Axosomatic Educational Intelligence · OBEF

Executive overview

EQA OKR progress and OBEF KPI compliance — side by side across all 4 audit pillars · Measure–Analyse–Improve–Control

EQA OKR completion

70%

14 / 20 OKRs achieved

OBEF KPI compliance

73%

12 KPIs need attention

Composite index

71%

EQA 50% · OBEF 50%

Critical gaps

4 OBEF + 2 OKR

Data readiness

61%

9 KPIs pending

EQA OKR vs OBEF KPI — pillar by pillar

EQA OKRAxosomatic audit

OBEF KPICAA compliance

Strategy & Governance

EQA P1 · OBEF Reputation (10%)

82%77%

EQA OKR82%

Strategic plan alignment85%

Governance structures72%

Risk & compliance policy90%

Stakeholder communication80%

OBEF KPI77%

5.1 Global rankings68%

5.2 Intl accreditation90%

5.3 Dual / joint degrees72%

5.4 Intl research collaboration78%

Programs, Teaching & Assessment

EQA P2 · OBEF Learning (25%) + Industry (20%)

75%66%

EQA OKR75%

Curriculum currency78%

Assessment validity65%

Teaching effectiveness81%

Learning outcomes attainment74%

OBEF KPI66%

2.1 Assessment quality review78%

2.5 Microcredentials & licenses55%

3.3 Joint industry courses42%

3.4 Industry contributions60%

Student Experience & Outcomes

EQA P3 · OBEF Employment (25%) + Learning + Industry

85%82%

EQA OKR85%

Student satisfaction rate88%

Graduate employability74%

Retention rate92%

Academic support utilisation86%

OBEF KPI82%

1.1 Employment rate88%

1.2 Employment in relevant jobs74%

2.2 Retention rate (FYR)92%

3.2 Work placement rate80%

Resources & QA System

EQA P4 · OBEF Research (15%) + Community (5%)

68%54%

EQA OKR68%

QA process lean score70%

Resource adequacy index66%

Data integrity & trust94%

Staff professional development77%

OBEF KPI54%

4.1 Publication ratio62%

4.3 Joint industry research38%

4.6 Awarded IP30%

6.1 Academic events75%

OBEF pillar scores vs High-band threshold

OBEF KPI score

EQA OKR score

Target (High band)

Composite trajectory — 12-month projection

Composite index

EQA OKR

OBEF KPI

EQA OKR tracker

OKR-Based External Quality Audit · Axosomatic proprietary framework

Measure→Analyse→Improve→Control

Strategy & Governance

3 KRs on track · 1 at risk

82%

Strategic plan alignment85%

Governance structures & roles72%

Risk & compliance policy90%

Stakeholder communication80%

Measure — Evidence & Data Sources

Current OKR score: 82% · based on 4 key results across governance, strategy and risk

Data sources: institutional strategic plan, governance charter, board minutes, risk register

OBEF alignment: OBF 5.2 International Accreditation at 90% confirms strategic credibility

Evidence gap: risk register is partial — full documentation required for OBEF compliance

Analyse — Gap Interpretation

Governance structures at 72% is the primary drag — committee charters lack formal documentation

Root cause: process gap — governance frameworks exist informally but are not codified

OBF 5.1 Global Rankings at 68% reflects the absence of a QS/THE submission — not a performance issue

Risk rating: Low-Medium — pillar is strong; gaps are documentation and visibility, not structural

Improve — Actions & Owners

Immediate: Formalise governance committee charters and publish on institutional portal

Short-term: Complete and approve the institutional risk register; assign pillar owner

Strategic: Submit QS World University Rankings profile — expected to lift 5.1 score significantly

Expected uplift: +6–8 percentage points on this pillar within 6 months

Control — Monitoring & Sustainability

Review frequency: quarterly — governance KRs reported to Board each quarter

OBEF data pipeline: accreditation status auto-submitted via HEDB Master API

Early warning: alert fires if governance score drops below 70% or risk register goes unupdated for 90 days

Governance owner: Office of the President · next review date: end of current academic year

Programs, Teaching & Assessment

2 KRs at risk

75%

Curriculum currency & relevance78%

Assessment validity & reliability65%

Teaching effectiveness score81%

Learning outcomes attainment74%

Measure — Evidence & Data Sources

Current OKR score: 75% · 2 key results flagged at risk — assessment validity and learning outcomes

Data sources: CAA external review (OBF 2.1), employer feedback surveys (EWS/ESS), course evaluations

OBEF 2.1 Assessment Quality Review at 78% — based on last CAA visit using the 4-criteria validation grid

Evidence gap: teaching observation reports pending; assessment rubrics only partially documented

Analyse — Gap Interpretation

Assessment validity at 65% is the critical drag — rubrics not standardised to QFEmirates levels

OBEF 3.3 Joint Industry Courses at 42% widens the gap — curriculum–industry alignment is weak

Root cause: process gap — industry co-delivery exists informally but ≥20% contact hour threshold not met formally

Risk rating: Medium — two KRs below 70%; assessment validity affects accreditation readiness directly

Improve — Actions & Owners

Immediate: Standardise assessment rubrics across all programs using QFEmirates Likert-scale grid

Short-term: Identify and formalise 2 industry partners for co-delivery with ≥20% contact hours recorded in LMS

Short-term: Embed 2 MoHESR-approved microcredentials (e.g. PMP, AWS) into program curricula

Expected uplift: +8–10 percentage points on OBEF 3.3 within one semester of formalisation

Control — Monitoring & Sustainability

Review frequency: each semester — course evaluations collected after every course delivery

OBEF data pipeline: joint industry courses submitted via HEDB Master API each academic year

Early warning: alert fires if assessment validity drops below 60% or any program misses rubric submission

Governance owner: Vice President Academic Affairs · CAA review cycle tracked against next scheduled visit

Student Experience & Outcomes

Strongest pillar · 4 KRs on track

85%

Student satisfaction rate88%

Graduate employability74%

Retention rate92%

Academic support utilisation86%

Measure — Evidence & Data Sources

Current OKR score: 85% · strongest pillar — all 4 KRs confirmed by OBEF data

Data sources: GDS (employment), SES (satisfaction), HEDB retention data, work placement records

OBEF 1.1 Employment Rate at 88% and OBEF 2.2 Retention at 92% — both confirmed via MoHESR surveys

Response rates: GDS response rate needs monitoring to maintain ≥30% OBF sampling minimum

Analyse — Gap Interpretation

Graduate employability at 74% is the only underperforming KR — relevant jobs rate (OBEF 1.2) dragging

Root cause: curriculum–industry alignment gap from Pillar 2 is directly impacting job relevance in Pillar 3

OBEF 3.1 Job Offer Post-Placement at 70% — internship-to-hire conversion needs strengthening

Risk rating: Low — pillar is performing well; employability gap is addressable through Pillar 2 fixes

Improve — Actions & Owners

Immediate: Launch GDS graduate tracking system; assign follow-up owner to ensure ≥30% response rate

Short-term: Strengthen placement partnerships — negotiate return job offer clauses with top internship hosts

Strategic: Introduce career readiness module in final year aligned to ENSCO job-program mapping matrix

Expected uplift: employability KR to reach 82%+ once joint industry courses (Pillar 2) are strengthened

Control — Monitoring & Sustainability

Review frequency: annual for employment (GDS cycle) · each semester for satisfaction and retention

OBEF data pipeline: retention and placement data auto-submitted via HEDB; GDS administered centrally by MoHESR

Early warning: alert fires if retention drops below 85% or student satisfaction falls below 80%

Governance owner: Dean of Student Affairs · monthly retention dashboard reviewed by Academic Committee

Resources & QA System

Priority improvement area

68%

QA process lean score70%

Resource adequacy index66%

Data integrity & trust94%

Staff professional development77%

Measure — Evidence & Data Sources

Current OKR score: 68% · lowest pillar — research and IP KPIs significantly below OBEF thresholds

Data sources: SCOPUS (publications), SciVal (FWCI), HEDB API (research projects, IP assets, community events)

4 OBEF KPIs in critical status: 4.3 Joint Industry Research 38%, 4.5 Research Impact 40%, 4.6 Awarded IP 30%

Evidence gap: SCOPUS registration incomplete; IP asset inventory not yet submitted to HEDB

Analyse — Gap Interpretation

Awarded IP at 30% is the most critical gap — likely an inventory and registration issue, not absence of IP

Joint industry research at 38% is below the Low band threshold of 40% — formalisation of existing collaborations is the fastest fix

Root cause: data gap — research activity exists but is not documented, registered or submitted to MoHESR systems

Risk rating: High — this pillar carries 15% of the total OBEF score; 4 KPIs below threshold simultaneously

Improve — Actions & Owners

Immediate: Register on SCOPUS; appoint research output liaison; audit all publications from past 3 years

Immediate: Complete IP inventory — patents, software copyrights, utility models — and file certificates with HEDB

Short-term: Formalise 2 joint industry research projects with ≥20% industry funding (min 50k AED each)

Strategic: Build IP commercialisation strategy; target 1 new granted patent per year; apply for ADEK/KHDA research grants

Control — Monitoring & Sustainability

Review frequency: monthly — highest-risk pillar requires close monitoring until all 4 critical KPIs exit the red zone

OBEF data pipeline: research projects, IP assets and community events submitted via HEDB Master API annually

Early warning: alert fires if joint industry research count drops or IP filing lapses for more than 6 months

Governance owner: VP Research & Innovation · Research Committee reviews progress against OBEF 4.x KPIs each quarter

OKR pillar scores

OKRs achieved: 14 / 20

Achieved (14)

In progress (4)

At risk (2)

OBEF KPI scorecards

All 24 UAE MoHESR OBEF KPIs with compliance scores, institutional weights, timeframes and data sources

Filter by status:

KPI	Description	EQA pillar	Weight	Score	Status	Timeframe	Data source

Framework mapping

Each Axosomatic EQA OKR pillar aligned to UAE OBEF pillars, KPI codes and pillar weights

EQA OKR Pillar

OBEF pillars & KPI codes

OKR · OBEF

01 · Strategy & Governance

Institutional alignment & leadership

→

OBEF 5 · Reputation (10%)KPIs 5.1–5.4

Cross-cutting governanceStrategy, risk, policy

82%77%

02 · Programs, Teaching & Assessment

Curriculum design & pedagogy

→

OBEF 2 · Learning Outcomes (25%)KPIs 2.1, 2.3–2.6

OBEF 3 · Industry Collaboration (20%)KPIs 3.3, 3.4

75%66%

03 · Student Experience & Outcomes

Retention, satisfaction & employability

→

OBEF 1 · Employment (25%)KPIs 1.1, 1.2

OBEF 2 · Learning (25%)KPIs 2.2, 2.6

OBEF 3 · Industry (20%)KPIs 3.1, 3.2

85%82%

04 · Resources & QA System

Infrastructure, staffing & quality loops

→

OBEF 4 · Research Outcomes (15%)KPIs 4.1–4.6

OBEF 6 · Community (5%)KPIs 6.1, 6.2

68%54%

OKR% EQA OKR audit score

OBEF% OBEF KPI compliance score

Evidence standard

EQA OKR accepts institutional self-reporting and expert review. OBEF mandates SCOPUS/SciVal for research, MoHESR-administered GDS surveys, and HEDB Master API data pipelines — leaving little room for unverified claims.

Research granularity

EQA OKR treats research as one quality dimension. OBEF breaks it into 6 KPIs — publication ratio, FWCI, joint industry research, student participation, research impact units, and awarded IP — each with specific formulas and Frascati-based thresholds.

Industry co-delivery bar

EQA OKR flags industry partnerships as a quality indicator. OBEF requires ≥20% of contact hours co-delivered by named industry partners, recorded in the LMS, with meeting minutes and formal MoU as supporting evidence.

Gaps & action plan

Combined remediation roadmap addressing both EQA OKR shortfalls and OBEF KPI compliance gaps

Phase 1 · Immediate (0–3 months)

Critical actions

Inventory all IP assets (patents, copyrights, utility models) and submit to HEDB

Audit all research projects against Frascati 5 criteria; document OBEF 4.5 impact units

Identify 2 industry partners for joint course co-delivery (≥20% contact hours in LMS)

Implement standardised assessment rubric to close EQA OKR P2 validity gap (65%)

Phase 2 · Short-term (3–6 months)

Moderate improvements

Embed ≥2 MoHESR-approved microcredentials (PMP, AWS) into program curricula

Formalise 2 joint industry research projects with ≥20% industry funding (min 50k AED)

Set up HEDB/Master API pipeline; map all institutional data to MoHESR field definitions

Submit QS World University Rankings profile; engage Times Higher Education team

Launch GDS graduate tracking; achieve ≥30% response rate per OBEF sampling guidelines

Map staff FTEs to research workload; improve EQA OKR resource adequacy from 66%

Phase 3 · Strategic (6–12 months)

Long-term excellence

Pursue AACSB or ABET accreditation for eligible programs — lifts OBEF 5.2

Build IP commercialisation strategy; target 1 new granted patent per year

Scale joint industry research to ≥40%; engage ADEK / KHDA competitive grants

Establish international dual/joint degree partnerships with ≥2 ranked universities

Grow student research participation to ≥65% via structured RA programmes

Document ≥8 research impact units across OBEF 4.5 dimensions; close EQA OKR P4 gap

Combined priority gap list

Joint industry courses (OBEF 3.3 / EQA P2) at 42% — both frameworks flag curriculum–industry alignmentCritical · ≥20% co-delivery contact hours required · named in LMS

Critical

Awarded IP (OBEF 4.6) at 30% — no equivalent EQA OKR target; pure OBEF requirementCritical · ≥1 granted IP in 5-yr window · patents / copyrights

Critical

Joint industry research (OBEF 4.3 / EQA P4 resource) at 38% — Frascati criteria requiredCritical · ≥20% industry funding per project · total 5yr

Critical

Assessment validity (EQA OKR P2) at 65% — OBEF 2.1 shows higher at 78%; rubric gapModerate · QFEmirates alignment · standardised rubric scoring

Moderate

Microcredentials (OBEF 2.5) at 55% — not directly tracked in EQA OKR; needs embeddingModerate · MoHESR-approved list only · rolling 3yr average

Moderate

Retention rate — EQA OKR 92% and OBEF 2.2 fully aligned and confirmed at 92%Aligned · strongest shared key result · maintain HEDB pipeline

Aligned

Composite trajectory & gap reduction

Composite index

Critical gaps (right axis)

Data readiness

Data submission requirements for both EQA OKR evidence and OBEF KPI reporting to MoHESR

MoHESR auto-collected

No action needed

Shared with MoHESR

Institution must share

HEDB / Master API

Institution submits

EQA OKR evidence

Pending collection

OBEF KPI data collection by source

MoHESR auto-collected

4.2 FWCI (SciVal)Auto

5.1 Global rankingsAuto

2.1 Assessment qualityCAA visit

2.4 Employer satisfaction (ESS)MoHESR survey

2.6 Student satisfaction (SES)MoHESR survey

Shared with MoHESR

1.1 Employment rate (GDS)Share contacts

1.2 Relevant jobs (GDS)Share contacts

2.3 Employer feedback (EWS)Share & follow up

3.1 Job offer post-placementGDS + own data

4.1 Publication ratioSCOPUS + supplement

5.2 Accreditation statusCertificates

HEDB / Master API

2.2 Retention rateAPI

2.5 MicrocredentialsAPI

3.2 Work placement rateAPI

3.3 Joint industry coursesAPI

3.4 Industry contributionsAPI

4.3 Joint industry researchAPI

4.4 Student research rateAPI

4.5 Research impactAPI + evidence

4.6 Awarded IPAPI + certificates

6.1–6.2 Community eventsAPI

EQA OKR evidence status

P1 · Strategy & Governance

Strategic plan documentAvailable

Governance structure chartAvailable

Risk registerPartial

Stakeholder communication logAvailable

P2 · Programs, Teaching & Assessment

Curriculum review recordsAvailable

Assessment rubrics & samplesPartial

Teaching observation reportsPending

Learning outcomes attainmentPartial

P3 & P4 · Student & Resources

Student satisfaction surveysAvailable

Graduate destination recordsPartial

QA process documentationPartial

Staff development recordsPending