EduAsiaNews, Jakarta – The vice rector for academic affairs at Veteran National Development University of Jakarta (UPNVJ), Henry Binsar Hamonangan Sitorus, has underscored the importance of resolving audit findings through root cause analysis and measurable follow-up action plans (RTL).
He made the remarks at the university’s 2026 Management Review Meeting (RTM), held at the Bhinneka Tunggal Ika Auditorium on the fourth floor of the Rectorate Building in South Jakarta on Friday.
The forum, attended by 82 participants from university and faculty leadership, institutes, bureaus and work units, forms part of efforts to strengthen the university’s internal quality assurance system (SPMI). It is intended to ensure that evaluation results are followed up with clear decisions, designated officials, deadlines and success indicators.
Henry explained that the RTM is a key part of the control stage in the quality assurance cycle of Establishment, Implementation, Evaluation, Control and Improvement (PPEPP). Through the mechanism, university leaders review evaluation results to determine corrective measures based on evidence, rather than merely producing administrative reports.
According to the presentation, inputs for the meeting may come from various sources, including examinations by the Inspectorate General and the Supreme Audit Agency (BPK), ISO certification, national and international accreditation, internal quality audits (AMI), and monitoring and evaluation. All findings must be analyzed to identify underlying causes before solutions are determined.
Henry outlined three main objectives of the RTM: to review the implementation of previous decisions, to discuss priority findings that reveal gaps against standards, and to issue leadership decisions that can be implemented and verified.
Discussions focus primarily on issues with significant impact, those that recur, or those requiring coordination across work units. The forum is therefore expected to concentrate on matters that most affect the quality of higher education delivery.
One key concern is the accurate identification of root causes. Henry said the process begins by defining the gap between targets and actual conditions, tracing causes using the “5 Whys” method or cause-and-effect diagrams, and testing suspected causes against documents, data and statements from implementers.
This approach is necessary so that corrective actions address the causes of problems rather than merely their symptoms. Where available evidence is insufficient, the relevant units must appoint a person in charge and set a deadline for further examination.
Henry further explained the process of preparing the RTL, which begins with identifying findings, followed by root cause analysis, validation by verifiers, and the drafting of programs and budget requirements. Each work unit is responsible for submitting improvement plans that correspond to evaluation results and are supported by verifiable evidence.
Under the mechanism, verifiers must ensure that root causes are linked to the findings and that proposed actions can address those causes. If they are not, the work unit is required to revise its RTL before proceeding to program development.
Once an action plan is deemed appropriate, the unit can detail activities, resource requirements, budgets where necessary and the officials responsible for implementation. Verified programs are then grouped by priority level for consideration by university leaders.
Henry described three priority categories: high priority for issues with major impact or requiring urgent attention; moderate priority for issues with significant impact that can be scheduled; and low priority for issues with limited impact that can be addressed after other priorities.
The classification serves as the basis for determining the order of corrective programs, taking into account urgency, impact, resource readiness and the need for institutional coordination.
Henry also highlighted effectiveness verification as the final stage in resolving findings. Completing activities administratively, he said, cannot be the sole measure of success unless there is evidence that the actions have produced improvements.
Effectiveness is assessed by comparing conditions after implementation with the initial situation, including whether gaps against standards have narrowed, repeated findings have declined or quality indicators have improved.
If actions prove ineffective, work units must revisit the root causes and adjust their improvement plans. If effectiveness is demonstrated, the gains can be maintained and used to justify raising quality standards in the following period.
The division of responsibilities is also an important part of quality control. The acting rector provides direction and makes cross-unit decisions within his or her authority, while vice rectors coordinate follow-up actions in their respective areas. Deans, heads of institutes, heads of bureaus and work units are responsible for ensuring that improvement programs are carried out in line with their duties and functions.
The Institute for Quality Assurance and Learning Development (LPMPP) is tasked with compiling evaluation results, coordinating the monitoring of RTLs and overseeing effectiveness verification as part of the sustainability of the university’s quality assurance system.
In her opening remarks, UPNVJ acting rector Nur Syarifah stressed that quality assurance is the responsibility of all leaders and work units. She cautioned that the RTM results should not stop at administrative recommendations but must be translated into realistic, measurable action plans whose implementation can be monitored.
“A culture of quality must grow and become part of our daily work patterns. Every unit must be aware of the need to ensure that every process runs according to standards, is measurable, documented and results-oriented,” Nur Syarifah said.
Through the 2026 RTM, UPNVJ seeks to strengthen the links between evaluation, decision-making, program implementation and the measurement of follow-up effectiveness. The evidence-based approach is expected to support better learning quality, stronger accreditation and more effective university governance.
In line with the acting rector’s directives, the outcomes of the forum are expected to serve as the foundation for UPNVJ’s priority policies and programs aimed at continuous improvement, while strengthening transparent, accountable governance that is responsive to the needs of stakeholders.
