Scenarios for a New Era of Accreditation
The “one-size-fits-all” model of accreditation is cracking
2026:1
After a hiatus of work and community-related activity, Ex4Edu.Report is back!
Is the “one-size-fits-all” accreditation model finally cracking? Recent developments suggest that the future of quality assurance is arriving faster than we thought.
When I presented Accreditation Scenarios at the 18th SEAA Conference in India late in 2025, the goal of the discussion was to focus on the critical uncertainties facing global higher education accreditation. The discussions in Bengaluru highlighted a growing tension between traditional institutional accreditation and the rapid evolution of digital learning—a tension that has only intensified in the months since. At the same time, there is a growing divide between traditional higher education and a more active corporate L&D, especially with corporate universities. India is a unique case of a rapidly developing higher education scene with the New Education Policy and a very clear move towards alternative credentials.
We also now see movement in the U.S. Recently, the U.S. Department of Education has awarded $169 million in FIPSE grants, many of which will seek to establish new accreditors in the U.S. Some of the intended new entrants are focused on institutional accreditation, while others are more focused on specialized accreditation. We seem to be at a critical juncture of both accreditation and quality assurance in the U.S.
These areas are exactly the space where a technique called Scenario Planning can be helpful. To understand where this specific development fits into the broader picture, I will focus on four potential futures explored at the SEAA Conference. These scenarios are global and do not focus on any one national system.
Scenarios and The Art of the Long View
To make sense of these shifts, a methodology of Peter Schwartz, author of the seminal text The Art of the Long View, was used. Schwartz was one of the pioneers of scenario planning, not as a prediction tool but as a mechanism for exploring multiple, overlapping possibilities based on critical uncertainties.
The value of this exercise lies in its nuance. As Schwartz suggests, it is rare for any single scenario to come true completely. Instead, the future usually arrives as a complex tapestry, where elements of all four scenarios come true in part. By understanding the extremes, however, we can better navigate the reality that unfolds in the middle.
Normally, no scenario comes true in entireity but all come true in part
The process starts by framing the challenge around “critical uncertainties” affecting the sector. The method defines critical uncertainties as the specific variables that are both highly important to the focal issue and highly unpredictable. Our discussions identified several critical uncertainties worth considering. Those included the following.
Unit of focus—institutions/programs vs. skills. In essence, will the academic degree maintain a central focus or cede its dominance to skills-based portfolios?
Locus of control. Will there be a market-based globalization of trade in education services or a national/regional governmental policy-based regulatory approach?
Societal equity tensions. How will a growing mismatch of economic growth and new jobs vis-à-vis the number of graduates play out?
Definition of quality. Is higher education quality defined by academic measures and rankings, or by graduate and stakeholder ROI?
Based on the critical uncertainties, four scenarios emerged for discussion. As is typical in these exercises, the scenarios fit distinct patterns. Often, one scenario portrays a continuation of trends already in play. A second one frequently focuses on a breakdown of an existing order while it is still partially intact. A third alternative typically involves a disruptor or disruptive forces with a strong impact. A final common theme focuses on technological disruption.
One cannot say with total confidence that the scenarios are the be-all and end-all points. The goal of the exercise at the SEAA Conference was to inform discussions among higher education institutions about which type of accreditation to seek. The scenarios identified are briefly described below.
Scenario 1: Global Harmonization & Mutual Recognition
In this scenario, the world moves toward tighter integration, an example of the continuation of the existing trends view. This could involve adopting new international standards with unified quality frameworks accepted across nations. For example, inspired by the EU’s Lisbon Recognition Convention, this scenario features automatic recognition of credits and degrees across borders. It could also involve a more minimalist approach of deferring to several ISO standards, such as ISO 21001:2025, ISO 29992:2018, ISO 29993:2017, and ISO 29994:2021.
The Essence: Seamless global student and workforce mobility, supported by transparent registries of accredited institutions.
Impact on Accreditors: There will be fewer accreditors, and they will be vertically integrated and global in scope.
Scenario 2: Regional Accreditation Blocs
Alternatively, the world may fragment into regional alliances (e.g., Europe, Asia-Pacific, Americas) that develop region-specific frameworks. Here, standards are context-specific, reflecting local cultures and workforce needs rather than global uniformity. This development can be illustrated by the growth of the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) and of EQAR (European Quality Assurance Register for Higher Education), which covers the 45 nations in the EHEA.
The Essence: Strengthened regional expertise and institutional development, but cross-regional recognition is restricted and requires bilateral, case-by-case agreements.
Impact on Accreditors: Regional restrictions increase on access and recognition. Only regional players are allowed to operate. For example, only European-based accreditors in Europe or only India-based accreditors in India.
Scenario 3: The standards marketplace
In this privatization scenario, a competitive “standards marketplace” emerges. Verification becomes industry-driven rather than academic, with private sector organizations vying for market position and share. This could well involve the strong growth of corporate universities and “stacked credentials” delivered by private entities.
The Essence: Universities are driven to offer multiple “industry accreditation portfolios” to boost their global reputation and attract students, while corporate L&D and corporate universities move into universities’ traditional turf.
Impact on Accreditors: This scenario would signal a major shift toward industry-centric validation rather than traditional institutional accreditation. Industry standards bodies, rather than traditional accreditors, would create the quality frameworks.
Scenario 4: Technology-Enabled Focus
A potentially disruptive scenario involves replacing episodic reviews with AI and real-time analytics for continuous quality monitoring. Blockchain technology would largely displace traditional learning systems, creating immutable records and reducing verification times from weeks to mere seconds.
The Essence: Flexible pathways allow diverse learning models—traditional degrees, micro-credentials, bootcamps, and hybrid programs—with adaptive quality standards.
Impact on Accreditors: Survival depends on the ability to participate in the interoperability of advanced technical systems. An accreditor’s survival will depend on the ability to navigate a fragmented technology landscape with concentrated tech firms poised to displace traditional accreditation quality assurance roles.
The Strategic Takeaways
The scenarios point to a future where the “one-size-fits-all” model of collegial institutional accreditation will be under threat. This could signal a shift from a single, omnibus review that validates every aspect of a university’s complex operations to more focused efforts. Some hints of how this may look for accreditation offerings can be seen in EFMD’s collection of current offerings. This future would tap Scenarios 1 and 3 the most and may signal moves by traditional institutional accreditors into the turf occupied by specialized players, especially business program accreditors.
The concept outlined in my article ISO Alongside, Instead, or Inside? The potential of ISO 21001:2018 to transform and challenge higher education accreditation might warrant consideration. The injection of standards from non-academic standards organizations, such as ISO, could signal a shift towards the use of minimal agreed standards administered by independent bodies, e.g., ISO registrars. The role of traditional accreditors could then shift to one of added value beyond basic quality standards. Such added value could be providing networking and exchange opportunities, but not always standard-setting. Such a scenario would lean most toward Scenario 3 with some elements of Scenario 1.
Lastly, for specialized accreditors—whether in business, engineering, or healthcare—the potential shifts could have dramatic effects. These agencies have operated as a layer on top of a foundational institutional accreditation. They have relied on that base to handle the heavy lifting of governance and financial stability checks. However, as the market fragments and digital transformation evolves, this reliance may become a strategic liability. Either Scenario 3 or 4 could severely disrupt specialized accreditors' current activities.
In conclusion, the future belongs to accreditors who can offer a complete, integrated seal of approval that speaks directly to relevant stakeholders, without relying on a legacy system that may no longer fit the modern world.
Upcoming topics:
Ex4EDU.Report - The next installments of Affective the Affective.
EduPartners.news - Decolonizing entrepreneurship.
About the Ex4EDU.Report and EduPartners.news
This Substack newsletter is offered as a free-of-charge contribution by Lone Tree Academics LLC and EduPartner.solutions, both educational services companies focused on learning transformation in higher education. Our services are focused on solutions for the development of institutional and program strategies, crafting engaging LearningScapes™, and developing programs of the scholarship of teaching and learning.
We are also founders of the EduPartners.coop LCA, which supports and sends the Substack newsletter EduPartners.news, which is focused on furthering the use of cooperative and collaborative organizations in higher education.