Theme: Accreditation and Certification

A model for industry engagement in the accreditation process

Best practices Use of the EDCI Issuer to issue micro-credentials Users: Policymakers, Industry, SMEs | Theme: Accreditation and certification | Action: Policy/guideline | Beneficiaries: Training Providers (Private), Training Providers (Public), Policymakers, Industry, SMEs | Countries: Ireland. Skillnet Ireland Skillnet Ireland Donal Grimes The EU Commision report titled Pact for Skills: Analysing of Upskilling and Reskilling Policy Initiatives and Identifying Best Practices” ranked the model deployed by Skillnet Ireland in Ireland, first out of 47 in benchmarking, based on overall average key performance metrics, as well as topping the analysis for impact on businesses and impact/contribution to the economy including to the digital and climate agenda. Central to the Skillnet Ireland model are the Skillnet Business Networks: clusters of private sector businesses that collaborate based on a sector, or multiple sectors within a region, to provide upskilling and reskilling programmes to companies. With 70 Skillnet Business Networks nationwide, companies can find a network based on a particular sector, or within a region. The business networks identify the skills needs impacting their region/sector and establish the requirements for the respective industry in relation to accreditation. The challenge? In the Irish context, the challenges nationally include: Fragmentation across sectors: Different industries and sectors often follow different accreditation frameworks (e.g., QQI in education, NSAI in standards, CORU in healthcare). Populating the talent pipeline and addressing skills shortages: There can be a disconnect between what training/education providers offer and what industry actually requires in accredited qualifications. SME Engagement and awareness: Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) often lack awareness, resources, or understanding of accreditation processes. Funding and support structures: Accreditation processes can be costly and resource-intensive. Lack of real time labour market intelligence: Difficulty in gathering timely and localised data on evolving industry needs. Our solution The Skillnet Ireland Business Network Model is built on a national framework of business networks. These networks act as intermediaries between enterprises and training providers, fostering collaboration and ensuring that training programmes are demand-driven and aligned with both sectoral and national priorities. Rather than relying solely on traditional education systems, the model empowers businesses—particularly SMEs—to identify critical skills gaps and co-develop training solutions that often lead to recognised accreditation. Business networks facilitate engagement across diverse sectors, reduce administrative burden, and support access to micro-credentials, recognition of prior learning (RPL), and formal qualifications. They also enable real-time intelligence gathering by maintaining close contact with employers, allowing for agile and targeted responses to emerging trends. This collaborative and flexible structure helps address a range of systemic challenges: it supports alignment across fragmented accreditation systems, ensures training is relevant and recognised, simplifies SME participation, and makes accreditation more accessible and cost-effective through shared resources and financial supports. Outcomes 1. Increased Alignment Between Industry and Accreditation Bridged the gap between industry needs and education offerings, resulting in more job-ready graduates and upskilled employees.  Enabled the mainstreaming of micro-credentials and flexible learning pathways—recognised increasingly in formal systems. 2. Enhanced SME Participation in Accreditation and Upskilling Over 80% of Skillnet Ireland’s participating companies are SMEs, many of whom could struggle to access accredited training, without the Skillnet Ireland support systems and funding 3. Improved Responsiveness to Skills Shortages Real-time employer feedback through Skillnet Business Networks and rollout of new training (e.g., in AI, sustainability, cyber, medtech). Enabled the rapid scaling of talent pipelines in high-demand sectors (ICT, pharma, construction, green economy). Supported sectoral transformation by enabling existing workforces to transition into new, accredited roles (e.g. Offshore Wind Academy). 4. Reduced Regulatory and Administrative Burden Networks can act as a ‘navigator’ for regulatory complexity, streamlining access to compliance-related training and accreditation. 5. Increased Labour Market Intelligence and Policy Influence Networks support the production of sector-specific Talent and Skills Reports, influencing national policy and education programme development. Anticipated emerging skill gaps (e.g., cybersecurity, data governance, AI ethics), enabling pre-emptive programme development. Key takeaways Build governance structures that put employers in the lead of programme design. Avoid ‘top-down’ training mandates – instead, co-design solutions with end users (businesses) Create collaborative, peer-based training networks around shared industry needs or regional challenges. Use intermediaries (Chambers Ireland, industry groups) to build bridges between businesses and training/accreditation providers. Embed accreditation partners early in programme development. Use modular, stackable credentials that can build toward formal qualifications over time. Build agile programme structures that can pivot quickly. Establish ongoing labour market sensing mechanisms through direct employer feedback. Design services and communications specifically for SMEs, with practical guidance, shared services, and peer learning. Use localised/regional outreach and relationships to engage hard-to-reach businesses. Leverage real-time data from industry networks to inform policy and programme direction. Consider training networks as a two-way channel: delivering skills on the ground and gathering intelligence for policymakers. Learn more here

Use of the EDCI Issuer to issue micro-credentials

Best practices Use of the EDCI Issuer to issue micro-credentials Users: Training Providers (Private), Training Providers (Public) | Theme: Accreditation and certification | Action: Fremework/methodology | Beneficiaries: Training Providers (Private), Training Providers (Public), Learners (STEM background), Learners (Non-STEM background). DIS4SME DIS4SME Lisa Bilotti  Giacomo Martirano Across Europe, there is a rapidly growing demand for digital skills and for mechanisms that formally recognise competences achieved through both formal and non‑formal education. Within this context, the DIS4SME (Data Interoperability Skills for SMEs) project contributes to the upskilling and reskilling of small and medium‑sized enterprises through targeted training on location data interoperability.As a consortium member, Epsilon Italia aimed to ensure that the learning outcomes achieved by participants in its courses were recognisable, verifiable, and aligned with EU policy frameworks for micro‑credentials. The challenge? The main challenge was to identify a cost‑effective and reliable system for issuing digital micro‑credentials compliant with the EU Recommendation on Micro‑Credentials.Most commercially available badge platforms were found to be limited in one or more of the following ways:Non‑compliance with the EU micro‑credentials frameworkRequirement for expensive licences or annual feesDependence on restrictive national accreditation or proprietary systemsThese limitations hindered training providers from adopting micro‑credentials effectively and consistently across European contexts. Our solution Secure, authentic, EU‑compliant credentials: the Digital badges issued via the EDCI Issuer are fully aligned with the EU micro‑credentials framework and guaranteed by a qualified e‑seal.Interoperability and transparency: Credentials can be embedded directly in the Europass CV, enhancing recognition of skills across Europe.Cost‑effectiveness: Epsilon Italia achieved credential issuance without paying licence fees or using proprietary systems.Scalability: The organisation plans to issue at least 100 digital credentials during the first year of implementation. Outcomes The membership to the EFMD Global Network, and the eligibility to EQUIS accreditation were the first steps achieved in the process of EQUIS accreditation. The achievement of these milestones resulted in a set of outcomes: 15% increase in recruitment of international students; 1 new international exchange program with an EQUIS internationally accredited HEI; International recognition in accreditation of educational offer in advanced digital skills, with one new co-funded project with other EQUIS accredited HEIs; Improvement in national and international ranking for master programs Integration of EQUIS methodology with European approach to micro-credentials to further increase the quality level of educational offer. Key takeaways Integrate a qualified e‑seal, as required by the EDCI Issuer, to ensure legal authenticity and integrity. Update internal processes early to guarantee smooth technical integration with the EU’s credential infrastructure. Invest in staff training for managing digital credentialing workflows and maintaining compliance with EU standards. Avoid dependence on commercial badge platforms by adopting open EU‑provided tools that foster transparency and trust. Embed credentials within the Europass CV to enhance learners’ employability and cross‑sector recognition. Build long‑term collaboration with technical partners to sustain e‑seal management and alignment with evolving EU frameworks. Learn more here

A comprehensive accreditation system of educational offering: International accreditation of awarding HEI

Best practices A comprehensive accreditation system of educational offering: International accreditation of awarding HEI Users: Training Providers (Private), Training Providers (Public) | Theme: Accreditation and certification | Action: Fremework/methodology | Beneficiaries: Training Providers (Private), Training Providers (Public). xAIM xAIM Maria Chiara Demartini In 2020 the xAIM consortium aimed at designing a high-quality master program in explainable AI applied to healthcare management. Although each beneficiary was supposed to contribute in term of the design and the teaching staff, the vocational master program had to be delivered by one HEI only. To ensure high-level standards of quality delivered at each phase of the design, organization, roll-out and monitoring of master program, the consortium looked for internationally recognised systems for accreditation to show outstanding excellence in quality assurance.Moreover, one of the sustainability strategies formulated by the consortium entailed the delivery of single modules of the xAIM master programs, beyond the entire master program. The challenge? The xAIM consortium faced multiple challenges: As an international consortium, xAIM didn’t want to rely on one single national regulation for the accreditation of the master program, in order to promote an internationally recognised high-quality master program. Since only one HEI was expected to award the master diploma, other national regulations were not necessarily fit for purpose. A broader and more international quality assurance framework was expected to be adopted for the xAIM master program. The sustainability strategy included opportunities to deliver single modules, beyond the whole master programs. Hence, a comprehensive accreditation system was needed, including both bachelor’s, master’s programs, and short courses. Our solution An internationally recognised accreditation system was selected to quality assure the entire educational offer of the awarding institution. It is worth noting that there are alternative international accreditation systems for business schools. However, the consortium decided to apply for the EFMD quality improvement system (EQUIS), managed by EFMD Global, since it has a European focus. The following explains how each of the identified challenges are addressed: High-quality standards in master’s programs accreditation Challenge: One single national regulation for the accreditation of the master program could be partial and lack some international requirements in terms of accreditation of master programsHow the EQUIS accreditation process facilitates solutions:EQUIS is a comprehensive principle-based system to improve the quality of awarding institutions;• It has strongly agreed upon principles, though flexible implementation, based on national context and local needs;• EQUIS provides learning communities, which are focused on specific principles (e.g., internationalisation) or thematic areas (e.g., the role of AI in educational offer). Difficulty in selecting another (set of) national regulatory frameworkChallenge: Since only one HEI was expected to award the master diploma, other national regulations were not necessarily fit for purpose How the EQUIS accreditation process facilitates solutions:• EQUIS is an internationally recognized standard, acknowledging national context, but promoting a standardised international process for accreditation of HEIs• EQUIS was initially developed in and for European universities, without a specific national framework in mind Need for a supranational accreditation system Challenge: Need for an international quality assurance framework to overcome the limits of national regulationsHow the EQUIS accreditation process facilitates solutions:• It is an internationally recognized standard, based on a benchmarking approach• Although it was initially intended to improve the quality of the educational offer of European universities, EFMD has now extended its scope both geographically, with a global outreach of EQUIS accredited institutions, and institutionally, covering the accreditation of non-university training institutions too; • EQUIS has a strong experience in the field of accreditation of business schools, although its principles and processes are adapting to the ever-changing international educational landscape. Comprehensive accreditation system Challenge: Need to assure short courses and longer programsHow the EQUIS accreditation process facilitates solutions:• EQUIS is an institutional accreditation system covering bachelor’s, master’s, PhD’s, executive programs, and other educational offer;• Being a comprehensive quality improvement system, EQUIS provides support to accredited HEIs in enhancing the quality of the entire educational offer, from multiple and interlinked perspectives;• EQUIS provides HEIs with a global quality recognition of their educational offer. Outcomes The membership to the EFMD Global Network, and the eligibility to EQUIS accreditation were the first steps achieved in the process of EQUIS accreditation. The achievement of these milestones resulted in a set of outcomes: 15% increase in recruitment of international students; 1 new international exchange program with an EQUIS internationally accredited HEI; International recognition in accreditation of educational offer in advanced digital skills, with one new co-funded project with other EQUIS accredited HEIs; Improvement in national and international ranking for master programs Integration of EQUIS methodology with European approach to micro-credentials to further increase the quality level of educational offer. Key takeaways Institutional accreditation (e.g., EQUIS) is key when HEIs and training institutions are looking for a comprehensive accreditation system for their educational offer. Being principle-based, the EQUIS accreditation process is a replicable, yet flexible, strategic benchmarking tool to enhance the quality of the HEI’s educational offer.  Institutional accreditation systemWhat worked: The accreditation system is not targeting a single program, or a short course, but the whole HEI or business school awarding the diplomas or certifications.This approach ensures accreditation is coherent throughout the HEI’s educational offerReplicable Lesson:Adopting comprehensive accreditation systems can lower the time to seek for accreditation of one additional program or courseThe whole institution is involved in the quality assurance process, leading to change in the mindset Standardised and widely adopted accreditation systemWhat worked: EQUIS is an internationally recognised and globally adopted accreditation system.In order to get immediate international recognition of the high-quality of its educational offer, the HEI can look for a widely adopted international standard.Replicable Lesson:An initial scope of the accreditation systems available in the market can help selecting the one best fitting the training institution’s needs.Benchmarking of leading HEIs can support the choice of an institutional accreditation system and its implementation Lessons learnt on the institutional accreditation system can be shared among partner HEIsWhat worked: More experienced HEIs in institutional accreditation systems can mentor other partner HEIs, in the same consortium, in their journey towards institutional accreditation.Replicable Lesson:Sharing achieved outcomes

Inter-institutional cooperation for accrediting EU joint programmes at national level – the case of ManagiDiTH Master

Best practices Inter-institutional cooperation for accrediting EU joint programmes at national level – the case of ManagiDiTH Master Users: Training Providers (Private), Training Providers (Public) | Theme: Accreditation and certification | Action: Education programmes/courses| Beneficiaries: Training Providers (Private), Training Providers (Public), Policymakers (Member State). ManagiDiTH ManagiDiTH Maria do Carmo Gomes The Managing Digital Transformation in the Health Sector (ManagiDiTH) is a four-year project, launched in January 2023 and funded by the European Union through the Digital Europe Programme – Digital Advanced Skills, with the aim of creating a new master’s degree curriculum that equips healthcare professionals with the competencies needed to develop digital services in the health sector. To achieve this objective, seven consortium partners from three European countries are involved in the project, including: ISCTE – University Institute of Lisbon (Portugal), Laurea University of Applied Sciences (Finland), Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (Greece), Instituto de Telecomunicações (Portugal), Whymob, Lda. (Portugal), Clinipower Finland Ltd (Finland), Mundiserviços – Companhia Portuguesa de Serviços e Gestão, Lda (Portugal).The programme’s objectives include the development of training references for level 7 of the European Qualifications Framework in the digital health sector, the creation of a multidisciplinary learning ecosystem, and the introduction of a pedagogical model that prioritises problem-oriented learning strategies supported by digital tools.The innovative pedagogical and technical skills of the consortium partners will be leveraged to create an integrated Master programme that builds on projects that have already been implemented within the consortium. Furthermore, there are several associated partners in the project, including Health Cluster Portugal, Thessaloniki’s Association of Women with Breast Cancer “Alma Zois”, Finnish Diabetes Association, European Network of Living Labs Ivzw, The Union For Senior Services – Valli, Portuguese Red Cross, Adhd Hellas, and Hovi Group Oy.Overall, the ManagiDiTH curriculum is a ground-breaking initiative that aims to transform healthcare systems and services across Europe, making them more efficient and effective. By equipping healthcare professionals with specialized digital skills, the programme will ensure that graduates are well-prepared to succeed in the rapidly evolving digital healthcare sector. The challenge? Different national accreditation frameworks (procedures, forms and calendar) were found, which required a reinforced inter-institutional cooperation among the 3 Higher Education Institutions in order to get the Master programme accredited in Finland, Greece and Portugal. Our solution Having a sequential submission of the accreditation processes throughout the first 1.5 years of the project. First, the accreditation of the Master was awarded in Finland, as Laurea University of Applied Sciences does not require a submission to a national accreditation authority; secondly, Portugal beneffited from the previous accreditation of Laurea, to submit the full process of accreditation to the national authority (A3ES); and finally, AUTH has benefitted from the previous two accreditation processes as well as all the documentation and information collected and organised previously.This has required the open and transparent sharing of all information among HEI partners, and the storage of the three set of common files that were used at the best convenience of each partner, in order to complete the necessary information for each of the national processes.This approach enabled the Master Program to start even without the accreditation process being completed in Greece, and at the same time, it was important for the Greek partner to have already the Master running for showcasing in concrete how the Programme was delivered, considering also its innovative nature of fully joint design, delivery, and online learning. Outcomes The EU joint Master Programme ManagiDiTH was accredited in three EU countries (at Month 13 in Finland, Month 17 in Portugal, and Month 23 in Greece) even though the first cohort has started in Month 20 (September 2024). No delays were registered and 187 students started their studies in the first edition. Key takeaways Having an open and transparent communication among partners of the consortium since Day 1 of the Project about the accreditation requirements and challenges (top priority on the implementation of the project) Sharing all the documents and information regarding the national accreditation requirements (forms, calendar, bodies and services to be involved in each HEI) Planning the national accreditation processes in a sequential manner and benefit from previous accreditation in one or two (or more) EU countries Permanent contact with National Authorities, in particular, for explaining the specificities of these innovative models for EU joint programmes funded by EU – DEP (not an Erasmus Mundus Joint Programme) Mutual support of each partner to the national accreditation processes (i.e. Laurea’s official documentation was a key element to assure that the accreditation was granted in Portugal; AUTH beneffited from the Official Decision of the Portuguese Accreditation Authotiry (A3ES)). Learn more here

Evaluating micro-credential-readiness level of the provided courses

Best practices Evaluating micro-credential-readiness level of the provided courses Users: Training Providers (Private), Training Providers (Public) | Theme: Accreditation and certification | Action: Framework/methodology | Beneficiaries: Training Providers (Private), Training Providers (Public). BioNT BioNT Tanja Ninkovic In 2022, the Council of Europe recommended the adoption of micro-credentials as a way of certifying small, high-quality learning units. Designing a course that qualifies for a micro-credential requires rigorous quality assurance, systematic record keeping, and clear assessment of learners’ knowledge. These features make micro-credential-bearing courses especially valuable for first-time job seekers and professionals seeking a career change.BioNT is a Digital Europe funded project which develops and delivers online training for job seekers and SME members, in order to equip them with new skills required for their career progression. For this, certificates of the taken courses, which have strong quality control mechanisms, are more beneficial than of the courses without such structured quality control. Micro-credentials regulations by the Council of Europe in 2022 provide a clear and streamlined list of requirements that when followed ensure quality of the courses and of the certificate. The impact of this regulation is twofold: It strengthens the interconnectedness of educational systems and supports greater learner mobility. It establishes micro-credentials as a trusted quality-control tool that, when widely applied, ensures lifelong learning courses are consistent in their content, preparation, promotion, and documentation. This, in turn, increases trust in the certificates issued and supports more reliable hiring processes.  BioNT courses were not initially planned with the micro-credentials in mind (as the project was written before the Recommendations for the European approach to micro-credentials was published), but the consortium worked extensively to ensure good quality of the courses. During the project lifetime, the micro-credentials approach for the existing training framework and already developed courses was assessed. Here, the BioNT project describes the assessment of the planned and delivered courses and their fulfilment of micro-credential requirements, and identifies what would need to be changed in order to formally issue them. The challenge? For many training providers who wish to implement micro-credentials for their existing courses, including BioNT, the main challenge lies in determining how well existing courses align with the formal requirements for issuing micro-credentials. While the courses may already follow strong quality standards, it is often unclear which aspects fully meet the criteria and which fall short. Therefore, a practical tool to support training developers and providers in the evaluation of the level of course readiness was needed. This tool would help to identify eventual gaps in compliance, and to understand precisely which elements of the course design, delivery, and documentation would need to be adapted. The Recommendation by the Council is a legal document which does list requirements, but does not provide guidelines on their practical meaning and is therefore difficult to implement for many training developers who are not dealing with policy or legal documents on a regular basis. Organisation providing lifelong learning directed courses as a main or side activity invest substantial effort in designing and delivering training, training materials, information, and documentation. To prove the training quality, these organisation could highly benefit from applying the micro-credentials framework and for this, they need to understand how much their offers already align with the requirements, and identify the gaps and aspects they need to improve. Our solution To solve these challenges, BIoNT created a practical evaluation form which lists mandatory and recommended elements of the micro-credential requirements, and guides the form users to evaluate their course against these elements. Specifically, the form prompts to: Check whether the courses meet all mandatory elements required for issuing a micro-credential. Identify gaps that prevent compliance. Collect structured information on course design, delivery, and quality assurance procedures. Plan the structure, dissemination, documentation and delivery of courses in alignment with the micro-credentials requirements for lifelong learning courses. The form is implemented as an Excel sheet containing a checklist of required tasks based on the Council of Europe recommendations. Each question is supported by definitions, examples, and fields where training developers and providers can add concrete information alongside checking compliance.The form is freely available for download here: https://biont-training.eu/training.html. Outcomes The BioNT consortium used the form the form to assess all the training offers. This provided a highly valuable comparative overview of the structural differences between courses and highlighted which quality elements needed strengthening to meet the micro-credential standards.Even if a course organiser chooses not to pursue full micro-credential certification—for example, in the BioNT case, where some courses cannot include learner identification or formal assessment for confidentiality reasons—the form still adds value. It helps clarify which elements prevent compliance and whether adjustments are possible or even desirable.The form has already gained recognition: it was selected through a competitive process for presentation at the European core facilities meeting organised by the CTLS association, where it attracted strong interest from peers. Key takeaways Anyone interested in evaluating their own courses can download the form from the BioNT website (https://biont-training.eu/training.html). Completing it requires approximately 15 minutes per training offer.We recommend answering all questions: Multiple-choice options are based directly on the Council of Europe’s micro-credential recommendations. When a mandatory element is missing, the corresponding field automatically turns red. Text boxes allow organisers to document additional information; when this field is mandatory, it is written in the column on the right. At the end of the form, users will also find supporting resources, including:o A learning objectives ontology based on Bloom’s taxonomy.o A description of the European Qualifications Framework (EQF) levels and their meaning. Learn more here

A light-weight approach to certify digital skills training as microcredentials in DEP projects

Best practices Accreditation under the European approach – Challenges arising from the different status of national implementation Users: Training providers (public) | Training providers (private) | Theme: Accreditation and certification | Action: Education programmes/courses | Beneficiaries: Training providers (public) | Training providers (private)  EURIDICE EURIDICE Hans Akkermans Anna Bon In our DEP-project EURIDICE, we have designed a method for quality assurance of the digital skills trainings provided by our SME and other non-academic project partners. It is the desire, in the Digital Europe Program, of the EU Commission that all course providers are able to hand out to all learners/students (if they wish so) an official certificate stating their achievements in terms of learning outcomes, including the associated amount of work done by learners/students. This is called a microcredential. So the stakeholders are: non-academic training institutes, higher academic education institutes, trainees and students, the labor market in Europe. The challenge? The recognition of non-academic courses in Europe is still not formalised, despite the need to recognise micro-credentials for life-long learning. As starting point, the EU has described (see the European Union leaflet A European Approach to Micro-Credentials, updated Dec 2021) a set of standards to which courses need to comply, to become a microcredential. What is lacking here is the procedure for Quality Assurance. MicroCredentials certainly carry the risk of a further bureaucratisation of higher education with evermore forms to be filled in by staff, box-ticking “accountability” and layers of so-called managerial “control”. So it is important to uphold the autonomy and experience of academic, education and research staff as being leading here. And to state this explicitly in the procedures.The issue here is: how to do Quality Assurance of non-academic, non-accredited courses? And who is entitled to do so? The issue is how to formalise trust, knowledge and authority.In summary: How can we include the SME short-track training modules into academic curricula, or provide a valid certificate of quality to the trainees? How can we assess the quality of the educational offering from SMEs and non-academic partners in our DEP project? Our solution We propose a method of assessment of courses, which we call the EURIDICE MicroCredentials Approach. It starts with the establishment of a so-called MicroCredential Board of academic senior experts from universities, companies or sector organisations. Following the following QA (see below), they are entitled to hand out to training providers the right to add to the certificates they hand out to their learners/students a EURIDICE-level “stamp”, as it were: EURIDICE Quality-Assured MicroCredential. The QA procedure is as follows, to ensure transparency and simplicity: Course providers submit a description of a course to be accepted as a EURIDICE MicroCredential to the Board. The MicroCredential Board validates that this description satisfies the EU guidelines (see the template given in Annex I of the 2022 Council of Europe Recommendation (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32022H0627(02)). As part of this, the MicroCredential Board validates that there is a quality assurance system in place, and if so what its nature is. In most cases this will be an existing and established one (accreditation systems, special appointed committee in place (e.g. exam committee), review or advisory boards etc.), and the MicroCredential Board simply references this. (Thus, we are not going to redo the quality assurance work itself!). In a few cases, if there is no defined (external) quality assurance system in place, the MicroCredential Board offers the facility to carry out a EURIDICE review. This takes place in the form of an academic peer review that is fully analogous to the peer review established quality system of research publications. Peer-review system[The role of a submitted course is thus analogous to a paper submitted to a journal or conference, the role of the MicroCredential Board is then analogous to the editorial board of a scientific journal, and it then acts upon the expert advice of appointed knowledgeable reviewers, to make an argued decision (accept or not).] Outcomes The EURIDICE project develops courses for students (international joint master DIGISOC, see https://digitalsociety4innovation.eu), plus self-standing modules for teachers and professionals in the sectors of Education, Culture and Communication. In order to speed up the microcredential work, all courses in the respective course catalogues are described following the European standard elements template provided in Annex I of the above-mentioned EU Council Recommendation of 16 June 2022. These course catalogues for students, teachers and professionals are produced and made public as upcoming (mid-term) deliverables. The idea is then that multiple courses (or even the catalogue as a whole) can be submitted in one go as a batch to the MicroCredential Board for consideration.Principle of proportionality: Both the MicroCredential course description template and the peer review mechanism make it possible to scale the course writing and review effort, in the same way that in research a 6-page conference article is handled differently in review effort than a whole PhD thesis or textbook. Key takeaways Our experience is that microcredentials are generally seen as a very complex issue. It is therefore advisable to keep things as simple as possible: A course description according to the European standard elements template (Annex I of the Council 2022 Recommendation) typically already contains the information that teachers would write anyway in any decent course description or study guide for students, so it is possible to avoid extra bureaucratic burdens for teaching staff. Course descriptions are to be concise, as usual in a study guide (per course no more than 1-2 pages, and a limited number of learning outcomes). Simplicity and flexibility of templates, formats and procedures is furthermore important in view of the need to respect (in fact, benefit from) the expertise and autonomy of staff, education and research, and to avoid a counter-productive top-down approach. Principle of subsidiarity: The MicroCredential Board has a (limited) validating role, it is not going to redo QA procedures when they are already institutionally in place (such as official exam boards or supervisory/advisory bodies). The peer review mechanism is intended as a back-up system when an institutional QA system does not (yet)

Accreditation under the European approach – Challenges arising from the different status of national implementation

Best practices Accreditation under the European approach – Challenges arising from the different status of national implementation Users: Training providers (public) | Training providers (private) | Theme: Accreditation and certification | Action: Education programmes/courses | Beneficiaries: Training providers (public) | Training providers (private)  DIGITAL4Business DIGITAL4Business Sophie Schulz Horacio Gonzales Velez Dietmar Janetzko   The aim of the Digital4Business (D4B) project is the conception and development of a joint Master’s degree program by four (originally six) European Higher Education Institutions (HEIs): the National College of Ireland (Ireland), Universidade Nova de Lisboa (Portugal), Università di Bologna (Italy), and Linköping Universitet (Sweden) in collaboration with partners from industry. One of the milestones in the project is the accreditation of the Master’s program. Here, the consortium opted for an accreditation procedure under the European Approach, an accreditation methodology developed specifically for joint programs. The European Approach was primarily chosen for reasons of efficiency. The main benefits of the European Approach are: (i) it facilitates external quality assurance through the application of common standards and guidelines, which leads to mutual recognition of the accreditation procedure across the participating countries; (ii) it significantly reduces the administrative and organizational burden by applying to one single accreditation body. The European Approach eliminates the need for multiple applications, assessments, and reviews, saving time and resources for institutions. Moreover, instead of undergoing separate accreditation processes in each participating country, joint programs can be assessed once against a common set of standards and with a joint site visit at only one institution/in only one country. Without the European Approach, all four HEIs would have had to carry out individual national accreditation procedures, which would have resulted in significantly more time and effort as well as much higher costs. The challenge? In the accreditation preparation phase, the D4B consortium learned that the European Approach accreditation will only be available and fully recognised in countries that have implemented the European Approach. As the European Approach is only a political commitment and not a legally binding agreement, it requires implementation at the national level. Regarding national implementation, the European Quality Assurance Register for Higher Education (EQAR) differentiates between three categories: 1) European Approach available to all HEIs, 2) European Approach available to some HEIs or only under specific conditions, 3) European Approach not available to HEIs. The consortium found that Ireland and Portugal fall under the second category and that the European Approach is available at these two institutions. However, this was not the case for Italy and Sweden as these two countries have not implemented the European Approach at national level, which means that a European Approach accreditation is not possible at any HEI from these countries. Our solution The fact that the European Approach is not available in all countries was solved by the decision that only the Ireland and Portugal (both countries have (partly) implemented the European Approach at national level) will be degree-awarding countries. The two HEIs from Sweden and Italy are still fully and actively engaged in the design, implementation and delivery of the program but only act as providing (i.e. non-awarding) institutions. Outcomes The Master’s program was initially accredited with requirements. The accreditation procedure was carried out by ASIIN, a European registered accreditation agency, applying the European Approach. The fulfilment of requirements was completed after six months, which was six months before the official deadline. The Master’s program received full accreditation for a period of six years, which corresponds to the recommendations of the European Approach procedures. Valid until 30 September 2030, the final D4B accreditation is recorded in EQAR Key takeaways HEIs should inform themselves about the national accreditation requirements at an early stage (possibly even before a proposal is submitted). All (academic) partners should have a high degree of flexibility (e.g. with regard to internal resource and budget allocation) in order to be able to react to unexpected problems or changing conditions. This is a lesson learned of particular importance within the D4B project as the consortium had to compensate for the loss of two of the (initially) six universities in the middle of the accreditation process. One had decided to withdraw from the consortium and only remain as an associated partner. The other one was no longer suitable as an academic partner as it was lacking official recognition as a university by the state/ministry. The loss of the two academic partners meant that the modules that had been developed by them had to be redistributed among the four remaining universities. Fortunately, the redistribution worked smoothly thanks to the close cooperation and solution-oriented approach of all partners. Ultimately, the redistribution of modules served as a good opportunity to revise and update the module content. When choosing the European Approach, the consortium, and particularly the academic partners, must be clear from the very outset that this is a joint effort that requires close cooperation, a great deal of coordination, very good planning, and a well-thought-out distribution of responsibilities and tasks. It is very important that all (academic) partners contribute to this joint procedure, in particular for drafting and compiling the necessary documentation to be included in the self-evaluation report. Even if, as mentioned above, the European Approach was chosen for reasons of efficiency and because of the lower administrative burden, the effort involved in preparing a (successful) accreditation procedure should not be underestimated. Compiling the extensive set of application documents is not only very time-consuming, but also reveals some of the content-related, formal and organizational challenges that arise when several higher education institutions from different countries jointly develop and deliver a degree program. The consortium should be very aware of this effort and the high workload from the outset and allow sufficient preparation time (including improvement loops etc.). Learn more here

The Master of Professional Practice

The Master of Professional Practice is the Ireland’s first interdisciplinary stackable Master’s degree. It addresses the SDG of quality
further education.