Excellent Accreditation Design in High School

The purpose of this study is to analyze the strategy for achieving superior accreditation of higher education institutions (excluding study programs). The research design used is a descriptive-quantitative study. The research was conducted at Bina Bangsa University during the institutional accreditation field assessment (AL) on August 13-14, 2021. Data analysis used nine criteria for university accreditation assessment assessed by BAN-PT. The results of the study found that the design of superior accreditation in higher education can be done by: 1) compiling a Self Evaluation Report (LED) that is congruent with the Higher Education Performance Report (LKPT) without any discrepancies with each other, 2) universities need to form institutions and carry out quality assurance seriously, 3) maximize the value of each item of accreditation fromCriteria A, B, C1--C9, and criteria D; 4) trying as much as possible to fulfill all the physical evidence needed to meet each of the existing criteria, 5) trying to provide answers to assessors during interview sessions both to the Foundation, Chancellor, middle leaders, lecturers, students, employees, alumni, cooperation partners and users .The novelty of the research is shown from the superior accreditation design related to the difficulty in meeting the accreditation criteria for colleges and study programs. This study suggests that every university should continue to make improvements in order to obtain superior accreditation by implementing good design.


INTRODUCTION
One of the challenges in the development of education is to improve the quality of higher education. The quality of higher education is very useful for building dynamic, productive, innovative Human Resources (HR), and able to master science and technology in the era of digital society 5.0. For the sake of superior quality higher education and being able to develop in response to technological changes, achieving accreditation will greatly promise the sustainability of higher education, especially in globally effective education in the 21st century. (Whitaker & Croft, 2020;Frank et al., 2020). Accreditation is an important asset as a determinant of quality standards and assessment of higher education institutions. This is a benchmark for institutions that use higher education program products to ensure that graduates are eligible because they have gone through a well-controlled process. The value of accreditation will assist in achieving the strategic goals of higher education programs, quality assurance, and has the potential to directly support the academic performance and career prospects of students. (Phillips & Kinser, 2018;Kafaji, 2020). In Aditio, accreditation is also able to provide benefits not only for universities but also for governments, prospective students, funding organizations, and industry globally.
Stakeholders can obtain information about universities in making decisions, for example related to the provision of scholarships or grants, academic planning, and seeking partnerships. Studies find that college accreditation can help meet community needs, adopt new trends in education, and address challenges (David & Bueno, 2019;Lim, 2020;Nielsen et al., 2020). In Indonesia, the accreditation of higher education institutions aims to evaluate and assess the PT's commitment to the quality and capacity of implementing the Tridharma of Higher Education. There are four main foundations that guide the accreditation of an educational institution, namely; RI Law No. 20  Education statistics for 2020 released by the Ministry of Education and Culture recorded that there were 4,593 universities in Indonesia, there was a decrease of 0.01% from 2019 due to the process of updating data and improving the quality of PT. These statistics show that the development of universities in Indonesia is quite high, therefore it is very important to carry out quality assurance through campus accreditation. In fact, it turns out that it is not easy to get good accreditation, especially to get superior scores from quality assurance institutions both internally (PT) and externally such as the National Accreditation Board for Higher Education (BAN-PT) and the Independent Accreditation Institute (LAM). From historical records, many universities have experienced difficulties in fulfilling the instruments to achieve accreditation that are based on real quantitative data (Gibbs, 1995;Eaton, 2001;Adisaputera, Pramuniati, & Arif, 2018). As a result, universities are under pressure for accreditation. The literature mentions that it is very important to build a more mature accreditation model due to the lack of quality in the training process and the lack of coherence with the labor market which in turn is the government's way to improve external regulation. Three promising elements are model evaluation, implementation of a management system that ensures the quality of educational institutions, and training of external evaluators where work strategies are set out in accreditation standards. (Collado & Garaycochea, 2020).
The Director of the Executive Board of BAN-PT revealed that the majority of universities have not yet received accreditation due to difficulties in fulfilling accreditation instruments. Nationally, there are three very weak instruments, namely internal management, lecturers still have more postgraduate qualifications compared to doctoral degrees, and lecturers' academic processes in terms of research and collaboration or partnership relationships with other parties. Education statistics data for 2020 noted that only 4 universities got excellent marks, 50 universities got very good marks, and 464 universities got good marks. (Setditjen Dikti Kemendikbud, 2020 (2021), examines faculty and administrators' perceptions of the Accreditation Board for Preparatory Educators (CAEP) accreditation. The findings reveal that there is a workload impact generated by CAEP on faculty institutions and administrators. Other research states that universities must ensure their students progress and achieve high performance by supporting and helping them improve their skills, knowledge, disposition and academic achievement. With graduation standards met, the college may get full accreditation (Fakhrou, 2020). Previous studies using the observation method and factor analysis with the SEM method identified a significant positive effect of leadership, competence, lecturer performance, and organizational climate on efforts to maximize university achievement in accordance with BAN-PT accreditation standards. (Rahardja, Moeins, & Lutfiani, 2017;Rahardja et al., 2020).
Studies conductedBurton (2021) and Ravikumar, et al (2021)support case studies investigating the fast path to accreditation through quality, experience and perception assessments of college administrators leading university accreditation initiatives including accreditation visits to reduce accreditation pressure. This study shows the novelty of the review of the accreditation model with 9 criteria, the majority of which previous research only used 7 criteria carried out at one of the universities in Java, namely Bina Bangsa University, which had not previously been accredited by BAN-PT. Previous studies assessed the quality and benefits of higher education programs (Lopez et al., 2011;Lippe & Carter, 2018;Finney, 2019;Siswadi, Houghty, & Agustina, 2020). However, these studies were not carried out at universities that have not been accredited as in this study. In-depth research is carried out with the aim of finding the right strategy to obtain superior accreditation. This is expected to provide input to other universities that have not been accredited and who want to achieve superior accreditation.

LITERATURE REVIEW
Accreditation is a procedure by which an authoritative body has formally recognized that the organization is competent to carry out certain tasks (AbdelWareth et al., 2018). Accreditation can also be understood as an acknowledgment of educational institutions to provide standardization and guarantee quality with certain criteria. (Phillips & Kinser, 2018). The purpose of the accreditation assessment system is that the quality of graduates between universities does not vary too much and is in accordance with the needs of the world of work (Yun & Seo, 2019). Accreditation is a determinant of quality standards and assessment of higher education institutions whose implementation is carried out by parties outside independent institutions or known as field assessors who are experts in understanding the nature of higher education management (Gibbs, 1995). The functions and objectives of accreditation include; 1) protection to the public; 2) controlling the quality of education; and 3) developing the quality of education. In this case, the attributes of program accreditation that conflict with institutional accreditation can affect student engagement (Berry & Hammer, 2018).
according to Fathony & Ulum (2018), the accreditation status will affect the intellectual capital of the institution. Therefore, it is very important to understand what are the criteria in the preparation of the assessment framework to achieve accreditation. The assessment criteria in the accreditation process consist of nine criteria (Wilby et al., 2017;Lim, 2020).
The evaluation model used in accreditation is basically in accordance with the CIPP model (content, input, process, and product). The CIPP model is a decision-makingoriented evaluation approach that aims to provide assistance to administrators or decisionmaking leaders (Stufflebeam, 1967). The CIPP model consists of four dimensions, namely; 1) evaluation of content related to decision planning, identification of needs, and formulation of program objectives; 2) evaluation of inputs related to evaluation sources, various implementation alternatives, and work procedures; 3) evaluation of processes related to the implementation process in the field and its implementation; 4) product evaluation related to the impact and influence of the program which aims to determine decisions. Thus, the evaluation phase of this model is able to provide an overview, findings, and provide for stakeholders (Stufflebeam, Madaus, & Kellaghan, 2000).
The literature suggests that the CIPP model allows evaluation of the quality and benefits of end-of-life education in institutional programs (Ranjbar & Rahimy, 2021). More precisely, this model serves as a valuable guide in conducting in-depth curriculum evaluation (Lippe & Carter, 2018). Theoretically, the CIPP model can be effective if in determining the evaluation has met an acceptable level of quality and established standards (Patton, 2013). Evaluation of the CIPP model will make evaluations stronger in remediation efforts to achieve long-term academic program success. The key is to ensure that educational institutions have implemented new curricula and appropriate strategies (Finney, 2019).

METHOD
The method used in this research is descriptive method. Descriptive model is a research approach that is oriented towards describing a situation in an event for decision makers which aims to provide assistance to administrators or decision makers. (Stufflebeam, 1967). The data was obtained from the results of discussions carried out by field assessors when conducting an online field assessment (AL) on August 13-14, 2021. The data analysis method used predictive numbers whose final number was the same as the accreditation decree that had been obtained by Bina Bangsa University. Further analysis is carried out by drawing a cobweb diagram on each of the existing criteria. The assessment process uses the highest standard score criteria, namely 4.

RESULT
The results of the analysis of field assessment data, the various strategies that can be carried out must be based on the spider diagram as follows.
Diagram 1. The difference between the expected value according to the standard and the achievement value The diagram above shows that, at the research location there are only 3 criteria that have been maximized, while the remaining 6 criteria have not been maximized. The maximum criteria are part A about external conditions, part B about institutional profiles, and criteria C1 about the university's vision, mission, goals and strategies (VMTS).
Criterion A: to score 4 strategies that universities need to do are: 1) identifying relevant, comprehensive, and strategic environmental conditions, 2) determining the position of the university relative to its environment, 3) using the results of identification and assigned positions to conduct a SWOT analysis / other relevant analyzes, and 4) produce a development program that is consistent with the results of the SWOT analysis / other analyzes used. A SWOT analysis needs to be conducted annually to find out the future direction. The Quality Assurance Agency needs to make a SWOT analysis in accordance with the monitoring and evaluation data and report it to the Chancellor.
Criterion B: to fulfill the 4 points, the strategy that must be carried out by the University is to describe the institutional profile that shows the adequacy of information and is presented in a concise and clear manner, and is consistent with the data and information submitted on each criterion. Institutional profiles need to be updated annually. Therefore, the Quality Assurance Institute needs to update the institution's profile every year and report it to the Chancellor.
Criterion C1: in order to fulfill the value of 4 strategies that can be carried out by universities are preparing: 1) long-term, medium-term, and short-term development plans, 2) performance indicators, 3) targets oriented to international competitiveness, and 4) evidence of implementation consistent development. The Quality Assurance Agency needs to make/stipulate: a) standards for evaluating the understanding and application of VMTS, b) SOPs for making, socializing, and evaluating VMTS, and monitoring and evaluating the understanding and implementation of VMTS every year.  Diagram 3. Criteria C2 (Guarantee Administration)

C2a Governance system
There are 5 assessment indicators: on average, Uniba only gets a score of 1.9. To get a score of 4 in the civil service system, universities must use governance guidelines consistently, effectively, and efficiently. UNIBA has not used it consistently, effectively, and efficiently. Another strategy, UNIBA needs to make an annual report to the public which can be accessed through the binabangsa.ac.id website. UNIBA also needs to implement the code of ethics consistently, effectively and efficiently.

C2b leadership
There are 3 indicators of leadership assessment: Uniba's average gain is only 2.7. To get a score of 4, the strategy that must be carried out by the university is to do leadership programmatically and intensively. UNIBA has not made any innovative decisions with the consideration of measurable risks. Therefore, the Quality Assurance Institution needs to conduct a SWOT analysis and make risk mitigation as well as standards and POB so that the LEADER can take innovative decisions and take into account measurable risks. Another strategy, UNIBA needs to realize cooperation with follow-up (teaching lecturer exchanges, student learning exchanges,

C2c Management
There are 4 assessment indicators: the average achievement of Uniba is 2, the strategy to get a score of 4, the university needs to have formal evidence of the functioning of the functional and operational management system of higher education. However, it does not cover 5 aspects: 1) planning, 2) organizing, 3) staffing, 4) leading, and 5) controlling and have not implemented it consistently, effectively, and efficient.

C2d Quality Assurance System
There are 2 assessment indicators: Uniba's average score is 0.5. To get a score of 4, the strategy that the university must do is implement the Internal Quality Service Standards (SPMI). The strategy to get a score of 4, the university needs to prepare all ASPECTS of SPMI formal documents as evidenced by the existence of 5 aspects as follows: 1) SPMI organs/functions, 2) SPMI documents, 3) internal auditors, 4) audit results, and 5) evidence follow-up and does not have standards that exceed SN-DIKTI which brings international competitiveness in significant quantity and quality, and is effective in developing a quality

C2e Cooperation
There are 4 assessment indicators: Uniba's average gain is only 2.0. To get a score of 4, the strategy that must be carried out by the university is to prepare a formal document of policies and procedures for developing networks and partnerships (domestic and foreign).
Another strategy is to prepare formal documents of LPM policies and procedures on Cooperation in a comprehensive, detailed, and easily accessible manner for internal and external stakeholders and LPM has Standards, Guidelines, and Procedures for monitoring and evaluating cooperation partner satisfaction. points, the strategy that must be carried out by the university is to maintain the ratio of students enrolled and accepted is 1:3. 2. Students re-register: get a score of 3,756 because the number who passed the selection and then re-registered was only 90.73%. 3. Foreign Students (Foreign Student LKPT): Uniba got a score of 2.04 because there were only 0.01% of foreign students. C.3.4.b Student Services: get a score of 4. To get a score of 4, the strategy that must be carried out by the university is to provide student services in the form of: 1) coaching and developing interests and talents, 2) improving welfare, and 3) career counseling and entrepreneurship guidance.  certification. 4. Non-permanent lecturers: get 4 points because the number of non-permanent lecturers is only 6% of the total number of permanent lecturers. 5. Lecturer workload: getting a score of 3,684 because the ratio of permanent lecturers to students is 1:31.58. Therefore, it is necessary to add permanent lecturers so that the ratio is between 20-30.

C.4.4.b Lecturer Performance:
1. Research Productivity LPKT: Obtained a score of 2.1. To get a score of 4, universities must encourage lecturers to seize research costs from within the country and independently. 2. PkM Productivity LKPT: Gets a score of 2.1 because there are only domestic and independent PkM fees. 3. LKPT Lecturer Recognition: got a score of 0 due to incomplete evidence of recognition (letter of assignments, certificates, photos of activities, activity reports) and recognition is only limited to the national level. 1. LKPT Obtaining funds from students: getting a score of 3 because the percentage of funds obtained from students to total funds is only 30%, which should be at least 40%. 2. Obtaining funds from students: getting a score of 2.12 because the percentage of obtaining funds from sources other than student funds is only 0.6%. 3. Use of Learning Process Operational Funds: getting a score of 2.7 because the average learning process/student/year operational fund is only 13 million. Therefore, it is necessary to increase the operational funds for the learning process of more than 20 million 4. Lecturer Research Funds: get a score of 4. To get a score of 4, the average lecturer research funds must be 20 million. 5. Lecturer Research Funds: got a score of 4 because the average lecturers' PkM funds were 20 million. 6. Percentage of Research Funds to Total Higher Education Funds: Getting a score of 3,096 because the percentage of research funds is only 3.87%. The strategy to get a score of 4 requires support from LPPM so that lecturers can research every year. 7. Percentage of PkM funds to Total Higher Education Funds: Get a score of 4 because the percentage of PkM funds is above 1%, which is 3.87%. Therefore, it is necessary to have support from LPPM so that lecturers can maintain PkM every year.

C.5.4.b Infrastructure
There are 3 assessment indicators A. Adequacy of Infrastructure: get a score of 2. To get a score of 4, the strategy that must be carried out by the university is to procure facilities and infrastructure that supports learning, research, PkM, and facilitates those with special needs according to SN-DIKTI. B. Availability of ICT systems to collect accurate, accountable and confidential data: get a score of 1. To get a value of 4, the strategy that must be carried out by the university is to prepare an information system for administrative services that is able to fulfill aspects 1) including academic services, finance, human resources, and facilities and infrastructure (assets), 2) easily accessible by all work units within the scope of the institution, 3) complete and up-to-date, 4) all types of services have been integrated and used for decision making, and 5) all types of services provided The integrated system is evaluated periodically and the results are followed up to improve the information system. C. Availability of ICT systems for managing and disseminating knowledge: Get a score of 0. To get a score of 4, the strategy that must be carried out by universities is the development of ICT facilities to manage and disseminate knowledge.

Nilai Standard
A. Availability of curriculum development policies: get a score 3. The strategy to get a value of 4, the university needs to have a curriculum development policy that considers the relationship with the vision and mission (mandate) of the university, the development of knowledge and the needs of stakeholders. B. Availability of curriculum development guidelines: get a score 2. Strategy to get a 4, the university needs to have a curriculum development guideline that contains: 1) Graduate profile, learning outcomes that refer to KKNI, study materials, curriculum structure and semester learning plans (RPS) which refers to the SN-DIKTI, 2) The mechanism for determining (legality) curriculum involving authorized elements in the institution. C. Availability of curriculum implementation guidelines: get a score 3. The strategy to get a score of 4, the university has a curriculum implementation guideline that includes planning, implementing, monitoring, and reviewing the curriculum that takes into account feedback from stakeholders and the achievement of strategic issues to ensure compliance.

C.6.4.b Learning There are 3 assessment indicators:
A. Availability of guidelines on the implementation of the lecturer assignment system: get a score of 0. The strategy to get a value of 4, the university must have guidelines on the implementation of the lecturer assignment system. B. Availability of valid evidence regarding the determination of strategies, methods and learning media as well as assessment of learning gets a score of 0. The strategy to get the highest score is 4, the university must have guidelines on determining strategies, methods and learning media, as well as learning assessment. C. Availability of valid evidence regarding the implementation of the system to monitor and evaluate the implementation and the quality of the learning process to get a score of 2. The strategy to get a score of 4, the university must carry out monitoring and evaluation of the quality of the learning process and the results have been documented. However, the results of the monitoring have not been comprehensive and followed up on an ongoing basis and there is no established standard of achievement.

C.6.4.c Integration of Research and PkM on Learning
TThere are 3 assessment indicators: the average score is only 0.7. The strategy to get a score of 4 is that universities must have formal policy documents and guidelines to integrate research and PkM activities into learning. However, these guidelines are not comprehensive and detailed. Another strategy is that universities must have guidelines for the implementation, evaluation and control of integrated research and PkM activities into learning, and have evidence of monitoring and evaluating the integration of research and PkM into learning.

C.6.4.d Academic Atmosphere
There are 3 assessment indicators: the average score is only 0.7. The strategy to get the highest score, the university must have a formal document of academic atmosphere policy which includes: scientific autonomy, academic freedom, and freedom of academic pulpit. However, these formal documents are not yet comprehensive and detailed. Universities also need to have valid evidence about the level of satisfaction of stakeholders regarding the establishment of a healthy and conducive academic atmosphere. The university must have evidence of feedback from internal stakeholders regarding the establishment of a healthy and conducive academic atmosphere, the absence of a valid, reliable, and easy-touse survey instrument, and is not conducted every year and does not have follow-up results in accordance with the strategic plan. other strategies, Diagram 7. Criteria for Research C7 & C8 PkM

C.7.4.a Research
There are 4 assessment indicators: A. Availability of a formal Research Strategic Plan document containing the development foundation, research roadmap, resources, strategic program objectives and performance indicators, getting a score of 4. The strategy gets a 4 score, then the university must have a formal Research Strategic Plan document that contains the development basis, research roadmap, resources (including allocation of internal research funds), strategic program targets and performance indicators, as well as international competitiveness oriented. The document needs to be updated and defined. Another strategy, the university must have a strategic research plan in accordance with the university's vision and mission. B. Availability of research guidelines and proof of socialization: getting a score of 3. The best strategy to get a score of 4, the university must have research guidelines that are socialized, easily accessible, and understood by stakeholders. The research guidelines must be in accordance with the research strategic plan. Therefore, LPPM needs to adjust the research guidelines in line with the research strategic plan. C. Valid evidence about the implementation of the research process: getting a score of 1.
A valid strategy to get a score of 4, the university must have valid evidence about the implementation of the research process. However, it does not cover 6 aspects: 1) assessment and review procedures, 2) the legality of appointing reviewers, 3) the results of the assessment of research proposals, 4) the legality of the assignment of researchers/researchers collaboration, 5) the minutes of monitoring and evaluation results, and 6) output documentation. study.

D. Research reporting documents by research managers to university leaders and
partners/funders get a score of 1. The strategy to get the highest score is to prepare research activity report documents made by research managers to university leaders or related partners/funders who meet 5 aspects: 1) comprehensive, 2) detailed, 3) relevant, 4) up-to-date, and 5) delivered on time.
C.7.4.b Research Group:get a value of 0 because there is no information about the research group. Therefore, LPPM needs to form a research group and a research laboratory group as indicated by: 1) formal legal evidence of the existence of research groups and research laboratories, 2) active involvement of research groups in national and international networks, and 3) the production of research products that useful for solving problems in society, and 4) producing research products that are internationally competitive.

C.7.4.a Community Service (PKM)
There are 4 assessment indicators, the average score is 1. The strategy to get a score of 4, the university must: a) contain the development foundation, PKM roadmap, resources, strategic program targets and performance indicators, formal PKM Strategic Plan documents, b) guidelines PKM that is socialized, easily accessible to stakeholders, c) has valid evidence regarding the implementation of the PKM process, d) has a PKM activity report document made by the PKM manager to the university leadership or related partners/funders. C.7.4.b PKM group: get a value of 0. The strategy to get a value of 4, then LPPM needs to create a PkM implementing group which is indicated by: 1) the existence of formal legal evidence of the existence of a PkM implementing group, 2) the production of PkM products that are useful for solving problems in the community, and 3) the production of products PkM that is nationally competitive.

Diagram 8. Criteria C9 Outcomes and Achievements Criteria C9 Outcomes and Achievements
Average student GPA in the last 3 years: got a score of 4 because UNIBA already has a GPA above 3.25. Student Academic Achievement: getting a score of 2.04. strategy to get a value of 4, then there must be students who get international achievements. Vice Chancellor 3 and the Student Affairs Bureau need to support students to continue to excel in academics at the local, national and international levels. Student Non-Academic Achievement: get a score of 3.3. The strategy to get 4 is that the Vice Chancellor 3 and the student bureau need to support students to continue to excel in the non-academic field at local, national, and international levels. Student Study Length: Gets 4 points because the average length of study for students is between 3.5 -4.5 years. However, for Masters, there are no graduates whose length of study for Masters should be between 1.5 -2.5 years. Percentage of on-time pass for each program: get a score of 2.3. To get a value of 4, the percentage of timely graduation of the study program must be increased. Percentage of study success for each program: getting a score of 3,018 because the percentage of successful study in master's program is only 0% and Bachelor's program is only 71.5% which should be at least 85% for each program. Therefore, there is a need for proper data synchronization by the data center. Waiting Time for Graduates: getting a score of 4 because the average waiting period for graduates is 3.2 months and respondents are 52.9%.
Suitability of Graduates' Field of Work: getting a score of 2.59 because the percentage of suitability of graduate work fields is only 51.8%. The strategy to get a score of 4 requires improving the curriculum to suit DUDI and equipping students with competencies that are in accordance with their majors in order to attract DUDI's interest.
LKPT User Satisfaction Level Graduates: got a score of 4 because the university has got a very high score with 33.7% respondents. Therefore, it is necessary to increase the reach of graduate users by study tracers.
Workplace of Graduates: getting a score of 2.185 because the number of graduates in multinational companies is still 0. The strategy that can be done is plotting by a study tracer to classify the type of company that the graduates work for Scientific Publications (journals): got a score of 4 because the number of accredited international journal publications was 30 out of a total of 188 lecturers. Scientific Publications (International Proceding, National, International and National Mass Media Writing): Gets 4 points because there are 13 international proceedings. Scientific Work Citation: got a score of 4 because the number of articles cited was 281 articles out of 188 permanent lecturers. Other Outcomes: got a score of 1.101. The strategy to get a score of 4, then the number of patents, copyrights, appropriate technology and products, books with ISBN needs to be increased.  Analysis and Performance Achievements get a value of 0. The strategy to get a value of 4, the university must conduct an analysis of performance achievements. SWOT Analysis or Other Relevant Analysis: get a score of 3. To get a value of 4, the university must conduct a relevant SWOT analysis. The Development Program gets a score of 3. To get a score of 4, the university needs to determine the priority of the development program based on the results of a SWOT analysis or other analysis that is considered comprehensively: 1) institutional capacity, 2) future institutional needs, 3) applicable institutional strategic plans, and 4) aspirations from internal stakeholders. However, the program that has been made has not guaranteed the sustainability of the institution. Sustainability Program gets a score of 3. Strategies to get a score of 4,

CONCLUSION
Based on the results of data analysis and discussion, it can be concluded that, strategies that can be applied to obtain university accreditation with superior ratings, then, 1) universities need to prepare a Self-Evaluation Report (LED) which has a high level of synchronization with the Higher Education Performance Report (LKPT). The high synchronization of the two texts implies that the accreditation taskforce team works seriously, 2) universities need to form institutions and carry out quality assurance in an integrated and serious manner, considering that 50% of the accreditation instrument items measure the level of success in implementing quality assurance in universities. higher education institutions, 3) universities need to form an accreditation team to prepare complete physical evidence (supporting documents),