1. Introduction
In order to achieve effectiveness of Quality Assurance system and obtain desired quality educational outcomes, firstly, it is necessary to fully and deeply analyze the realities with which the agencies involved in tertiary education quality assurance system face. Secondly, only on the basis of well understanding the realities of the system, can we take a further study on how to improve the effectiveness of the system.

2. Difficulties and challenges

2.1 Technical difficulties
2.2 The diversity of the target group
2.3 The structure of the quality assurance system is too complex
2.4 The extent of the behavioural change
2.5 The context of inter-organizational relationships

3. Improve the effectiveness of the implementation of New Zealand quality assurance agencies
In the past two decades, NZ has been experiencing the great changes from focusing on outputs to stressing outcomes in public sectors’ reforms. Bill Ryan divided the process of reform into two stages. Pursuing outputs was characteristic of the first stage during the 1980s and 90s. MFO is the core of the second stage reforms after 2000. ‘MfO represents the leading edge of a second stage public sector reform in the liberal democracies, a product of learning from the 1990s, and focused more on the substance of governance and the effectiveness of policy than matters of economy and efficiency (Ryan B. (2003) P1-2) [15].’

3.1 Planning for outcomes
3.2 Implementing for outcomes
3.3 Resourcing for outcomes
3.4 Monitoring and evaluating outcomes
3.5 Accounting for outcomes

4. Conclusion
To sum up in order to achieve effectiveness of Quality Assurance system and obtain desired quality educational outcomes, it is necessary to fully and deeply analyze the realities with which the agencies involved in tertiary education quality assurance system face. Only on the basis of well understanding the realities of the system, can we take a further study on how to improve the effectiveness of the system. From a theoretical point of view, there is a logical cycle of managing for outcomes including Planning for outcomes, Implementing for outcomes, Resourcing for outcomes, Monitoring and evaluating for outcomes and Accounting for outcomes. On each stage there is room to improve. With the shift from the output-based system to outcomes-based system, quality assurance system should take into consideration following factors objective setting, structure adjustment, implementation model choice, human resources training and recruitment, replacing audit with evaluation system as well as accountability. The supreme aim during each stage in the cycle of managing for outcomes is to orient the tertiary education sector into one that is less atomized and competitive, more connected and collaborative, and strategically focused. Good implementation is the key to achieving and maintaining the right balance between the respective roles and responsibilities of the government and our public tertiary educations institutions. It is necessary to build close, lasting relationships by which the system can share understandings among agencies and tertiary education institutions as well as comprehensive stakeholders to find the right way to achieve the desired quality educational outcomes. The government and its agencies as well as bodies involved in the quality assurance system align not only various interests, but also in particular the needs of the macro-economy and society.