good points of the School.
The School has included the collaboration with the Ministry of Youth and Sports in the report. All students are under the scholarship from this Ministry.
Standard 19: Student Diversity
The School reported demographic profiles of the students, in terms of gender, age, occupation, as well as region of origin. Currently, the School does not have any international students.
Apart from that, the School has a diverse student body.
Chapter 5 Faculty
Standard 20: Faculty Structure
The School reported the number of both academically and practically qualified lecturers, as well as both supporting and participating family members.
Their workload and demographic profiles are also reported, and indicate that the School has a good mix of faculty members.
The PRT visit and interview with the faculty members confirmed the above and the fact that the faculty members have no problem with their current teaching load.
Standard 21: Faculty Qualifications
The qualification of the lecturers is adequate. The promotion systems are established appropriately, while the evaluation of the performance is based on the regulations set up by the government.
However, the School needs a system of disclosing the results of educational and research performance of its lecturers (21-6).
Standard 22: Maintenance of Education and Research Environment
The School can provide a relatively good education and research environment.
A suggestion is offered to the University to provide more funds to the School to conduct more applied research. A detailed research policy needs to be elaborated.
Standard 23: Responsibilities of Faculty Members
Regarding the development of the faculty members’ competencies in specialized teaching areas, the School states the following. “The faculty of Economics supports the development of this potential by incorporating it into the budget. Faculty members of The Study Program are also encouraged to improve their expertise by attending non-degree programs such as workshops, seminars, and conferences. They are also encouraged to update their competences by acquiring professional certification based on their field of study.”
The School acknowledges the need to increase the frequency of training for lecturers in order to improve their teaching competencies.
Standard 24: Faculty Diversity
The School reported their Faculty members’ background in Appendix 12. The Data indicates that the faculty members have diverse demographic background.
MM UNSRI did not explain a system for inviting international faculty members and international exchange.
Chapter 6 Educational Infrastructure
Standard 25: Educational Infrastructure
MM UNSRI has a good infrastructure. However, several facilities and equipment need to be improved. Library materials, such as books, are limited and outdated.
The School noted that part of the issues to be improved is the off-campus accessibility for online resources.
Standard 26: Globalization of Educational Infrastructure
The University provides a good educational infrastructure to meet the needs of the students with different economic and cultural backgrounds.
The faculty infrastructure and facilities need to be upgraded to enhance the quality of the learning and working environment. The School has a plan to add more study and discussion rooms for the students that can be used for their group work or independent study.
III. “The School’s Quality Improvement Plan” Review
1. The School’s Quality Improvement System
Based on the report, the quality assurance of the School’s MM Program is guided and conducted based on the University Quality Assurance System. However, a detailed explanation should be provided on how the internal and external quality improvement systems are adopted and implemented.
2. The School’s Improvement Issues
The issues for improvement need to be addressed accordingly. For instance, regarding staff development, through the interview we found out that the staff requires the following courses/training to improve their services and performance:
- IT training
- English course
- Administrative training.
The School has included the need for training for the administrative staff.
The following suggestions for improvements are offered to the School:
- Encourage faculty members’ research and publications with other national and international lecturers
- Improve infrastructure facilities
- Revisit mission, vision, learning goals, and learning outcome periodically in a shorter period (less than 5 years)
- Activate student clubs to promote student activities; this will promote the humanizing aspects of the education.
3. The School’s Improvement Initiatives
Improvement issues are detailed and categorized into the standards of ABEST21 accreditation.
4. The School’s Action Plans for three years
The School prepared a 3 years’ action plan to improve the Program. However, it is suggested that the School provides more detailed action plans in terms of the KPIs of all the activities. The plan should be also in line with the strategies that were developed.
Based on the Action Plan presented in the report, it is noticed that the School is giving a priority to improve the staff competencies through training.