A/2.3 Corporate reviews


Chapters
	A - Governance/Organisation
	B - Human Resources
	C - Learning/Teaching
	D - Research/Development
	E - Student Administration
	F - Information Management
	G - Financial Management
	H - Physical Facilities
	I - International/Community
	MOPP Appendices

	MOPP Protocol
	MOPP Updates

[Print-friendly version]

Contact Officer	Director, Reporting and Analysis, Finance and Resource Planning
Approval Date	15/10/2008
Approval Authority	Council
Date of Next Review	01/09/2011

2.3.1 Context
2.3.2 Purpose
2.3.3 Goals of review system
2.3.4 Terms of reference
2.3.5 Process
Related Documents
Modification History

2.3.1 Context

Corporate reviews are a core part of the University's planning and quality assurance frameworks.

The corporate reviews process provides valuable input into strategic planning exercises with the implementation of review affirmations and recommendations required to be integrated into organisational area plans.

Corporate reviews and their emphasis on self-review, reflection, strategic positioning, continuous improvement and accountability support the University's quality assurance and the Australian Universities Quality Agency (AUQA) undertakings through establishment of a culture of continuous improvement, leading to improved processes and activities of the University. Information is shared throughout the University during and after a review, by individuals, via the review report and through other collaborative processes.

Reviews may focus on a faculty, division or institute within the University. Alternatively, a thematic review is one that focuses on a service / process, the delivery of which spans organisational boundaries and is usually the responsibility of more than one organisational area.

Top

2.3.2 Purpose

The overall purpose of a faculty/division/institute and thematic review is to:

cyclically evaluate the quality assurance arrangements, achievements and performance relating to the activities of a faculty / division / institute and thematic activities occurring within the University;
ensure that the activities of a faculty / division / institute are supporting the directions of the University as articulated by strategic and top-level plans;
respond to organisational audit requirements through implementation of effective and professional institutional monitoring of its own performance and use the information gained for institutional planning and improvement;
encourage and assist the growth of an organisational culture that is committed to continuous improvement; and
promote continuous improvement in the academic and other programs of the University and help assure the quality of the University.

The purpose of reviews is developmental and, to this end, the fundamental outcome of a review is the identification of agreed key steps which the University will undertake in order to improve its achievements and outcomes against stated objectives, enhance its quality and performance, and strengthen its strategic positioning and direction.

Top

2.3.3 Goals of review system

The goals of the review system are to:

implement rigorous internal and external scrutiny of the processes for self-evaluation used by a faculty / division / institute or those organisational areas involved in thematic reviews with particular emphasis on recent performance, current activities and proposed strategic directions;
assess the direction, leadership, management, innovation and business outcomes of an organisational area/s; and
be an instrument for managed change and continuous improvement in the University.

Top

2.3.4 Terms of reference

Each corporate review will be carried out according to the terms of reference. For each review, Planning and Resources Committee may add to or modify these terms of reference.

The terms of reference for a review of a faculty / division / institute should be addressed in the context of the University's strategic plans, goals, organisational values and key performance indicators, and be responsive to national and international contexts.

The review panel’s task is to provide an objective view of the faculty / division / institute’s performance and future plans developed through the self-review process (see section 2.3.5(c) below), which includes commending good practice and affirming or recommending changes.

For faculty / divisional reviews:

The terms of reference include

to evaluate the governance, leadership, management practices, and supporting systems reflecting (but not limited to): recent organisational performance (including collection and interpretation of key performance indicators; environmental scanning and risk management, eg SWOT analysis; benchmarking and comparative data; and evidence of outcomes against plans and stated objectives); consistency with the aims, values and objectives of the top-level plans; progress since the previous corporate review implementation plan; interdependencies with other reviews (internal, external and thematic); contribution to QUT’s corporate agenda and evidence of cooperation and collaboration across the University; and future directions and strategic positioning of the faculty/division for the next five years (see sections 2.3.5(c) and 2.3.5(d) below);
to review the quality, scope, focus and direction of learning and teaching activities including (but not limited to): supportive learning environments; learning outcomes; teaching performance; course performance and curriculum design, incorporating internationalisation of the curriculum; learning and teaching support services; examining student and graduate satisfaction and the perceptions of key external stakeholders; congruent with future developments in appropriate professions or disciplines at the national level;
to review the quality, scope, focus and direction of research and innovation including (but not limited to): research activity; research quality and impact; research outcomes including commercial achievements; interdisciplinary and international focus; research-led benefits to the community and society at large; quality of research management and training; and research support services; congruent with future research developments in relevant disciplines;
to review an organisational area’s people and cultural environment including (but not limited to): leadership; human resource management practices; service orientation and responsiveness to the needs of the University and relevant external communities; and equity and diversity; and
to review the effective and efficient use of infrastructure (both physical and virtual facilities) and financial resources in light of its current functions and anticipated future developments.

For institute reviews:

The institute should address the review criteria as specified in D/4.1 Institutes (Tier 1).

For thematic reviews:

Terms of reference for thematic reviews will be extracted from those detailed for faculty / division / institute reviews and modified to suit the particular characteristics of the service / process which is the subject of the review. Each set of thematic terms of reference will be approved through Planning and Resources Committee, or executively by the Vice-Chancellor, on behalf of Council.

Top

2.3.5 Process

a) The review schedule

Planning and Resources Committee discharges Council's responsibility for the overall implementation of the internal review system and determines a schedule of reviews. Reviews are normally, in the case of faculty, division and institute reviews, undertaken on a five-year cycle. Thematic reviews are undertaken on an as needs basis. The Vice-Chancellor may request that Planning and Resources Committee set up a review out of sequence from the schedule.

b) The review panel

Membership of each panel is determined according to the following guidelines:

One member with recent experience in a senior academic or administrative position, nominated by Council, as Chair;
A deputy vice-chancellor, head of division or executive dean of faculty nominated by the Vice-Chancellor;
One or two distinguished professionals with relevant expertise;
In the case of a division - one or two distinguished external members drawn from the professional community;
In the case of a faculty or institute - two distinguished external members, at least one of whom is drawn from the academic community.

In exceptional circumstances an additional external member may be appointed.

The Division of Finance and Resource Planning will nominate a Secretary to the review panel.

c) Self-review

External scrutiny by the review panel is informed by the critical self-review by the organisational area/s. Self-review enables the organisational area/s to supply information to the review panel and also has the potential to lead to improvements prior to review panel intervention.

Self-review should be engaged as an organisational learning and development exercise which facilitates a shared participation and ownership by staff of quality assurance. Staff should participate in self-review from the outset in recognition of their knowledge and expertise and contributions to the improved performance and quality of the organisational area/s.

Self-review should result in a frank and candid account of an organisational area’s performance against the terms of reference for the review.

Self-review should also establish a firm integration of quality assurance and continuous improvement into the organisational area’s strategic and day-to-day management, and service delivery.

d) The review portfolio and associated submissions

(i) The portfolio

The faculty / division / institute or area/s responsible for thematic reviews are required to develop a review portfolio summarising the outcomes of its self-review against the terms of reference for reviews. It should specify strategies, objectives, activities, measures and outcomes. The portfolio will identify areas of strength including achievements and areas requiring improvement. For the latter, it may foreshadow action.

Further information can be obtained from the Guidelines for Preparing the Review Portfolio.

(ii) Supporting documentation

Supporting documentation including most recent plans and annual reports, and documents which illustrate a broad and representative range of reports and publications may be referenced in the review portfolio and made available to the review panel.

The Department of Reporting and Analysis, Division of Finance and Resource Planning, develops a statistical information booklet to assist in the successful development of the portfolio and to support the review panel in their deliberations and formulation of commendations, affirmations and recommendations. The data utilised as a foundation for this document is drawn from quality assured and authenticated corporate information technology systems.

The statistical information booklet provides a:

high level analysis and interpretation of data trends in specified areas; and
comprehensive and comparative data relating to specified areas.

(iii) Submissions

Written submissions, responding to all or a sub-set of the terms of reference will be called from:

the University community - including organisational areas, staff and the Student Guild; and
key external stakeholders - including for example Alumni, professional groups, industry partners and government agencies (where relevant).

The organisational area under review is invited to respond to written submissions received.

Confidential and anonymous submissions will not be accepted. However, individual and/or groups of staff will be provided with an opportunity to request an interview with the review panel in order to respond to any issue in relation to all or a sub-set of the terms of reference.

e) The review

Prior to the review panel site visit, the review panel convenes to clarify its understanding of the task, request any additional information, determine the interview schedule and identify any themes or issues emerging from the review portfolio and submissions.

The review panel visits the area under review for a period not exceeding five consecutive working days. The site visit is of sufficient time to allow the panel to conduct the review thoroughly, formulate its commendations, affirmations and recommendations, and prepare a draft of its report.

f) The review report

The review report follows a standard format which addresses the terms of reference for the review.

Once panel members agree to do so, a draft of the report is made available to the Vice-Chancellor, and in the case of the review of a faculty / institute, to the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic) and Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research and Commercialisation) for information, and to the faculty / division / institute or nominated senior officer for limited circulation to allow it to identify any errors of fact, and to seek modifications to recommendations, conclusions and comments made on the basis of factual error. Modifications to the draft can be made by the secretary to the review panel in consultation with the panel chair.

g) Carriage of the report

The final report is provided to the Vice-Chancellor (in the case of a division), the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic) (in the case of a faculty) and/or the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research and Commercialisation) (in the case of an institute), and to the relevant faculty / division / institute, normally within six weeks of the review panel completing its visit to the University.

h) Implementation of review affirmations and recommendations

On receipt of the review report, the Vice-Chancellor (in the case of a division or a thematic review), the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic) (in the case of a faculty review), or the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic) and the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research and Commercialisation) (in the case of an institute review), requests that the relevant organisational area or nominated respondents provide, normally within six weeks of the report's release:

written comments on, and proposals in response to, the review panel's report and recommendations; and
an implementation plan which outlines actions which the faculty / division / institute or the broader organisation will take in response to the review report and a draft timetable for their implementation.

University Academic Board then considers the report, written comments on, and proposals from the faculty / division / institute or nominated respondents, and the draft implementation plan in relation to academic matters including factors affecting teaching and research, and forwards the report with recommendations and comments to Planning and Resources Committee.

At a subsequent meeting, Planning and Resources Committee assesses the report and draft implementation plan. Planning and Resources Committee then submits to Council a summary of the main conclusions of the review, together with the final implementation plan.

The Corporate Reviews Officer monitors the implementation of post-review actions and provides annual reports on progress against review affirmations and recommendations to Planning and Resources Committee. Planning and Resources Committee reports annually to Council on the implementation of post-review actions.

The Vice-Chancellor, Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic), and/or Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research and Commercialisation), whichever is the appropriate officer, is responsible for ensuring satisfactory progression of implementation of post-review actions.

Top

Modification History

Date	Sections	Source	Details
05.01.10	A/2.3.5	Acting Vice-Chancellor	Minor amendment to clarify external membership categories on review panels
15.10.08	All	Council	Revised policy (endorsed by Planning and Resources Committee 07.10.08 and Vice-Chancellor’s Advisory Committee 16.07.08)
13.11.03	All	Planning and Resources Committee	Revised policy; re-numbered and re-located to MOPP A/2.3 (previously MOPP A/7.8)
11.12.02	All	Council	Revised policy
4.10.00	A/2.3.5	Planning and Resources Committee	Approved replacement of the position of Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Planning and Resources) with position of a Pro-Vice-Chancellor, Registrar, Dean of Faculty or Head of Division nominated by the Vice-Chancellor, effective until the end of 2001; Revised membership of review panels to include new Executive Director, Finance and Resource Planning
11.8.98	All	Planning and Resources Committee	Revised guidelines for the conduct of faculty/division reviews; revised schedule of reviews

Top