Accreditation

Chapter 1: Internal Quality Assurance and Management

• Standard 1: Academic Unit Management
• Standard 2: Governance System
• Standard 3: Self-Check/Self-Evaluation
• Standard 4: Staff-Development

The Peer Review Team (PRT) finds that the School has established the essential governance framework and internal mechanisms for quality assurance, including senate deliberations, AIMA quality audits, management review meetings, and corrective action reports. These mechanisms reflect institutional awareness of systematic quality control and align with the intent of ABEST21 Standards 1–4. The peer review visit confirmed that these processes are operational and that actions have been taken in response to audit findings, demonstrating a baseline level of compliance in terms of structure, review frequency, and accountability.
Nevertheless, the PRT observes that the quality assurance system remains at a formative stage, with processes that are largely procedural and reactive rather than strategically integrated. The School’s compliance with ABEST21 requirements meets the minimum threshold but requires a stronger institutional focus on continuous, evidence-based improvement. Greater refinement is needed in academic unit management and governance to enhance institutional effectiveness, accountability, and global competitiveness. To move toward a more mature quality assurance culture, the School should institutionalize its PDCA cycle across all operational levels, strengthen internal monitoring systems, and ensure that evaluation results are systematically used for decision-making.
Overall, the PRT concludes that the School has achieved compatibility with ABEST21 Standards. With further integration of data-driven evaluation, transparent communication of decisions, and strategic capacity-building initiatives, the School is well-positioned to advance toward a more robust and internationally credible quality assurance framework.

• The PRT finds that the School has established the necessary governance structures and internal mechanisms for assuring academic quality, such as senate deliberations, quality audits (AIMA), management review meetings, and corrective action reporting. These mechanisms demonstrate an institutional awareness of the need for systematic quality control and are aligned with the intent of ABEST21 Standards 1–4. During the peer review visit, the School provided clarifications showing that these processes are practiced and that some actions have been taken in response to audit findings. This confirms a baseline level of compliance with ABEST21 requirements in terms of structure, frequency of review, and internal accountability.
• In Chapter 1, Internal Quality Assurance and Management, the School has detailed its compliance with the standards set by ABEST21 International. While the School has generally met the minimum threshold across all required standards, the level of compliance remains basic and requires strategic improvement. In particular, the domains of academic unit management and governance demand greater refinement to strengthen institutional effectiveness, accountability, and alignment with global quality assurance benchmarks. Continuous efforts toward systematic enhancement, performance monitoring, and evidence-based evaluation are essential to achieve a more robust and internationally competitive standard of quality.
• Compatible.

The School’s Feedback:

We are encouraged that the PRT confirms the establishment and operation of our governance framework, including senate deliberations, AIMA quality audits, management review meetings, and corrective action reporting, which collectively demonstrate our institutional commitment to quality assurance in accordance with ABEST21 Standards 1–4.
We acknowledge the PRT’s observation that the School’s quality assurance system, while meeting the minimum requirements, remains at an early stage of maturity. The School concurs that several processes are still procedural and reactive, and that further strategic integration is required to strengthen academic unit management, governance, and evidence-based decision-making.
In response to the PRT’s findings, the School is committed to the following actions to enhance compatibility with ABEST21 Standards:

• Institutionalization of the PDCA Cycle
  The School will develop and implement more detailed SOPs to ensure the PDCA cycle is practiced consistently across all units, with clear delineation of roles and improved documentation procedures.
• Strengthening Internal Monitoring and Information Systems
  In alignment with our Quality Improvement System and Three-Year Action Plans, the School will accelerate the development of an integrated database to support self-evaluation, audit follow-up, and continuous quality monitoring.
• Enhancing Governance and Communication Mechanisms
  The School will refine its internal communication structure to ensure that audit results, meeting decisions, and quality improvement outcomes are disseminated systematically to all faculty and staff.
• Promoting Evidence-Based Quality Improvement
  Evaluation results from AIMA audits, faculty and student feedback, and other internal assessments will be more systematically utilized to inform academic planning, resource allocation, and policy adjustments.
• Capacity Building for Academic and Administrative Staff
  The School will expand initiatives related to international communication skills, quality assurance competencies, and global engagement to reinforce alignment with international benchmarks.

We recognize that the recommendations provided are essential for advancing toward a more mature, integrated, and globally credible quality assurance system. The School is fully committed to implementing the necessary improvements in a systematic and sustainable manner.

PRT Response:

The PRT acknowledges that the School has established the fundamental governance structures and quality assurance mechanisms—such as senate deliberations, AIMA audits, management review meetings, and corrective action reporting—that align with the intent of ABEST21 Standards 1–4. These systems are operational and demonstrate baseline compliance.
However, the PRT notes that the current quality assurance practices remain procedural and largely reactive to audit findings. To advance towards a more mature and internationally credible quality assurance culture, the School should further institutionalize the PDCA cycle, strengthen internal monitoring systems, and enhance the use of evaluation data for decision-making. Clearer communication of audit outcomes and more proactive, evidence-driven planning are needed to reinforce accountability and strategic governance.
Overall, compatibility with ABEST21 Standards has been achieved at the foundational level. Continued efforts to embed data-driven evaluation, refine governance processes, and build staff capacity will be essential to elevate the School’s quality assurance framework to meet international expectations.

Issues to be improved:

While formal structures exist, the PRT notes that internal quality assurance processes are not yet fully institutionalized or proactively driven. Many improvements remain reactive to external audits, and documentation of follow-up actions, stakeholder involvement, and decision traceability is limited. To strengthen alignment with ABEST21 expectations, the School should formalize the PDCA cycle, enhance internal documentation, and promote transparency through consistent communication of results and progress.
The PRT recommends the following measures as examples of targeted improvements:

• Strengthen the information system by recruiting dedicated IT personnel and implementing an integrated database to support real-time audit tracking and reporting.
• Develop a Faculty Code of Ethics endorsed through a Dean’s Decree to reinforce academic and administrative accountability.
• Organize regular training for administrative staff on innovation, service excellence, and data-driven decision-making.
• Enhance staff international competencies through English proficiency programs and cross-cultural communication workshops to support the School’s internationalization goals.

By operationalizing these measures, the School can transition from reactive compliance to a proactive and sustainable culture of continuous quality enhancement.

• Despite the existence of formal structures, the PRT observes that quality assurance processes are not yet fully institutionalized or proactively driven. Many improvements appear to be reactive to external audits rather than based on continuous, data-informed internal evaluation. Documentation of follow-up actions, evidence of stakeholder involvement, and the traceability of decisions to implementation are incomplete. The roles of internal committees, including how their deliberations translate into policy execution, are not systematically defined or communicated. To strengthen alignment with ABEST21 expectations, the School should (i) formalize the PDCA cycle with clear documentation of each stage, (ii) shift towards anticipatory and evidence-based improvement rather than corrective compliance, and (iii) ensure transparent dissemination of decisions and progress to all stakeholders.

The School’s Feedback:

The School recognizes that while the foundational structures for internal quality assurance are in place, several processes require further institutionalization, proactive implementation, and improved documentation. The School is committed to addressing these areas to enhance compatibility with ABEST21 Standards and to reinforce a culture of continuous quality improvement, to advance toward a more mature and proactive internal quality assurance culture. In essence, The School is committed to transitioning from a predominantly reactive approach to a proactive, evidence-based, and sustainable system of internal quality assurance.

• Institutionalization of the PDCA Cycle and Strengthening of Documentation
  In response to the PRT’s observation that many improvements remain reactive and insufficiently documented, the School will formalize the PDCA cycle through the development of clear SOPs outlining responsibilities, timing, workflows, and documentation requirements across all academic and administrative units. The School will also standardize the recording of audit results, follow-up actions, and progress reports to ensure traceability, accountability, and systematic use of evaluation outcomes. These measures will strengthen alignment with Standards 1 and 3.
• Enhancement of Internal Information Systems
  The School acknowledges the need for stronger IT support to ensure reliable, real-time access to academic and audit information. To address this, the School will recruit dedicated IT personnel and establish an integrated database to support monitoring of audit findings, internal evaluations, and quality assurance performance indicators. This initiative will reduce system downtime, improve data accuracy, and reinforce decision-making processes in accordance with Standards 1 and 2.
• Development and Formalization of a Faculty Code of Ethics
  The PRT’s recommendation to formalize a Faculty Code of Ethics is well noted. The School will develop a comprehensive code covering academic integrity, administrative conduct, sanctions, and appeal mechanisms. The Code will be endorsed through a Dean’s Decree and disseminated through workshops and orientation programs. This will reinforce ethical governance and strengthen internal accountability in alignment with Standard 2.
• Capacity Building for Administrative Staff
  In response to the observation that staff development remains limited, the School will implement annual training programs emphasizing proactive problem-solving, service excellence, efficiency in administration, and data-driven decision-making. Training outcomes will be monitored through performance evaluations and feedback from units. This initiative will improve administrative effectiveness and strengthen compliance with Standard 4.
• Strengthening International Competencies
  To support the School’s internationalization goals and align with global quality assurance expectations, the School will enhance staff proficiency in English and cross-cultural communication. Workshops will be conducted with external and international partners.
  Minimum English proficiency requirements will be established for staff working in internationally oriented units, and a dedicated annual budget will be allocated to staff internationalization activities. These efforts further reinforce Standard 4.
• Establishment of Regular Internal Self-Evaluation Cycles
  To shift from reactive compliance to anticipatory quality management, the School will institutionalize annual internal self-evaluation cycles that operate independently of external audits. Evaluation results, action plans, and follow-up measures will be systematically disseminated through internal communication channels. Clear assignment of responsibilities for improvement actions will support stronger evidence-based decision-making and compliance with Standard 3.

PRT Response:

The PRT notes that although formal structures for quality assurance are in place, the School’s improvement processes are not yet fully institutionalized or proactively driven. Many enhancements remain reactive to external audits, with limited documentation of follow-up actions, stakeholder participation, and decision traceability. To strengthen alignment with ABEST21 expectations, the School should formalize the PDCA cycle, improve documentation, and communicate quality improvement outcomes more transparently.
The PRT recommends several focused measures to advance systemic improvement:
Strengthen information systems by appointing dedicated IT personnel and implementing an integrated academic and audit database to support real-time monitoring, reporting, and decision-making.
Develop and formalize a Faculty Code of Ethics, endorsed through a Dean’s Decree, with clear provisions for academic integrity, sanctions, and appeal mechanisms.
Enhance administrative staff competency through structured annual training on service excellence, innovation, and data-informed decision-making, with monitored impact.
Improve international readiness by strengthening English proficiency and intercultural communication among staff through workshops and targeted development programs.
By operationalizing these measures through clear responsibilities, timelines, and documentation, the School can transition from reactive compliance toward a proactive and sustainable culture of continuous quality enhancement.

Chapter 2: Mission Statement

• Standard 5: Mission Statement
• Standard 6: Financial Strategies

The Peer Review Team (PRT) finds that the School’s mission statement is clearly articulated and generally aligned with the overarching goals of Universitas Jenderal Soedirman. It reflects the School’s intention to produce competent, socially responsible management professionals who contribute to national and regional development. The mission is publicly communicated through institutional documents and the School’s website and is embedded within the curriculum and governance framework.
During the peer review visit, the School explained that stakeholders have contributed indirectly to the mission formulation through curriculum development and governance discussions, showing a foundational level of engagement consistent with ABEST21 expectations. The mission demonstrates coherence with the University’s commitment to academic excellence, community service, and societal relevance.
However, the PRT notes that while the mission structure and alignment are sound, certain areas—particularly financial strategy—require further strengthening to ensure long-term sustainability and competitiveness. A more comprehensive financial planning framework with diversified income sources, forward-looking budgeting, and risk management mechanisms would help align institutional resources with the mission’s strategic objectives.
Overall, the PRT concludes that the School’s mission statement is compatible with ABEST21 Standards and provides a coherent foundation for program direction and institutional development. To move toward a higher level of maturity, the School should further institutionalize stakeholder participation, review cycles, and strategic resource planning to sustain mission relevance and operational viability.

• The PRT finds that the School’s mission statement is generally aligned with the overarching goals of the university and reflects the intention to produce competent management professionals who contribute to society. The mission is publicly communicated and embedded in key academic documents. During the peer review visit, the School explained that stakeholders have indirectly influenced mission formulation through curriculum and governance discussions, indicating a foundational level of alignment with ABEST21 expectations.
• In Chapter 2, Mission Statement, the School presents a well-structured explanation of its mission and its alignment with the University’s overarching mission. This alignment reflects a coherent institutional direction and a shared commitment to academic excellence and societal contribution. Most of the ABEST21 International standards related to the mission have been adequately addressed. However, the area concerning financial strategy remains a key aspect requiring further improvement. The current financial planning framework does not yet demonstrate sufficient strategic depth to ensure long-term sustainability and competitiveness. Strengthening this component through comprehensive financial policies, resource diversification, and forward-looking budget strategies will be critical for positioning the School to progress in parallel with other internationally recognized institutions.
• Compatible.

The School’s Feedback:

The School welcomes the PRT’s affirmation that the mission is clearly articulated, publicly communicated, coherent with the University’s goals, and embedded within the curriculum and governance framework. At the same time, the School recognizes the areas identified for improvement, particularly regarding stakeholder engagement and long-term financial strategies to support mission implementation.
Institutionalize stakeholder participation in mission formulation by establishing a regular review cycle that includes faculty, students, alumni, and industry partners, ensuring more systematic and documented engagement.

• Enhance mission dissemination by expanding communication channels (e.g., internal portals, social media, orientation programs) to strengthen stakeholder understanding and alignment with institutional goals.
• Strengthen the financial strategy framework by developing comprehensive annual and multi-year financial plans, diversifying income sources, and introducing risk-management mechanisms to ensure mission sustainability.
• Improve alignment between mission and resource allocation by integrating mission objectives into strategic planning, budgeting processes, and faculty performance indicators.
• Formalize documentation and traceability of mission-related discussions and decisions through standardized templates, consistent reporting, and integration into the School’s internal QA system.

PRT Response:

The PRT finds that the School’s mission is clearly articulated, aligned with the University’s goals, and appropriately communicated through institutional documents. Stakeholder influence—though indirect—demonstrates a basic level of alignment with ABEST21 expectations.
However, mission management processes remain at an early stage of maturity. Stakeholder involvement is not yet systematic, and strategic financial planning requires strengthening to ensure long-term sustainability. The School should enhance its mission review mechanisms, formalize participation, and establish a more robust financial strategy to support mission implementation.
To advance alignment with ABEST21 Standards, the PRT recommends:

• Institutionalizing mission review cycles with documented input from faculty, students, alumni, and industry partners.
• Enhancing mission communication through broader dissemination channels.
• Strengthening financial strategy, including multi-year planning, diversified revenue sources, and risk-management mechanisms.

Aligning mission with resource allocation and internal QA processes to ensure consistent implementation.
Overall, the mission is compatible with ABEST21 Standards, but a more structured and strategic approach is needed to achieve higher institutional maturity.

Issues to be improved:

While the mission statement is well-defined, the processes for its periodic review, documentation, and stakeholder engagement remain underdeveloped. The linkage between the mission and measurable performance indicators also needs clearer articulation.
The PRT recommends the following key actions to enhance alignment with ABEST21 standards:

• Institutionalize a structured review cycle for the mission statement with clear documentation of consultation processes and outcomes.
• Formalize stakeholder engagement through regular, documented forums involving industry, alumni, students, and faculty, ensuring feedback is analyzed and reflected in strategic planning.
• Broaden dissemination strategies by leveraging digital and social media platforms to communicate the mission effectively to diverse audiences, including prospective students and international partners.
• Strengthen financial strategy by aligning resource allocation with mission priorities and negotiating appropriate levels of decentralized budget authority.

Implementing these measures will enable the School to maintain mission relevance, strengthen stakeholder ownership, and ensure that institutional aspirations are effectively translated into sustainable strategic actions.

• Although a mission statement is in place, the process for periodic review and documented stakeholder involvement could be strengthened. The linkage between the mission and measurable indicators of achievement would also benefit from clearer articulation. The School may consider formalizing a structured mission review cycle, supported by explicit consultation mechanisms and documented outcomes to enhance transparency and continuous alignment.

The School’s Feedback:

We acknowledge that while the mission statement is already well-articulated and aligned with the University’s strategic direction, several components—particularly the mechanisms for periodic review, stakeholder engagement, dissemination, and the financial strategy that underpins mission realization—require further strengthening.
To address these gaps, the School is committed to institutionalizing a structured mission review cycle supported by clear documentation, standardized consultation procedures, and systematic analysis of stakeholder input. We will formalize annual and multi-year stakeholder engagement forums, ensuring that feedback from industry partners, alumni, students, and faculty is more transparently recorded and integrated into strategic decision-making.
The School will also enhance its dissemination strategy by utilizing a wider range of digital and social media platforms to ensure broader accessibility and stronger stakeholder ownership of the mission. In parallel, efforts will be made to strengthen the financial planning framework by negotiating appropriate levels of decentralized budget authority and aligning resource allocations more explicitly with mission priorities.
Through these measures, the School reaffirms its commitment to maintaining mission relevance, ensuring strategic coherence, and reinforcing a culture of continuous improvement consistent with ABEST21 International Accreditation Standards.

PRT Response:

The PRT notes that although the mission is clearly stated, the supporting processes for its review, documentation, and stakeholder engagement are not yet fully institutionalized. The linkage between the mission and measurable performance indicators also needs clearer definition.
To strengthen alignment with ABEST21 Standards, the PRT recommends:

• Establishing a structured mission review cycle with documented consultation processes and outcomes.
• Formalizing stakeholder engagement through regular, recorded forums involving industry, alumni, students, and faculty.
• Expanding dissemination by leveraging digital and social media platforms to enhance visibility and understanding of the mission.
• Strengthening financial strategy by aligning budgeting and resource allocation with mission priorities and negotiating greater decentralized budget authority.

Implementing these measures will improve transparency, ensure mission relevance, and reinforce the School’s capacity to translate its institutional aspirations into sustainable strategic actions.

Chapter 3: Curriculum

• Standard 7: Learning Goals
• Standard 8: Curriculum Policy and Management of Curriculum
• Standard 9: Quality Improvement of Curriculum
• Standard 10: Online Education
• Standard 11: Diploma Policy and Learning Outcomes
• Standard 12: Globalization of Curriculum

The Peer Review Team (PRT) observes that the curriculum design of the Master of Management (MM) Program supports the School’s educational objectives through a balanced structure of foundational, specialized, and applied subjects. Principles of practice-oriented learning are reflected in case-based instruction, fieldwork, and engagement with industry practitioners. Periodic internal reviews have been conducted, and early steps toward curriculum internationalization indicate a reasonable degree of conformity with ABEST21 expectations.
However, while the curriculum framework demonstrates a basic level of compliance, several areas require further strengthening to achieve coherence, outcome orientation, and global relevance. The PRT notes that aspects such as Curriculum Policy and Management, Learning Goals, Curriculum Quality Improvement, Diploma Policy and Learning Outcomes, and Curriculum Globalization are not yet systematically integrated or clearly articulated. Evidence of stakeholder participation, data-driven evaluation, and continuous improvement remains limited.
The School is therefore encouraged to adopt a more systematic and evidence-based approach to curriculum design, implementation, and review. Strengthening stakeholder engagement, documenting curriculum revisions, and aligning learning outcomes with institutional and program missions will ensure that the curriculum remains responsive to the evolving needs of the business environment and international standards. Overall, the curriculum is compatible with ABEST21 requirements but should evolve toward a more mature and globally competitive academic framework.

• The PRT observes that the curriculum design supports the School’s educational intentions through a structured balance of foundational and specialized subjects. Principles of practice-oriented learning are present through casework and industry engagement. Periodic reviews have been conducted internally, and initial steps have been taken toward integrating international perspectives, indicating a reasonable degree of conformity with ABEST21 intent.
• In Chapter 3, Curriculum, the School has provided the required information concerning the overall curriculum framework. While the documentation demonstrates a basic level of compliance with ABEST21 International standards, several key areas warrant significant improvement. Feedback obtained from the review of submitted materials and the online interviews with University and School management indicates that aspects such as Curriculum Policy and Management, Learning Goals, Curriculum Quality Improvement, Diploma Policy and Learning Outcomes, and Curriculum Globalization are not yet sufficiently developed or clearly articulated. These components are critical in ensuring that the curriculum remains coherent, outcome-oriented, and globally relevant. The School is therefore strongly encouraged to revise and strengthen Chapter 3 by providing a more systematic presentation of its curriculum design, implementation, monitoring, and continuous improvement processes, supported by clear evidence of stakeholder engagement and measurable outcomes.
• Compatible.

The School’s Feedback:

We acknowledge that, although the current curriculum structure reflects the School’s mission and incorporates practice-based learning, several key components—including Curriculum Policy and Management, Learning Goals and Outcomes, Curriculum Quality Improvement, and Curriculum Globalization—require clearer articulation and stronger integration. In response, the School is committed to strengthening its curriculum management system through more systematic documentation, enhanced stakeholder involvement, and evidence-based evaluation. Beginning in the 2025 academic cycle, we will formalize curriculum review procedures, align learning outcomes more explicitly with program objectives, and expand international content through updated syllabi, global case studies, and collaboration with international partners. We will also ensure that feedback from alumni, employers, students, and faculty is regularly collected, analyzed, and used to inform curriculum revisions. These initiatives reflect our commitment to building a coherent, outcomes-oriented, and globally relevant curriculum that aligns with ABEST21 standards and supports continuous quality enhancement.

PRT Response:

The PRT acknowledges that the curriculum meets basic ABEST21 expectations, with a balanced structure and some practice-oriented elements. However, key components – such as curriculum policy, learning goals, outcome measurement, curriculum quality improvement, and globalization – are not yet sufficiently integrated or systematically implemented.
To strengthen alignment with ABEST21 Standards, the PRT recommends:

• Formalizing curriculum policy and management, including clearer documentation and traceability of revisions.
• Strengthening outcome orientation by aligning learning goals, course outcomes, and assessments, supported by measurable indicators.
• Enhancing stakeholder engagement through structured and documented feedback from alumni, employers, students, and industry partners.
• Advancing curriculum internationalization through more systematic integration of global content, guest lectures, and joint academic activities.

These improvements will help build a more coherent, evidence-based, and globally relevant curriculum framework.

Issues to be improved:

While the curriculum framework provides a solid foundation, its continuous improvement mechanisms and stakeholder involvement processes require greater institutionalization. Internal and external stakeholder participation in curriculum review – particularly from industry, alumni, and international partners – should be formalized, and documentation of evaluation results should be strengthened.
The PRT recommends the following key actions to address these issues:

• Institutionalize structured stakeholder engagement, including regular focus group discussions and advisory board meetings with alumni, employers, and industry representatives, supported by documented outcomes.
• Enhance curriculum monitoring systems by ensuring consistent alignment between syllabi, classroom delivery, and learning outcomes, with clear evidence of review cycles and follow-up actions.
• Expand practical and global exposure, such as mandating practitioner-led sessions in courses, formalizing credit transfer policies, and establishing joint online or hybrid modules with partner universities.
• Improve digital learning capacity, including hybrid-equipped classrooms, technical support staff, and training for faculty in online pedagogy.
• Integrate graduate outcome tracking, such as employer feedback, alumni tracer studies, and competency-based assessments, to validate the link between learning goals and program outcomes.

Implementing these measures will help the School develop a more dynamic, stakeholder-driven, and internationally benchmarked curriculum aligned with ABEST21’s principles of continuous improvement and global engagement.

• While the curriculum framework is sound, internal and external stakeholder involvement in the review process can be made more systematic. Monitoring mechanisms to ensure alignment between syllabi and actual classroom delivery should be developed and implemented and this would also benefit from enhanced documentation. The School is encouraged to formalize evaluation cycles and strengthen the evidence base used for curriculum revisions.
• It is recommended that the School enhance stakeholder participation by developing a structured and consistent engagement framework. The current limitations largely stem from the absence of formal mechanisms and an overreliance on internal academic consultations, compounded by scheduling constraints and competing commitments from external partners such as alumni and industry representatives. To address this, the School should institutionalize regular focus group discussions involving alumni, employers, students, and academic peers, while also inviting industry representatives to participate in annual advisory meetings to ensure curriculum relevance. Strengthening feedback channels through online surveys and collaborative workshops will further promote inclusivity and ensure that stakeholder input is systematically integrated into the development of learning objectives.

The School’s Feedback:

The school committed to formalizing structured mechanisms for curriculum review by establishing regular stakeholder forums, advisory board consultations, and documented feedback processes involving alumni, employers, practitioners, students, and international partners. We will also reinforce curriculum monitoring systems to ensure consistent alignment between syllabi, teaching delivery, and intended learning outcomes, supported by clear review cycles and follow-up actions. To enrich the practical and global dimensions of the curriculum, the School will expand practitioner involvement across courses, advance policies on credit transfer and joint learning modules, and intensify collaboration with overseas partner institutions. Furthermore, the School is prioritizing improvements in digital learning capacity—through upgraded hybrid classrooms, enhanced technical support, and faculty development in online pedagogy—to meet evolving educational demands. Graduate outcome tracking will also be integrated more systematically to verify the relevance and effectiveness of learning goals. These actions reflect our strong commitment to developing a dynamic, stakeholder-driven, and internationally benchmarked curriculum aligned with ABEST21 principles and the School’s long-term mission.

PRT Response:

The PRT acknowledges the School’s efforts to strengthen its curriculum framework; however, several improvement areas remain. Stakeholder involvement, monitoring mechanisms, and documentation processes are still insufficiently formalized. To ensure full alignment with ABEST21 expectations – particularly regarding curriculum relevance, delivery consistency, and global engagement – the School is advised to institutionalize more structured and evidence-based practices.
Key recommendations include:

• Formalize stakeholder engagement by institutionalizing regular, documented consultations

with alumni, employers, industry partners, and international collaborators to ensure curriculum responsiveness.

• Strengthen curriculum monitoring systems by ensuring systematic alignment between syllabi, classroom delivery, and learning outcomes, supported by clear review cycles and documented follow-up actions.
• Expand practical and global components through practitioner-led sessions, formalized credit transfer mechanisms, and joint online or hybrid modules with partner universities.
• Enhance digital learning readiness by upgrading hybrid-classroom infrastructure, providing dedicated technical support, and training faculty in online pedagogy.
• Integrate graduate outcome tracking – including tracer studies, employer feedback, and competency-based assessments – to validate the connection between learning goals and program outcomes.

Collectively, these measures will enable the School to build a more dynamic, stakeholder-driven, and internationally benchmarked curriculum, reinforcing continuous improvement and strengthening compatibility with ABEST21 standards.

Chapter 4: Students

• Standard 13: Admission Policy and Student Selection
• Standard 14: Student Encouragement and Support
• Standard 15: Student Body Diversity

The Peer Review Team (PRT) finds that the School has established fundamental systems for student admission, academic monitoring, and support services, meeting a basic level of functionality consistent with ABEST21 standards. Students benefit from administrative guidance and access to university-level facilities and resources. The diversity of professional backgrounds among students contributes positively to the learning environment and reflects the School’s inclusive approach to management education.
In Chapter 4, the School presents adequate information on admission policy and selection, student encouragement and support, and student body diversity. These components demonstrate the School’s awareness of the importance of equity, transparency, and student well-being. However, the PRT notes that several areas require further enhancement to achieve stronger alignment with international good practices. In particular, the implementation and monitoring of student support mechanisms, the fairness and transparency of the admission process, and the strategic promotion of student diversity and international participation should be improved.
Overall, the PRT concludes that the School’s policies and practices related to students are compatible with ABEST21 standards. Further institutionalization of systematic monitoring, targeted internationalization initiatives, and continuous evaluation will enable the School to cultivate a more supportive, inclusive, and globally engaged student experience.

• The PRT finds that student admission policies, support services, and academic monitoring are in place at a basic functional level. Students benefit from administrative assistance and access to university-level facilities. The diversity of professional backgrounds among students enriches the educational experience and reflects the School’s positive approach to inclusiveness.
• In Chapter 4, Students, the School has presented comprehensive information on key areas such as the Admission Policy and Student Selection, Student Encouragement and Support, and Student Body Diversity. Overall, the information provided is acceptable and generally meets the ABEST21 International standards. However, the School is encouraged to further enhance several aspects within these areas to strengthen alignment with international best practices. In particular, improvements could be made in the systematic implementation and monitoring of student support mechanisms, the transparency and fairness of the admission process, and the strategic initiatives to promote greater student diversity and inclusion. Continuous refinement in these areas will contribute to a more supportive, equitable, and globally oriented student environment.
• Compatible.

The School’s Feedback:

We recognize that while the current admission processes, support services, and academic monitoring mechanisms meet a basic level of functionality, further institutionalization and refinement are required to ensure fairness, transparency, inclusiveness, and responsiveness to student needs.
To improve the fairness and clarity of the admission process, the School is committed to strengthening procedural transparency by developing more explicit selection criteria, improving communication of admission requirements, and documenting the rationale for selection decisions. We will introduce periodic internal audits of admission practices to ensure consistency across cohorts and will expand outreach activities to attract a broader pool of applicants from diverse professional and demographic backgrounds.
Regarding student encouragement and support, the School acknowledges that monitoring mechanisms and documentation must be strengthened to achieve higher effectiveness. To address this, we will establish a more structured system for tracking student academic progress, supported by clear indicators for identifying students who may require academic or administrative intervention. The School will formalize regular advisory sessions, integrate early-warning systems for academic difficulties, and improve coordination between academic advisors, administrative officers, and university-level support units. These measures are aimed at improving student well-being, satisfaction, and timely completion.
In the area of student diversity and internationalization, the School recognizes the need for greater strategic focus. We will intensify efforts to promote international participation by developing targeted promotional strategies, expanding cooperation with overseas institutions for student exchange and joint learning activities, and strengthening support mechanisms for international students. Additionally, we will actively encourage domestic student diversity by engaging with professional associations, government institutions, and industry partners to reach potential applicants from varied sectors and regions.
To ensure continuous improvement, the School will enhance documentation practices across all aspects of student management. This includes systematic recording of admission decisions, student support interventions, feedback from student surveys, and follow-up actions. Evaluation results will be incorporated into regular PDCA cycles at the program and faculty levels to support evidence-based decision-making.
Overall, the School reaffirms its commitment to cultivating a supportive, inclusive, and globally oriented student environment. By institutionalizing these measures, the School aims to strengthen alignment with ABEST21 Standards and ensure that student-related policies and activities contribute effectively to the overall academic mission and international competitiveness of the Master of Management Program.

PRT Response:

The PRT acknowledges that the School has established basic systems for student admission, support, and academic monitoring, and that the diversity of students’ professional backgrounds enhances the learning environment. These elements collectively demonstrate foundational compatibility with ABEST21 standards.
However, several processes require further institutionalization. Admission practices would benefit from clearer, more transparent criteria and documented decision-making. Student support mechanisms – while available – need more systematic monitoring, documentation, and early-intervention procedures. Efforts to diversify the student body and strengthen international participation remain limited and should be pursued more strategically.
To advance alignment with ABEST21 expectations, the School is encouraged to:

• Formalize and document admission procedures, including clearer selection criteria, standardized interview instruments, and periodic internal audits.
• Strengthen student support systems through structured academic advising, early-warning mechanisms, and consistent documentation of interventions and outcomes.
• Enhance student diversity and internationalization by intensifying outreach, strengthening cooperation with overseas partners, and improving support for international students.
• Integrate student-related data – admission trends, support cases, feedback, and tracer study results – into the PDCA cycle to enable evidence-based improvement.

These enhancements will help the School cultivate a more transparent, supportive, and globally engaged student environment consistent with ABEST21’s continuous improvement principles.

Issues to be improved:

While the School’s student-related systems are functional, they require greater structure, consistency, and strategic focus to meet international benchmarks. The PRT recommends that the School take the following actions to strengthen its approach:

• Enhance student support mechanisms by formalizing academic mentoring, financial assistance, and career development services, supported by standardized orientation and clear communication of available resources.
• Improve admission processes by conducting regular reviews of eligibility criteria, entrance examinations, and interview protocols to ensure validity, fairness, and transparency. Establish inter-rater reliability training for interviewers to strengthen assessment consistency.
• Engage stakeholders in continuous evaluation of student support and reward systems, linking performance indicators with the program’s strategic goals.
• Expand internationalization initiatives through proactive promotion and partnerships with foreign embassies, agencies, and universities to attract self-financed international students and facilitate outbound mobility.
• Allocate dedicated resources for scholarships, exchange quotas, and English-proficient administrative support, while organizing structured integration programs for international students at the faculty level.

By implementing these measures, the School can provide a more inclusive and globally competitive learning environment, ensuring that student development and support systems are systematically aligned with ABEST21 expectations.

• The PRT encourages the School to structure its student support more explicitly, including academic mentoring, financial assistance, and career development services. International student recruitment and mobility initiatives could be further enhanced through targeted promotion and partnership strategies. Promotion could be carried out by engaging the help of foreign embassies or hiring an agent to source for international students and assist local students in securing international mobility or internship placements.
• 1. It is recommended that the School conduct a regular and systematic review of the eligibility criteria and entrance examination methods to ensure they remain valid, fair, and aligned with the program’s admission objectives.
  2. The School should engage all relevant stakeholders and adopt measurable performance indicators to maintain the alignment of academic support and reward systems with the program’s strategic goals and the changing expectations of its users.
  3. It is advised that the School strengthen its international promotion strategy to attract self-financed students and explore potential financial aid or sponsorship opportunities to support student participation in overseas study programs.

The School’s Feedback:

While the School has established functional systems for admission, academic support, and student development, we recognize the need for greater structure, consistency, and strategic orientation to meet emerging institutional demands and the expectations of a globally engaged academic environment.
To enhance student encouragement and support, the School is committed to formalizing academic mentoring, financial assistance, and career development services through clearer operational guidelines, standardized orientation modules, and improved communication channels. Beginning in the upcoming academic year, we will introduce structured mentoring programs, integrate early academic progress monitoring tools, and coordinate more closely with university-level career and psychological support units. These improvements will ensure that students receive timely academic guidance, equitable access to support resources, and well-planned career development pathways.
In strengthening the admission process, the School will implement a more systematic review of admission criteria, entrance test practices, and interview protocols to ensure fairness, validity, and transparency. The School will also formalize inter-rater reliability training for interviewers and introduce differentiated interview rubrics to assess both academic readiness and professional potential. These steps will promote greater consistency in decision-making and reinforce public trust in the integrity of the selection process.
The School recognizes the importance of engaging internal and external stakeholders in the continuous evaluation of student-related systems. To address this, we will institutionalize regular consultative forums with students, alumni, employers, and academic peers, supported by clear documentation of feedback and follow-up actions. The School will also adopt measurable performance indicators to align student support and reward systems with the program’s mission and strategic goals, ensuring transparency and accountability in the improvement process.
In advancing internationalization, the School will intensify efforts to recruit self-financed international students through partnerships with foreign embassies, agencies, and universities, while facilitating outbound student mobility for academic exchange and internships. Dedicated resources will be allocated for scholarships, international activity quotas, and English-proficient administrative support. Additionally, structured integration programs for international students—such as welcome sessions, peer buddies, and intercultural workshops—will be implemented to enhance adjustment and engagement at the faculty level.
The School is also committed to enriching student outcomes assessment by integrating graduate tracer studies, employer feedback, competency-based evaluations, and capstone project rubrics into a unified monitoring system. Findings from these assessments will be systematically analyzed to strengthen the alignment between learning goals, curriculum delivery, and graduate competencies.

PRT Response:

The PRT acknowledges the School’s commitment to strengthening its student-related policies and systems. While basic structures are in place, greater formalization, consistency, and strategic focus are required to meet ABEST21 expectations.
The School’s plans to formalize academic mentoring, enhance admission transparency, strengthen stakeholder engagement, and advance internationalization are appropriate and aligned with the identified gaps. The introduction of differentiated interview rubrics, inter-rater reliability training, structured integration programs for international students, and improved career and academic support represents meaningful progress.
To further enhance alignment with ABEST21 standards, the PRT encourages the School to:

• Operationalize student support enhancements through clear SOPs, standardized orientations, early – warning systems, and systematic documentation of interventions.
• Institutionalize periodic reviews of admission criteria and assessment tools, ensuring fairness, transparency, and alignment with program objectives.
• Embed stakeholder feedback mechanisms – including alumni, employers, and students – into regular evaluation cycles with documented outcomes.
• Strengthen internationalization efforts by allocating dedicated resources, expanding targeted promotion, and integrating mobility opportunities within program planning.
• Integrate graduate outcome evidence (e.g., tracer studies, employer feedback) into the PDCA cycle to validate the effectiveness of student support and curriculum alignment.

These improvements will support a more inclusive, transparent, and globally competitive student environment, and reinforce continuous quality enhancement consistent with ABEST21 principles.

Chapter 5: Faculty

• Standard 16: Faculty Structure
• Standard 17: Faculty Qualifications
• Standard 18: Maintenance of Education and Research Environment
• Standard 19: Faculty Development
• Standard 20: Faculty Diversity

The Peer Review Team (PRT) notes that the faculty members possess appropriate academic qualifications and demonstrate active engagement in teaching, research, and community service. The School provides opportunities for professional growth through training and development programs, and there is evidence of collaboration with practitioners and external partners that supports the practical orientation of the curriculum.
In Chapter 5, the School has presented relevant information regarding faculty composition, qualifications, development activities, performance evaluation, and administrative support. These elements collectively demonstrate compliance with ABEST21 standards. However, the PRT finds that faculty and staff development strategies require stronger alignment with the School’s mission and long-term strategic goals. Key areas for improvement include faculty recruitment and retention, professional development, performance appraisal systems, and succession planning. Establishing structured mechanisms for continuous monitoring and evaluation will further enhance academic excellence, research productivity, and institutional efficiency.
Overall, the PRT concludes that the faculty component is compatible with ABEST21 standards. The foundation for quality academic staffing is evident, but more systematic and forward-looking strategies are needed to ensure faculty sustainability, generational continuity, and alignment with international best practices.

• The PRT notes that the faculty possess appropriate academic qualifications and demonstrate engagement in teaching, research, and community activities. The School provides opportunities for faculty to participate in development programs, and there is evidence of collaboration with practitioners and external partners.
• In Chapter 5, Faculty, the School has provided relevant information regarding faculty composition, qualifications, development, and performance evaluation, as well as the administrative support structure. Overall, the School meets the minimum requirements of the ABEST21 International standards in this area. Nevertheless, further enhancement is necessary to ensure that faculty and staff development strategies are systematically aligned with the School’s mission and long-term goals. Particular attention should be given to strengthening faculty recruitment and retention policies, professional development programs, performance appraisal systems, and succession planning. Additionally, the School is encouraged to implement continuous monitoring and improvement mechanisms to foster academic excellence, promote research productivity, and enhance administrative efficiency in support of the School’s overall strategic objectives.
• Compatible.

The School’s Feedback:

The School is also encouraged by the acknowledgment of our existing development programs and collaborations with practitioners that support a practice-oriented learning environment.
At the same time, the School recognizes the need to advance beyond the current level of basic compliance by adopting more systematic, future-oriented, and mission-driven approaches to faculty recruitment, development, evaluation, and retention. Accordingly, the School is committed to improving its faculty recruitment and retention strategy by establishing clearer criteria for hiring, developing long-term staffing projections, and creating supporting policies that account for generational continuity and anticipated growth in academic programs. Special attention will be given to attracting faculty with international exposure, strong research capacity, and expertise aligned with the School’s strategic priorities.
To strengthen professional development, the School will enhance its current programs by formalizing annual competency assessments, establishing individualized development plans, and expanding training offerings in pedagogy, research capability, digital learning, case writing, and industry engagement. Partnerships with national and international institutions will be further leveraged to ensure that faculty are continuously exposed to emerging global trends and best practices.
For performance appraisal, the School will refine its evaluation system by implementing clearer performance indicators, integrating peer review components, and strengthening the link between evaluation outcomes and rewards, promotions, and workload adjustments. Improvements will be supported by enhanced documentation processes and systematic follow-up, ensuring transparency and fairness while reinforcing academic excellence and research productivity.
The School also recognizes the importance of succession planning to ensure long-term sustainability and institutional resilience. In line with this, we will develop structured leadership pipelines, mentoring mechanisms, and administrative capacity-building programs for faculty members with potential to assume key academic and managerial roles. This will help mitigate leadership gaps and ensure continuity in strategic initiatives.
Furthermore, the School will establish stronger monitoring and evaluation mechanisms by integrating faculty-related data into the internal quality assurance system, enabling systematic tracking of competencies, development needs, and performance outcomes. Findings from these evaluations will serve as inputs for decision-making, planning, and continuous improvement.

PRT Response:

The PRT acknowledges that the School has established a solid foundation in faculty qualifications, engagement, and professional development, demonstrating compatibility with ABEST21 standards. Faculty members possess appropriate academic credentials, actively contribute to teaching, research, and community service, and benefit from available development opportunities and practitioner collaboration.
At the same time, the PRT encourages the School to strengthen its long-term, mission-aligned faculty strategy. The School’s commitment to refining recruitment policies, expanding professional development, enhancing performance appraisal systems, and preparing structured succession plans is appropriate and responsive to observed gaps.
To further advance alignment with ABEST21 expectations, the PRT recommends that the School:

• Formalize faculty recruitment and retention policies, with clear criteria, long-term staffing projections, and targeted efforts to attract faculty with strong research capability and international exposure.
• Institutionalize professional development through competency assessments, individualized development plans, and expanded training in pedagogy, research, digital learning, and industry engagement.
• Strengthen performance evaluation systems, integrating clearer indicators, peer review elements, and transparent links between evaluation outcomes, rewards, and workload management.
• Develop structured succession planning mechanisms to ensure leadership continuity and institutional resilience.
• Enhance faculty monitoring through the internal QA system, ensuring systematic documentation and data-driven decision-making.

These actions will help the School progress from basic compliance toward a more strategic, future-oriented, and internationally benchmarked faculty management system.

Issues to be improved:

While the faculty demonstrates strong commitment to teaching and scholarly activities, the PRT identifies several areas for enhancement to ensure more structured and strategically aligned faculty management. The following measures are recommended:

• Implement transparent workload management to ensure equitable distribution of teaching responsibilities across faculty members and to prevent excessive workloads that may affect instructional quality.
• Strengthen faculty development programs to build both academic and professional qualifications (PQ), with specific focus on international exposure, research integration into teaching, and continuous pedagogical innovation.
• Introduce generational succession planning by recruiting younger faculty members to balance age distribution and ensure long-term sustainability.
• Expand international collaboration opportunities by inviting visiting professors and implementing joint teaching or research initiatives with foreign partners to enhance global exposure and diversity.
• Institutionalize course renewal processes requiring periodic updates that reflect recent faculty research outputs and contemporary management practices.

By adopting these initiatives, the School can advance toward a more dynamic, internationally engaged, and strategically sustainable faculty system that supports both academic excellence and institutional growth.

• Although faculty development activities exist, a more structured plan linking training to strategic needs such as international exposure and curriculum enhancement would be beneficial. Clearer documentation of faculty deployment, workload alignment, and the impact of faculty activities on student learning outcomes would help strengthen accountability and improvement initiatives.

The School’s Feedback:

The school agree that several areas require systematic enhancement to ensure long-term faculty sustainability and alignment with international good practices.
To strengthen workload management, the School is committed to developing transparent and equitable workload distribution policies. Beginning next academic year, the School will formalize a maximum teaching load framework, supported by regular monitoring and documentation to ensure fairness across departments. This will help minimize excessive burdens on individual faculty members while maintaining high instructional quality and promoting a healthy academic environment.
Regarding faculty development, the School acknowledges the need to better align training programs with strategic priorities. In response, we will expand and diversify professional development initiatives to enhance both Academic Qualifications (AQ) and Professional Qualifications (PQ). This includes increasing opportunities for international exposure, strengthening research-to-teaching integration, updating pedagogical skills, and providing structured pathways for faculty to improve their qualifications, including through postdoctoral programs, international seminars, and collaborative research activities.
To support long-term sustainability and succession planning, the School will take more proactive steps in recruiting younger faculty members to balance age distribution within the academic staff. This initiative will be supported by clear recruitment criteria, targeted outreach efforts, and integration of new faculty into structured mentoring and career development programs.
To enhance international engagement, the School will broaden collaboration with foreign universities, visiting professors, and international professionals. This includes joint teaching activities, collaborative research, co-supervision of theses, and guest lectures integrated into the curriculum. These initiatives aim to enrich the learning environment, strengthen international visibility, and expose students and faculty to diverse global perspectives.
The School also agrees with the recommendation to institutionalize course renewal processes. Beginning in the upcoming cycle, all faculty members will be required to update syllabi periodically to reflect recent research outputs, contemporary management practices, and emerging global trends. Curriculum review documentation will include explicit evaluation of research-teaching integration to strengthen academic rigor and relevance.
Additionally, the School will establish systematic monitoring and evaluation mechanisms to document workload distribution, development activities, performance outcomes, and the impact of faculty contributions on student learning. These mechanisms will be incorporated into the School’s internal quality assurance cycle to support evidence-based decision-making and continuous improvement.

PRT Response:

The PRT notes the School’s constructive recognition of the improvement areas and its commitment to strengthening faculty management. The initiatives outlined – particularly those concerning workload equity, enhancement of AQ and PQ, succession planning, international collaboration, and systematic course renewal – are appropriate and aligned with ABEST21 expectations.
To further support progress, the PRT encourages the School to:

• Formalize workload policies with clear ceilings, monitoring procedures, and transparent documentation to ensure fair distribution and protect teaching quality.
• Institutionalize faculty development planning, linking training programs to strategic priorities such as international exposure, pedagogical innovation, and research integration.
• Advance generational sustainability through targeted recruitment of younger faculty and structured mentoring mechanisms.
• Strengthen international engagement by systematizing visiting professor schemes and joint teaching or research activities with foreign partners.
• Embed course renewal requirements within the curriculum review cycle to ensure that teaching reflects current research and contemporary management practices.

By implementing these measures, the School can enhance faculty sustainability, global readiness, and strategic alignment – moving from baseline compliance toward a more robust, future-oriented faculty development framework consistent with international standards.