FINEEC's self-assessment report for the ENQA targeted review 2026

• Basic funding is included in the state budget, and FINEEC has its own budget line. 
• FINEEC’s duties and decision‑making processes are defined in law. The Higher Education Evaluation Committee has an independent role that ensures the voice of the field is heard. 
• The organisation makes use of a wide expert network, which enhances the diversity of perspectives and the quality of evaluations. 
• FINEEC carries out evaluation activities that cover the entire education system, which enables a systemic perspective and allows HEIs to be assessed within the broader context of the education system. 
• Competent staff, a strong quality culture, and an enhancement-oriented orientation. 
• FINEEC has an independent status, and HEIs have shown continuous trust in its work, for example through repeated commissions of evaluations.

• The ageing population and the shrinking working‑age population are forcing cost‑saving reforms in education policy, which affects Finnish education system and FINEEC’s operations.
• Because FINEEC operates as a separate unit within the Finnish National Agency for Education (EDUFI), the structural costs arising from administrative and support services are high, which affects the overall cost of cooperation. 
• FINEEC and EDUFI use many different digital systems and sets of guidelines, and staff may not always fully internalise how these should be applied or what their significance is. 
• FINEEC’s various feedback systems and self‑evaluations produce a large amount of information, but this information does not always lead to development actions or systematic follow‑up in the best possible way.

• There is a strong need for research and evaluation information. All sectors of society aim for knowledge-based management and decision-making. 
• There is demand for FINEEC’s services among its clients, which means that fee-based services have the potential to expand. 
• EU project funding offers opportunities to strengthen FINEEC’s resources. 
• Finland and FINEEC have a strong country brand, which enables international activities. 
• As competition intensifies, FINEEC has an opportunity to develop its operations and processes. FINEEC has an agile operating model. 
• FINEEC has already digitalised parts of its operations, and the use of artificial intelligence offers opportunities for further efficiency gains.

• FINEEC is under-resourced in relation to its extensive statutory mandate. 
• The general political climate has tightened, and political steering in the field of education may increase. 
• The enhancement-led evaluation approach is being questioned in some education policy discussions. 
• As a separate unit within EDUFI, FINEEC is not always heard. 
• There is uncertainty in the national division of responsibilities: EDUFI also states that it conducts evaluations (not higher education), which may blur FINEEC’s role. The Ministry of Education and Culture commissions a substantial number of evaluations from other actors. 
• The continued weakening of central government finances poses a threat to society.

ESG 2.2. Designing methodologies fit for purpose 

• The standard was implemented very well through a clear, fitness-for-purpose design of the fourth audit cycle.
• The planning process was systematic, iterative, and transparent, with objectives and aims thoroughly examined. 
• HEIs were placed at the centre of the model, ensuring relevance and practical applicability.
• Stakeholder involvement was extensive and multi-phased, and feedback had a genuine influence on the final design. 
• The framework was developed through concrete improvements, including better use of existing data, a refined evaluation scale, and strengthened impact mechanisms. 
• These developments enhance both the reliability and the developmental impact of the audit framework.
• Relevant regulations and principles of good governance were duly considered.

• HEIs report to multiple contexts, which makes the effective use of information a key challenge in audits and requires systematic use of existing data as well as the integration of audit-specific and new information. 
• The fourth audit cycle builds effectively on experience from previous cycles, particularly addressing shortcomings identified in the third cycle. 
• Key development needs relate to the implementation of recent reforms, especially the consistent, comparable, and analytical use of data to support evaluation and longitudinal analysis. 
• The four-point assessment scale enhances differentiation, but its effective use requires shared interpretation of criteria and a strong, high-quality evidence base. 
• Strengthening the visibility of long-term audit impact requires more systematic follow-up of developmental effects, while maintaining a balance between comparability and sensitivity to institutional diversity.

• The standard is very well implemented in audit teams, which consist of suitably qualified experts. 
• Audit teams ensure broad and balanced expertise from both higher education and labour market, supporting a well-rounded evaluation perspective. 
• Student members are systematically included in audit teams, promoting ESG-aligned inclusiveness and multi-voiced evaluation. 
• Peer review strengthens the developmental character of audits by bringing comparative perspective, practical experience, and constructive challenge. 
• The composition of audit teams is carefully prepared, justified, and reviewed by the Evaluation Committee, enhancing transparency and fitness for purpose. 

• The quality of peer review should be safeguarded by ensuring sufficiently broad and well-balanced audit team compositions, with attention to the overall team profile rather than individual members alone. 
• A cautious expansion of the expert pool should be considered to ensure greater diversity of expertise and to address potential capacity and risk-related challenges, while maintaining high selection standards. 
• Consistency and comparability across audits should be further strengthened by maintaining and reinforcing the guiding role of experienced FINEEC staff in supporting audit teams and aligning interpretations of criteria. 
• The developmental character of peer review should be preserved by keeping dialogue, reflective discussion, and enhancement-oriented questioning at the core of the evaluation process.

ESG 2.5. Criteria for outcomes

• The outcomes and judgements of audits are based on clearly defined, explicit, and publicly available criteria, which enhances the transparency, predictability, and credibility of the audit process. 
• The criteria are generally clear and easily accessible to HEIs, while providing sufficient flexibility to take institutional diversity into account. 
• The assessment scale, including the clarified Excellent category, supports differentiation, although it has in some cases been perceived as relatively broad. 
• Consistent application of criteria is ensured through a multi-level quality system, including audit teams, guidance by experienced staff, and committee-level review of results and justifications. 
• Audits are based on diverse and robust evidence, such as self-assessments, documentation, site visit observations, and increasingly also feedback and follow-up data.

• Audit reports could be streamlined by reducing unnecessary descriptive detail and presenting procedural information in structured formats (e.g. tables), thereby strengthening the analytical focus. 
• Consistent application of criteria could be further deepened by strengthening shared interpretations, using comparative examples, and making interpretation principles more explicit across the audit system.
• Systematic use of data could be enhanced by better integrating multiple data sources, improving comparability, and supporting the identification of development trends. 
• The balance between comparability and contextual sensitivity could be clarified by more clearly distinguishing between common core evaluative elements and context-specific interpretations.
• Transparency of judgements could be improved by making more explicit how different types of evidence are weighted and how conclusions are derived from the available evidence.

• Audit reports are published in full and are openly accessible online, ensuring strong transparency for the academic community, external stakeholders, and the public. 
• The reports are well structured, clear, and systematic, covering key evaluation areas, analysis, conclusions, and recommendations, and they are well suited to support decision-making. 
• Despite being produced by audit teams representing diverse stakeholder backgrounds, the reports are of high quality and largely consistent in style and content.
• Audit decisions are published alongside the reports in accordance with ESG requirements, supporting transparency and accountability. 
• The audit panel chair’s summary of audit report’s key findings presented to the committee further enhances the clarity, interpretability, and usability of the reports in decision-making.

• The accessibility and clarity of audit reports could be improved by complementing them with concise summaries, visual elements, and one-page briefs tailored to different stakeholder groups (e.g. higher education leadership, students, external partners). 
• The usability of audit reports could be enhanced by structuring key findings and conclusions more clearly and reducing non-essential descriptive detail that may obscure the main messages. 
• The analytical presentation of findings could be strengthened by improving the structuring of qualitative evidence and, where appropriate, developing more structured or comparative formats to support understanding and cross-institutional learning. 
• The impact of audit reports and decisions could be increased by supporting their active dissemination and use in institutional development and stakeholder dialogue, beyond mere publication.