Unit Internal Evaluation is one of the fundamental processes that ensure the dissemination of a quality culture throughout higher education institutions and the active implementation of the internal quality assurance system across all units. This process involves each academic and administrative unit within the university systematically evaluating its own activities with an evidence-based and continuous improvement-oriented approach. The Unit Internal Evaluation Reports (BİDR) prepared as part of this process directly provide data for the university’s annual Institutional Internal Evaluation Report (KİDR) and constitute the building blocks of the institutional quality system.
The BİDR is prepared within the framework of the four main headings, 14 criteria, and 46 sub-criteria determined by The Turkish Higher Education Quality Council (YÖKAK). These are:
Leadership, governance, and quality assurance
Education and training
Research and development
Community engagement
Each unit analyzes its practices based on these criteria within the quality assurance cycle and justifies the maturity level it assigns to each sub-criterion on a scale from 1 (initial level) to 5 (advanced level). Evaluations are based on the content, continuity, effectiveness, and dissemination of the activities carried out. This approach prevents the quality assurance system from being perceived as a centrally managed activity only, increases participation at the unit level, and encourages ownership of quality.
The Unit Internal Evaluation process is directly linked to the institution’s strategic objectives. Each unit prepares its action plans in line with its strategic plan objectives, monitors the degree of implementation of these plans, and conducts self-evaluation accordingly. The BİDRs also serve as one of the main references for monitoring performance indicators, updating action plans, and conducting risk analyses.
Hitit University regards the BİDR process not merely as a reporting activity but as a strategic development tool that supports institutional learning and governance culture. The process is coordinated by the Office of Strategic Management and Quality and carried out in collaboration with the Unit Quality Commissions, which are formed by each unit’s quality representatives and administrators. The preparation process of the BİDR involves analyzing the activities carried out throughout the year, evaluating stakeholder feedback, collecting performance data, and systematically reporting all this information.
The reports prepared by the units are organized in accordance with a specific format and writing guideline. In the reports, the practices related to each criterion and sub-criterion are presented together with their evidence. Such evidence may include meeting minutes, survey analyses, website content, activity reports, and data from digital systems. In addition, for each sub-criterion, the unit explains how it has evaluated itself, the rationale for its evaluation, and the improvement actions it plans for the following period.
The BİDRs are directly integrated with the KİDR. All internal evaluation data obtained from the units are analyzed at the institutional level and consolidated into the KİDR, forming the basis for the university’s external evaluation and institutional accreditation processes. Thus, the contributions of the units are utilized not only for local improvement but also for shaping the institutional quality strategy in a holistic manner.
At Hitit University, the BİDR process interacts with strategic planning, performance monitoring, risk analysis, internal control, and the quality assurance system. Through this process, the university aims to ensure the internalization of the quality culture at the unit level, enhance stakeholder participation, and strengthen transparency and accountability.
In conclusion, the Unit Internal Evaluation process is one of the fundamental pillars of Hitit University’s understanding of continuous improvement. Through this process, each unit has the opportunity to analyze its internal dynamics, reinforce its strengths, identify its areas for improvement, and contribute to the university’s common quality objectives. In this way, the university’s quality assurance system is shaped not as a centrally managed structure but as a dynamic and sustainable system developed through the active contributions of all units.
