Propuesta de un modelo conceptual basado en procesos para el cumplimiento integrado de la norma ISO 21001:2025 y la acreditación del CACEI en la educación superior tecnológica
Abstract
Las crecientes exigencias de rendición de cuentas y aseguramiento de la calidad en la educación superior han llevado a las instituciones a implementar de manera simultánea sistemas formales de gestión y mecanismos externos de acreditación. En la educación superior tecnológica, esta doble dinámica se refleja en la adopción de la norma ISO 21001:2025 y en los procesos de acreditación de programas educativos establecidos por el Consejo de Acreditación de la Enseñanza de la Ingeniería (CACEI). Aunque ambos marcos persiguen la mejora continua y la calidad educativa, suelen gestionarse de forma independiente, generando duplicidades y fragmentación organizacional.
El presente estudio tiene como objetivo proponer un modelo conceptual basado en procesos para el cumplimiento integrado de la norma ISO 21001:2025 y el marco de acreditación del CACEI. Específicamente, busca: (1) identificar las convergencias normativas entre ambos marcos y (2) sistematizar dichas convergencias dentro de una arquitectura institucional coherente de procesos. Se adoptó un enfoque cualitativo, con diseño no experimental y de corte transversal, sustentado en el análisis documental y en un proceso de codificación inductivo–deductivo apoyado en Atlas.ti.
El análisis evidenció complementariedades conceptuales y operativas significativas entre la ISO 21001:2025 y los criterios del CACEI, particularmente en ámbitos como la planeación estratégica, el diseño académico, la operación del proceso formativo y los mecanismos de mejora continua. Estos hallazgos sustentan la formulación de un modelo estructurado en procesos estratégicos, clave y de apoyo, que ofrece un marco integrado para fortalecer el aseguramiento sistémico de la calidad en instituciones de educación superior tecnológica.
The growing demands for accountability and quality assurance in higher education have led institutions to simultaneously implement formal management systems and external accreditation mechanisms. In technological higher education, this dual dynamic is reflected in the adoption of ISO 21001:2025 and program-level accreditation processes established by the Accreditation Council for Engineering Education (CACEI). Although both frameworks pursue continuous improvement and educational quality, they are often managed independently, generating duplication and organizational fragmentation.
This study aims to propose a conceptual process-based model for integrated compliance with ISO 21001:2025 and the CACEI accreditation framework. Specifically, it seeks to: (1) identify normative convergences between both frameworks, and (2) systematize these convergences within a coherent institutional process architecture. A qualitative, non-experimental, cross-sectional design was adopted, using documentary analysis and inductive–deductive coding supported by Atlas.ti.
The analysis revealed significant conceptual and operational complementarities between ISO 21001:2025 and CACEI criteria, particularly in strategic planning, academic design, formative processes, and continuous improvement mechanisms. These findings support the development of a structured model organized into strategic, core, and support processes. The proposed model offers an integrated framework that may contribute to strengthening systemic quality assurance in technological higher education institutions.
Downloads
PlumX Statistics
References
2. Baxter, P., & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and implementation for novice researchers. The Qualitative Report, 13(4), 544–559. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2008.1573
3. Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027
4. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). Thematic analysis: A practical guide. SAGE Publications.
5. Cardoso, S., Rosa, M. J., & Videira, P. (2018). Academics’ participation in quality assurance: Does it reflect ownership? Quality in Higher Education, 24(1), 66–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/13538322.2018.1426381
6. Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
7. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2018). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.
8. Dumas, M., La Rosa, M., Mendling, J., & Reijers, H. A. (2018). Fundamentals of business process management (2nd ed.). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-56509-4
9. Gautier, E. (2007). Quality assurance in higher education: A political perspective. Higher Education Management and Policy, 19(3), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1787/hemp-v19-art14-en
10. Girmanová, L., Šolc, M., Kliment, J., Divoková, A., & Mikloš, V. (2022). Application of process management principles in higher education institutions. Sustainability, 14(3), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14031235
11. Harvey, L., & Williams, J. (2010). Fifteen years of quality in higher education (Part Two). Quality in Higher Education, 16(2), 81–113. https://doi.org/10.1080/13538322.2010.485722
12. Hernández Sampieri, R., Fernández Collado, C., & Baptista Lucio, M. P. (2018). Metodología de la investigación (6.a ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
13. ISO. (2025). ISO 21001:2025: Educational organizations — Management systems for educational organizations — Requirements with guidance for use. International Organization for Standardization.
14. Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2015). InterViews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
15. Lemaitre, M. J., Salazar, J. M., Ríos, M., & Valdés, M. (2012). Aseguramiento de la calidad en la educación superior: Tendencias y desafíos. CINDA.
16. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. SAGE Publications.
17. Maxwell, J. A., Chmiel, M., & Rogers, S. (2015). Designing integration in mixed methods and multimethod research. En S. N. Hesse-Biber & R. B. Johnson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of multimethod and mixed methods research inquiry (pp. 214–238). Oxford University Press.
18. Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
19. Psomas, E., Antony, J., & Bouranta, N. (2018). The key factors affecting the implementation of ISO 9001 in service organizations. The TQM Journal, 30(6), 707–725. https://doi.org/10.1108/TQM-04-2018-0040
20. Saldaña, J. (2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
21. Scharager, J., & Aravena, M. (2010). Impact of accreditation on institutional management: The Chilean experience. Quality in Higher Education, 16(1), 73–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/13538321003679442
22. Stake, R. E. (2013). Multiple case study analysis. Guilford Press.
23. Stensaker, B. (2018). Quality assurance and learning: A complex relationship. Quality in Higher Education, 24(3), 206–219. https://doi.org/10.1080/13538322.2018.1552515
24. Tracy, S. J. (2020). Qualitative research methods: Collecting evidence, crafting analysis, communicating impact (2nd ed.). Wiley-Blackwell.
25. Trkman, P. (2010). The critical success factors of business process management. International Journal of Information Management, 30(2), 125–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2009.07.003
26. vom Brocke, J., Mendling, J., Reijers, H. A., & Weisman, A. (2021). Business process management: The evolution of a discipline. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 63(4), 405–419. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-021-00699-3
27. Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Copyright (c) 2026 José Alfredo González, Omar Aguilar, María del Rosario Morales
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
