2.4 Review of Related Literature
2.4.11 Risk Management as an assessment and accreditation tool in the context of HEIs
and Insurance Society (RIMS) suggested that “new government regulation formally enforcing enterprise risk management [for higher education] can be expected” (p. 147). Lundquist (2013) also argues that rating agencies started to pay more attention to risk management and governance issues in higher education. From the researcher’s reading of the research done in the topic in the UAE, similar findings can be drawn. For example, Al-Jundi and Ahmad (2016, p. 69) defended the statement that “it is crucial to consider the risk that is an inherent part of market activity. Consequently, risk analysis and identification of remedies to minimize them are a couple of the pressing problems of today”.
However, in the UAE, few if any studies have been conducted to the effect of examining the implementation of more sophisticated models of ERM in higher education and how they could contribute to the quality of HEIs academic processes. Examples are El-Refae and Belarbi (2015) and Al-Jundi and Ahmad (2016). El-Refae and Belarbi (2015) managed to develop a working risk management model at Al-Ain University of Science and Technology (AAU). They relied on the CAA (2019a & 2019b) Standards in their adoption of this model. In doing so, they found that the CAA Standards can be utilised as suitable guidelines to control the governance of all academics and non-academic units of the Al Ain University (AAU). In a similar manner, Al-Jundi and Ahmad (2016) worked on a risk management model in the AAU, justifying their action by the statement that “so far none of the authors has taken up this in the perspective of UAE higher education institutions” (p. 68). Additionally, in the UAE, higher education ERM research has been limited to HEIs corporate governance and its relationship to the implementation of ERM as a systematic top-down corporate centered process. Examples are Mansour (2009), Al-Jundi (2012), Soomro and Ahmad (2012), El-Refae and Belarbi (2015), and Warner and Burton (2017), CAA (2019a and 2019b), and CAA (2020). All these studies have used small samples or relied on a case study research approach to understand risk management as an organizational practice and model within a limited institutional context. They did not focus on ERM as an effective and essential process which provides solutions, not only to the risks identified in HEIs, but also to the academic process at large. In this sense, in the view of this study, this adoption is by far very limited and lacking given the rich repository of other aspects which can be utilised through ERM adoption.
for an effective risk management framework is widely recognized by academic and corporate institutions to manage all types of risk encountered by an organization. However, managing risk practices in academic institutions appear to be significantly less developed as compared to that of the business world.
In Malaysia higher education scenario for example, Bin Md. et al. (2014) argue that some public universities are awarded autonomous status, and therefore, a framework for effective management of risk is needed. According to them, review of literature related to risk management indicated that the ERM framework is an ideal practice and can be applied in different higher education settings. However, the risk management framework of ERM needs to be costumed to suit the unique mission, risk context and risk profile of higher education.
It is almost impossible and impracticable to find everyone agreeing on implementing the same risk management practices. Praisner (2009) suggested different models of risk management would be possible to implement in a certain context depending on the nature of an organisation’s activities and the sought outcomes. In this sense, adverse outcomes are possible to happen if wrong risk management procedures or policies are implemented and there will be a need for better or corrective solutions. For example, the European Central Bank (2018) concluded that: “One key lesson from the financial crisis was the need for more information on risk in order to make sound business decisions…”
Tufano (2011) made it clear for university leaders to understand their process through risk management implementation. According to him, this process begins with some essential questions related to the university’s mission, its strategy, and the risks that might hinder the university’s success. In this sense, risk management should be clear in terms of structure, process and implementation. Similar to any other business, universities should follow the steps suggested by Sum and Saad (2017, p.140) for the implementation of a successful ERM model: analyse the business, identify risk, assess the risk, do risk response planning, and finally monitor risk.
Several advanced countries in the world adopted risk management in their higher education system as a proven and successful tool for accreditation and assessment of the academic performance of their HEIs.
Examples were well presented in the works of Hillson (2019) and Lundquist (2013 and 2015). According to Lundquist (2013, p. 145), accreditation in the United States is achieved in higher education institutions through the provision of evidence showing decision making and integrated planning. Related to accreditation is the important requirement for funding in countries such as England, Australia and elsewhere, where governments of such countries have found in integrated risk management a valid and proven framework in order to receive solid and good credit rating.
In the context of UAE higher education, HEIs rating agencies, such as the UAE CAA, are always requiring from HEIs evidence of the existence of encompassing and integrated risk management plans to guarantee a productive credit rating. This requires the respective HEI to demonstrate that its board of trustees or senior management board is well acquainted with and engaged in risk management as a part of its decision-making process. A good example of the application of a similar accreditation program in the evaluation and assessment processes is that of the United Arab Emirates University (UAEU). The UAEU, in their 2018 Academic Personnel Policies Manual, managed to provide for a comprehensive and systematic approach of assessing and evaluating both faculty and administrators’ efficiency and performance relying heavily on a model of risk evaluation. This manual, along with the UAE CAA Standards and some other risk management policies from different UAE HEIs, will be the subject of document analysis in the qualitative data collection and analysis section of this study. In the view of UAEU stakeholders, this model would aim at supporting the strategic plans of the university. This Policy Manual defines the Faculty Performance Review as a process based on risk evidence as well as peer- review, aiming at the achievement of professional maturity of both faculty and administrators. Reviewing the performance, scholarship, conduct and administrative service of both faculty members and administrators are among the major objectives best achieved by risk management-based models of assessment and evaluation. Other major and prominent examples of the application and implementation of ERM in the UAE higher education context are numerous, and they include without limitation the Higher Colleges of Technology (HCT), The UAE University, the British University in Dubai (BUiD), Khalifa University, the American University in Sharjah, Al Ain University… etc.
The UK higher education experience in the field of risk-based academic institutional accreditation and quality assurance is worth mentioning here. In the UK, since 1990 quality assurance in the academic context has become an established component of higher education management. It was the UK government’s White Paper (BIS 2011), ‘Students at the heart of the system’, which marked the introduction of a new approach to academic quality assurance in England based on the principles of risk.
The UK Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA) introduced a revised version of the risk- based approach in 2013–14 for England’s current cycle of institutional reviews, with such reviews being conducted based on a specification defined by the HEFCE, called ‘Higher Education Review’. This method has relied mainly on the reflection of expectations of proportionality and risk (Black et al. 2015, pp. 20-21). The same resource also accounts for Australia’s experience with the establishment of risk- based regulations to help push marketisation and competition forward: “Australia’s change in funding
regime and its subsequent battles over risk-based regulation, institutional profiles and standards provides for further evidence of the dual dynamic of growing marketisation and competition that is coupled with growing hierarchical oversight and reduced discretionary professional judgement” (p. 7). In Malaysia higher education for example, Bin Md. et al. (2014) argue that some public universities are granted autonomy, and therefore, a framework for effective management and evaluation based on risk is needed.
The studies of Ariff et al. (2014), Ahmad et al. (2016) and Sum and Saad (2017) provide a greatly useful account for ERM implementation status in the Malaysian context and set it up in comparison to the international context.
To put the subject or risk management and its relation to academic performance and quality in general in the context of UAE, reference must be made to the UAE Commission for Academic Accreditation of the Ministry of Education (CAA 2019 a & b; CAA 2020). CAA has long been attempting to take initiatives and enforce regulations on academic institutions that would ensure quality assurance and proven performance that qualify them to be accredited and competent HEIs. The UAE educational authorities launched the UAE National Higher Education Strategy 2030 (the National Strategy) to further support the 2021 National Agenda, aiming at building “a more diverse economy that relies less on oil” (CAA 2019a, p. 8). Since higher education in the UAE continues to rise as a major sector leading the community, the quality of education provided to students within this knowledge-based economy, to borrow CAA’s Standards 2019 terms, there comes the need for a more solid, broader, yet more flexible higher education system. In this sense, in order for HEIs to play a strategic role in the country’s innovation system, CAA (2019a) states that HEIs need to be active in the delivery of research and scholarship as well as high-quality programs that are “relevant to employers in a changing global marketplace” (p. 3).
The UAE government has taken the issue of quality assurance in higher education into careful consideration through the adoption of many initiatives in the way to achieve best quality knowledge for the UAE generations as a promising everlasting source of power. It is understood that all UAE HEIs, whether governmental, public or private, exert best efforts to maintain a future based on a quality knowledge (Warner and Burton 2017). As stated on the CAA website, it is therefore of an utmost significance that academic institutions in the UAE “offer the highest quality programs, programs that are recognized both within the country and internationally for their excellence”. However, throughout the study it will be repetitively highlighted how lacking ERM adoption and implementation is in UAE higher education context. The conclusion the study may have is that UAE higher education institutions are in
dire need of an organisational umbrella similar to, for example, the American National Association of State Boards of Accountancy (NASBA) as a sponsor that ensures continuity of professional higher education and management quality (Lundquist 2015).
The CAA made it clear that the “risk management plan, delegation of responsibilities, and insurance coverage for identified risks, are approved by the governing body on at least a biennial basis” (CAA, 2011). However, there has not been enough research evidence that similar formal risk management implementation processes are followed by UAE HEIs. What is confirmed so far is that the majority of universities in the UAE have implemented some form of quality assurance measures in a formal way to guarantee their objectives are met. Al Jundi and Ahmad (2016) give the example of Al Ain University (AAU) where “there is a quality assurance committee in each college of the AAU, which plays a key role in identification, analysis, prioritizing and remedying such risks and ensures that the program goals are met” (p. 75). According to the authors, clear and defined measures mark the implementation of assessment processes of this committee. These measures, according to Al Jundi and Ahmad (2016), would include steps such as clearly defining program goals, conceiving outcomes related to program learning, developing and sustaining assessment tools, defining a target to achieve each assessment measure, implementing the already conceived assessment tools, analyzing data, and getting results.