Photo by Vitaly Gariev on Unsplash
On many campuses, the SPI and the quality assurance office both carry out activities called audits. As a result, work units are often confused: what is the difference between an internal quality audit and an SPI review, and why do both ask for similar documents?
This article compares the Internal Supervisory Unit (SPI) and the Internal Quality Assurance System (SPMI) in terms of purpose, legal basis, actors, criteria, and results. You will also find an explanation of the PPEPP cycle, how both relate to accreditation, and an example of coordination so that reviews do not overlap. Regulatory references were checked as of October 21, 2026.
What Is the SPMI?
Minister of Higher Education, Science, and Technology Regulation Number 39 of 2025 on Higher Education Quality Assurance defines the SPMI as a set of interrelated, orderly elements and processes to assure and improve the quality of higher education autonomously within an institution. Article 67 paragraph (1) of the regulation requires every institution to carry out internal quality assurance by developing an SPMI.
The SPMI is one of two parts of the higher education quality assurance system. Under Article 53 of Law Number 12 of 2012 on Higher Education, the other part is the external quality assurance system (SPME), carried out through accreditation.
The scope of quality assurance is also not limited to academic matters. Article 65 of Regulation 39/2025 covers the academic field related to the three pillars of higher education (Tridharma), as well as non-academic fields covering organization, finance, student affairs, staffing, and facilities.
What Is the SPI?
At state universities, the SPI is a supervisory element formed by the head of the institution to carry out non-academic oversight, as governed by Article 29 of Government Regulation Number 4 of 2014. A full discussion of the SPI's legal basis for PTN, PTN with BLU status, PTN-BH, and PTKN is in the article University SPI.
What Are the Differences Between the SPI and the SPMI?
| Aspect | SPMI | SPI |
|---|---|---|
| Form | Quality assurance system and cycle | Internal supervisory work unit |
| Main purpose | Assuring and improving the quality of higher education | Providing assurance over non-academic management, controls, and compliance |
| Main legal basis | Law 12/2012 and Ministerial Regulation 39/2025 | Government Regulation 4/2014, the statute, and for BLU, Government Regulation 23/2005 and Minister of Finance Regulation 129/PMK.05/2020 |
| Criteria | Higher education standards: national standards (SN Dikti) and standards set by the institution | Regulations, internal policies, and control effectiveness |
| Evaluators | Officials or lecturers assigned by the head of the institution | SPI members with competence in finance, governance, regulations, and state assets |
| Evaluation methods | Monitoring, self-evaluation, internal quality audits, assessments, and/or other means | Audits, reviews, audits for specific purposes, and follow-up monitoring |
| Results | Quality evaluation reports and plans to control and raise standards | Oversight reports and recommendations for improvement |
| Related external parties | The ministry, LLDikti, BAN-PT or LAM | External auditors such as the Audit Board (BPK) or public accounting firms, and the supervisory board in a BLU |
Put simply, the SPMI asks whether quality standards are being met, while the SPI asks whether resources are managed properly and controls are working.
What Is the PPEPP Cycle in the SPMI?
Article 68 paragraph (1) of Regulation 39/2025 states that the SPMI runs through a cycle of five activities, known by the abbreviation PPEPP:
| Stage | The activity of | Example of |
|---|---|---|
| Setting | Setting higher education standards | Setting a standard for study completion time |
| Implementation | Implementing the standards | Study programs apply supervision schedules and monitor student progress |
| Evaluation and Inspection | Assessing whether standards are met | An internal quality audit of on-time graduation data |
| Control | Correcting implementation that is not yet compliant | An action plan for study programs that do not yet meet the standard |
| Improvement | Raising the standards | Raising the on-time graduation target in the next cycle |
Article 68 paragraph (2) confirms that an internal quality audit is only one evaluation method. Institutions may also use monitoring, self-evaluation, assessments, or other means they set. A technical discussion of the AMI stages is in the article on internal quality audit.
How Does an Internal Quality Audit Differ from an SPI Audit?
Take the management of research funds as an example. Both audits may touch the same object, but they ask different questions:
- Internal quality audit assesses whether research activities meet the research standards set by the institution, such as the number of outputs and student involvement.
- SPI audit assesses whether research funds are used in line with contracts and regulations, whether the accountability evidence is complete, and whether disbursement controls are adequate.
In the ITB statute, for example, the SPMI is coordinated by the quality assurance unit, while internal control and oversight are coordinated by the SPI. This kind of separation helps each function keep its focus.
Where Can the SPI and the SPMI Overlap?
Because the SPMI also covers non-academic fields such as finance and facilities, overlap with the SPI is unavoidable. Overlap is not a problem as long as it is managed. Some approaches that can be applied:
- A shared review calendar. Avoid holding an AMI and an SPI audit in the same unit in the same week.
- Sharing results. AMI findings can feed into the SPI's risk assessment, and SPI findings can feed into the control of standards in the SPMI.
- A clear division of scope. Agree which areas are assessed for meeting standards and which are reviewed for controls and compliance.
- An assurance map. Show who reviews what, so leadership can see coverage and gaps in a single view.
This division of roles is in line with the IIA Three Lines Model, where quality assurance can be mapped as a second line role and the SPI as the third line, as well as with the approach of combined assurance.
How Do the SPI and the SPMI Relate to Accreditation?
Accreditation is a form of SPME. As of October 21, 2026, the latest BAN-PT institutional accreditation instrument is IAPT 4.1, established by BAN-PT Regulation Number 35 of 2025 and amended in September 2026. The instrument uses four criteria: Quality Culture, Relevance, Accountability, and Mission Differentiation.
- The Quality Culture criterion assesses the SPMI developed by the institution, including academic and non-academic standards and the governance of its implementation.
- The Accountability criterion addresses governance that ensures accountability, sustainability, transparency, and mitigation of potential risks, including good university governance practices and risk management.
This means accreditation does not look only at academic quality documents. Evidence of well-organized oversight, control, and risk management, including from the SPI's work, also strengthens the picture of institutional governance. Indicator details should always be checked on the official BAN-PT website, because the instrument annexes may be updated. The governance principles underlying it are discussed in the article good university governance, and its integration with risk and compliance in the article GRC in universities.
What Does a Year of Coordination Between the SPI and the Quality Assurance Office Look Like?
The table below is an illustrative example of how activities can be divided over one fiscal year. Actual schedules follow each campus's academic calendar and policies.
| Period | Quality assurance office | SPI | Coordination point |
|---|---|---|---|
| Quarter I | Setting or reviewing standards and the AMI schedule | Preparing the annual risk-based oversight plan | Aligning calendars so units are not reviewed at the same time |
| Quarter II | Conducting AMI in study programs | Finance and procurement audits for the first semester | Sharing the list of high-risk units |
| Quarter III | Management review meeting and action plans | Audits of assets, human resources, and information systems | Combining recurring findings from both functions |
| Quarter IV | Raising standards for the next cycle | Follow-up monitoring and annual report | A joint report to leadership on coverage and gaps |
How Does Internal Audit Software Help the SPI?
Audithink is designed for internal audit needs, so its role is on the SPI side. Audithink does not replace the SPMI, quality reporting applications, or the accreditation process. For the SPI, Audithink helps through six main features: risk assessment, audit planning, work program templates, notifications, follow-up monitoring, and automated reports.
Audit needs in the campus environment are discussed further on the page Audithink for Educational Institutions.
FAQ About the Differences Between the SPI and the SPMI
What is the main difference between the SPI and the SPMI?
The SPMI is a system for assuring and improving the quality of higher education based on standards, while the SPI is an internal supervisory unit that examines non-academic management, controls, and compliance.
Is an internal quality audit the same as an SPI audit?
No. An internal quality audit is one of the evaluation methods in the SPMI for assessing whether standards are met. An SPI audit assesses resource management, controls, and compliance with regulations.
What is the legal basis for the SPMI?
The SPMI is governed by Law 12/2012 on Higher Education and Ministerial Regulation 39/2025 on Higher Education Quality Assurance, particularly Articles 67 and 68.
What is the PPEPP cycle?
PPEPP is the SPMI cycle consisting of setting, implementing, evaluating, controlling, and improving higher education standards.
May the SPI carry out internal quality audits?
SPMI evaluations are carried out by officials or lecturers assigned by the head of the institution. If SPI members take part, the campus needs to ensure the SPI's independence is maintained and the division of roles is documented.
How do the SPI and the SPMI relate to accreditation?
Accreditation is a form of external quality assurance (SPME). The BAN-PT instrument assesses the SPMI through the Quality Culture criterion, and assesses governance, including risk mitigation, through the Accountability criterion.
Conclusion
The SPI and the SPMI are both important, but they answer different questions. The SPMI ensures quality standards are met and continuously improved, while the SPI ensures resource management and controls work properly. Good coordination makes them reinforce each other instead of burdening work units.
If the SPI at your campus wants to document its oversight plan and follow-up on findings more neatly, schedule an Audithink demo.
