UPNVJ Public Relations – The Vice Rector for Academic Affairs of the “Veteran” National Development University Jakarta (UPNVJ), Dr. Henry Binsar Hamonangan Sitorus, emphasized the importance of resolving audit findings through root cause analysis and the preparation of a measurable Follow-up Plan (RTL). This emphasis was conveyed in the 2026 UPNVJ Management Review Meeting (RTM) which took place at the Bhinneka Tunggal Ika Auditorium, 4th Floor of the Rectorate Building, UPNVJ, South Jakarta, Friday (11/13/2026). The forum, which involved 82 participants from university leadership, faculties, institutions, bureaus, and work units, is part of strengthening the Internal Quality Assurance System (SPMI) to ensure that evaluation results are followed up through clear decisions, responsibilities, deadlines, and success indicators.

In his presentation, Henry explained that RTM is a crucial part of the control phase of the Determination, Implementation, Evaluation, Control, and Improvement (PPEPP) cycle. Through this mechanism, university leaders review evaluation results to determine evidence-based corrective actions, rather than simply preparing administrative reports.

According to the material presented, input for the RTM can come from various sources, including audit results from 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 need to be analyzed to identify the root cause of the problem before determining remedial measures.

Henry outlined three main objectives of holding the RTM, namely reviewing the implementation of previous decisions, discussing priority findings that indicate gaps in standards, and establishing leadership decisions that can be implemented and verified.

Discussions focused primarily on issues that had significant impact, were recurring, or required cross-work unit coordination. Thus, the RTM forum was expected to focus attention on the issues that most impacted the quality of higher education delivery.

One aspect of concern is the accuracy of identifying the root cause. Henry explained that the process begins by identifying the gap between the target and the actual situation, tracing the causes using the 5 Whys method or a cause-and-effect diagram, and testing the suspected causes using documents, data, and statements from implementers.

This approach is necessary to ensure that corrective actions truly address the root cause of the problem, rather than simply addressing the symptoms. If the available evidence is insufficient, the relevant unit should assign a responsible party and a deadline for further investigation.

Henry further explained the RTL development process, which begins with identifying findings, analyzing root causes, validating them with verifiers, and then developing programs and budget requirements. Each work unit is responsible for submitting improvement plans that align with the evaluation results and are supported by verifiable evidence.

In this mechanism, the verifier is tasked with ensuring that the root cause of the problem is linked to the findings and that the proposed action addresses the root cause. If this is not the case, the work unit is asked to revise the RTL before continuing the program development process.

Once the follow-up plan is deemed appropriate, the work unit can detail the activities, resource requirements, budget, if necessary, and the person responsible for implementation. Verified programs are then grouped by priority for consideration by university leadership.

Henry explained three priority categories, namely high priority for problems with major impacts or requiring urgent handling, moderate priority for problems that have significant impacts and can be scheduled, and less priority for problems with limited impacts that can be handled after other priorities.

This grouping is the basis for determining the sequence of implementation of improvement programs by considering urgency, impact, resource readiness, and institutional coordination needs.

Henry emphasized not only program implementation but also the importance of verifying effectiveness as the final step in resolving findings. Administrative completion of activities cannot be the sole measure of success without evidence that the actions have resulted in improvements.

Evaluation of effectiveness is carried out by comparing conditions after the implementation of the action to the initial conditions, including checking whether the gaps to standards are reduced, repeated findings decrease, or quality indicators show improvement.

If the action is ineffective, the work unit needs to revisit the root cause and adjust the improvement plan. Conversely, if effectiveness has been proven, the achievement can be maintained and used as a consideration for improving quality standards in the following period.

In practice, the division of responsibilities is also a crucial part of quality control. The Acting Rector provides direction and makes decisions across units within their respective jurisdictions, while the vice rectors coordinate follow-up actions based on their respective areas. Deans, heads of institutions, heads of bureaus, and work units are responsible for ensuring that improvement programs are implemented in accordance with their respective duties and functions.

The Quality Assurance and Learning Development Institute (LPMPP) plays a role in summarizing evaluation results, coordinating RTL monitoring, and coordinating verification of effectiveness as part of the sustainability of the university's quality assurance system.

Meanwhile, Acting Rector of UPNVJ, Nur Syarifah, SH, LL.M., in her opening remarks emphasized that quality assurance is the responsibility of all leadership elements and work units. She emphasized that the RTM results should not stop at administrative recommendations but should be translated into realistic, measurable, and monitored action plans.

"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 is carried out according to standards, is measurable, documented, and results-oriented," Nur Syarifah emphasized.

Through RTM 2026, UPNVJ seeks to strengthen the linkages between evaluation, decision-making, program implementation, and follow-up effectiveness measurement. This evidence-based approach is expected to support improvements in learning quality, strengthening accreditation, and the effectiveness of university governance.

In line with the Acting Rector's direction, the results of this forum are expected to serve as a basis for formulating UPNVJ's priority policies and programs that are oriented towards continuous improvement, while strengthening higher education governance that is transparent, accountable, and responsive to stakeholder needs.

Work Relatives

---------------------------------

Writer:   Disa Prihantini | Language Coordinator : F. Noor