From IPE to RIPE: What HEC’s New QA Framework Means for Universities

The Higher Education Commission (HEC) of Pakistan has developed a comprehensive Quality Assurance (QA) framework to ensure that universities across the country deliver education that meets national and international standards. The QA division at HEC, known as Quality Assurance Agency (QAA), works on this framework to strengthen academic quality, institutional performance, and governance through structured evaluations, accreditation processes, and continuous improvement mechanisms. Its aim is not only to maintain accountability but also to foster a culture of excellence, transparency, and enhancement in higher education. This QA framework was known as Institutional Performance Evaluation (IPE). For the 2023-24 quality assurance cycle, HEC introduced a new QA mechanism called Percepts, Standards, and Governance (PSG). A part of PSG was Review of Institutional Performance and Enhancement (RIPE). Unlike the previous framework, the Institutional Performance Evaluation (IPE), which largely focused on compliance and meeting minimum requirements, RIPE emphasizes continuous improvement, enhancement, and long-term institutional growth. Previously, the IPE was a relatively straightforward mechanism with a preset data collection template which every institution would fill to provide an explanation which addressed the 11 standards of IPE. The evaluation focuses on assessing the performance of key institutional areas to determine their current effectiveness and identify opportunities for future development. The following standards were included in the IPE framework:

• Standard 1: Mission Statement and Goals
• Standard 2: Planning and Evaluation
• Standard 3: Organization and Governance
• Standard 4: Integrity
• Standard 5: Faculty
• Standard 6: Students
• Standard 7: Institutional Resources
• Standard 8: Academic Programmes and Curricula
• Standard 9: Public Disclosure and Transparency
• Standard 10: Assessment & Quality Assurance
• Standard 11: Student Support Service

These 11 standards were later revamped in RIPE and currently there are a total of 16 standards, which are used for the evaluation and identification of improvement areas.

The Quality Assurance Framework above is divided into four parts. Part 4 of the Quality Assurance Framework is concerned with internal quality assurance and is subdivided into program-level quality assurance and institutional level quality assurance. Institutional level quality assurance covers the RIPE Standards set out in the Quality Assurance Framework, against which each institution is required to align. 

Shifting from IPE to RIPE

As mentioned previously, revamping the QA framework and moving from IPE to RIPE brought an increase in the total number of standards, totaling 16. The following are the names and focus areas of the 16 standards:

• Standard 1: Vision, mission, goals and strategic planning 
• Standard 2: Governance, leadership and organization
• Standard 3: Institutional resources and planning
• Standard 4: Audit and Finance
• Standard 5: Affiliated Colleges / Institutions
• Standard 6: Internationalization of higher education and global engagement
• Standard 7: Faculty recruitment, development and support services
• Standard 8: Academic programs and curricula
• Standard 9: Admission, progression, assessment, and certification
• Standard 10: Student support services
• Standard 11: Impactful teaching and learning and community engagement
• Standard 12: Research, innovation, entrepreneurship and industrial linkage
• Standard 13: Integrity and Fairness
• Standard 14: Public information and transparency
• Standard 15: Institutional effectiveness, quality assurance and enhancement
• Standard 16: CQI and cyclical external quality assurance

The previous quality assurance framework in IPE was largely compliance driven, meaning institutions were expected to demonstrate alignment with the given standards through documentation. RIPE comes with the provision of flexibility and contextualization. This allows every university to explain their way of operation extensively, rather than sticking to a template. This approach which focused on proving baseline level compliance with the HEC’s framework and often remained a checklist exercise with limited collection demonstration of a university’s activities. The shift to RIPE brings a paradigm shift, as it encourages institutions to identify areas where enhancement is required, or can be done. Additionally, rating each standard is possible through the judgement framework of RIPE. Each standard is judged based on the description of Expectation Outcome Indicators (EOI) category, after which each standard is given one of the following EOI categories:

• Significant Improvement Required (SIR)
• Adequate Improvement Required (AIR)
• Limited Improvement Required (LIR)
• Effective Improvement Required (EIR)

The Role of the External Reviewer in RIPE

An essential feature of the RIPE framework is the inclusion of external reviewers in the evaluation process. Their role is designed to bring in an independent, objective, and critical perspective, ensuring that the review is not just an internal exercise but a credible assessment that meets international standards of quality assurance. External reviewers are typically quality assurance (QA) professionals from other universities who bring with them valuable experience and grip of QA processes. Their independent perspective helps ensure objectivity, credibility, and alignment of institutional practices with national and international quality standards.

The external reviewer contributes in several important ways:

• Providing objectivity: By being independent of the institution, the reviewer reduces bias and ensures that the evaluation reflects a fair judgment of performance.
• Benchmarking against best practices: External reviewers often come with experience from other institutions or quality assurance systems. Their insights help the university understand how its practices compare with broader higher education standards.
• Validating evidence: While institutions provide extensive documentation and self-assessment, the external reviewer evaluates whether the evidence truly supports the claims being made.
• Engaging stakeholders: External reviewers interact with faculty, staff, and students during the on-site visit, ensuring that multiple voices are represented in the assessment.
• Fostering enhancement: Perhaps most importantly, they highlight not only areas of compliance but also opportunities for growth, helping the institution move from meeting minimum standards to cultivating a culture of continuous improvement.

At LUMS, the external reviewer’s role was particularly valuable. Their presence provided reassurance that the process was transparent, while also giving the university an opportunity to reflect on how its systems align with best practices. The external reviewer’s feedback helped frame RIPE as not just an evaluation, but as a constructive dialogue for future improvements at LUMS.

Final Thoughts

RIPE marks a significant step forward in how quality assurance is practiced in Pakistan’s higher education sector. By shifting the focus from compliance to enhancement, it allows universities to not only demonstrate accountability but also actively pursue continuous growth and development. With its expanded standards, flexible structure, and the inclusion of external reviewers, RIPE provides institutions with both a mirror to reflect on current practices and a roadmap for future improvement.

For LUMS, this framework has already proven valuable in strengthening dialogue, encouraging collaboration, and aligning quality assurance with broader institutional goals. But like all transitions, it comes with challenges that require commitment and innovation to overcome.

In our next blog, we will share LUMS’ first-hand experience with RIPE - highlighting the challenges we faced, lessons we learned, and the steps we are taking to embed this culture of continuous improvement into our institutional DNA.