A/2.3 Corporate Reviews

[Print-friendly version]

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 (QA) frameworks.

Corporate reviews and their recommendations provide a valuable input into strategic planning exercises with implementation of review 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 and quality assurance.

The manner in which corporate reviews are conducted strongly emphasises prior self-review. This approach, coupled with the form of the review report, positions corporate reviews as a major force for continuous quality improvement. Corporate Reviews emphasise quality improvement as the most effective means of achieving accountability. Information shared throughout the University during and after a review (by individuals, via the review report and through other means) also assists in quality improvement.

Reviews may focus on faculties or divisions within the university. Alternatively, a thematic review is one that focuses on a service/function, the delivery of which spans organisational boundaries and is the responsibility of more than one organisational area.

Corporate reviews have been in operation at QUT since 1992. Thematic reviews commenced in 2002.

The review system itself has undergone recent self-review. As a consequence there have been improvements in related policy and procedures to:

• more clearly align the review process with the strategic plan of the institution;
• support the University's quality assurance framework and related activities including AUQA self-review and performance portfolio requirements; and
• facilitate an organisational culture of engagement, regeneration and experimentation through active self-review.

Top

2.3.2 Purpose

The overall purposes of faculty/divisional and thematic reviews are to:

• cyclically evaluate the quality assurance arrangements, achievements and performance relating to the activities of faculties, divisions and thematic activities occurring within the University;
• ensure that the activities of the divisions/faculties 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 quality 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 key steps which the organisational area(s) agrees with the University will be undertaken 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

Thematic and faculty/divisional reviews are an integral part of the responsibilities of Council and University management and of the University's strategic management and quality assurance processes.

The goals of the review system are to:

• implement rigorous internal and external scrutiny of the processes for self-evaluation used by faculties/divisions 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 results/outcomes of an organisational area(s)
• be an instrument for managed change and continuing improvement in the University.

Top

2.3.4 Terms of Reference

In the context of the University's strategic plans, goals, organisational values and performance indicators, and of national and international standards of excellence, the review panel considers critically and reports, inter alia, on:

For faculty/divisional reviews:

• a description of the processes for self-evaluation (including the lead-in self-review activities for corporate review), quality assurance and improvement used by the faculty/division for its core activities, with particular emphasis on:
  • recent organisational performance (including collection and interpretation of data and information, evidence of outcomes against plans and stated objectives);
  • progress against previous quinquennial review implementation plan
  • interdependencies with other reviews (external, internal and thematic);



• the performance of the faculty/division against its stated objectives and intentions relating to the Institutional Plan and top-level plans with particular emphasis on (for faculties and as relevant for divisions):
  • teaching and learning, including (but not limited to):
    • strategic leadership and positioning, planning and management
    • client and market focus: including knowledge of clients and markets, client relationship management, client satisfaction and perceptions of value
    • course and curriculum design, development and improvement
    • engagement with broad communities: internationalisation, commercialisation, consultancy, community service
  • research and innovation, including (but not limited to):
    • strategic leadership and positioning, planning and management
    • client and market focus: including knowledge of clients and markets, client relationship management, client satisfaction and perceptions of value
    • research management
    • research training
    • engagement with broad communities: internationalisation, commercialisation, consultancy, community service
  • people and culture, including (but not limited to):
    • leadership (individual and team): strategic leadership, understanding of the business environment, adopted models of organisational leadership,
    • people: organisational values, organisational climate and culture, involvement and commitment, 'ownership'
    • human resource management: workforce planning, mentoring, development, appraisal, equal employment opportunities, health, safety and well-being.
  • infrastructure, including (but not limited to):
    • support services: student, academic and research support
    • general management and administration: the planning process, governance, integration and use of knowledge in decision making, creation and management of knowledge, administrative processes and procedures
    • financial management: ie development, application and management of financial resources
    • assets and facilities management: ie physical facilities, information technology, laboratory provision



• the appropriateness of the future directions and strategic positioning of the faculty/division including strategies for the next three years, consistent with the University's direction, with particular reference to the likely future developments in the appropriate professions or disciplines.

For Thematic Reviews

Terms of reference for thematic reviews will be extracted from those detailed for faculty/divisional 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.

Planning and Resources Committee may add to or modify these terms of reference for each review.

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/divisional reviews, undertaken in a seven-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, Registrar, Executive dean of faculty or Head of Division nominated by the Vice-Chancellor
• One or two distinguished professionals with relevant expertise, and
• In the case of a faculty - one or two external academics at professorial level or equivalent
• Corporate Reviews Manager or nominee.

In exceptional circumstances an additional external member may be appointed.

c) Self-review

External scrutiny by the review panel is based on 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 performance portfolio and associated submissions

(i) The portfolio

The faculty/division or areas responsible for thematic reviews are required to develop a performance portfolio summarising the outcomes of its self-review against the Terms of Reference for Reviews. It should set out objectives, strategies, activities, measures and results. The portfolio will also include analysis and evaluation, with consequent identification of achievements / successes and areas of deficiency / weakness. For the latter, it may foreshadow action.

(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 included in the performance portfolio.

Planning and Quality in the Division of Finance and Resource Planing also develops a document to assist in the successful development of the portfolio compiled by the area under review and to support the review panel in their deliberations and recommendation development. The data utilised as a foundation for this document is drawn from quality assured and authenticated corporate information technology systems.

The document provides:

• High level analysis and interpretation of data trends in specified areas
• Comprehensive data relating to specified areas.

(iii) Submissions

Written submissions, responding to all or a determined sub-set of the Terms of Reference will be called from:

• The University community: including organisational areas, staff, the Student Guild and individual students
• Key external stakeholders: including for example Alumni, professional groups, industry partners, government agencies.

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 performance 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 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, to the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic) for information, and to the faculty/division 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 Corporate Reviews Manager in consultation with the panel chair.

g) Carriage of the report

The final report is provided to the Vice-Chancellor and/or Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic) and to the faculty/division. The report is submitted to University Academic Board and to Planning and Resources Committee.

It is expected that these procedures will normally occur within six weeks of the review panel completing its visit to the University.

h) Implementation of review recommendations

On receipt of the review report, the Vice-Chancellor (in the case of a division or a thematic review) or Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic) (in the case of a faculty) requests that the faculty/division or nominated respondents provide, normally within 6 weeks of the report's release:

• written comments on, and proposals in response to, the review panel's report and recommendations
• an implementation plan which outlines actions which the faculty/division 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/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 Manager monitors the implementation of post-review actions and will provide annual reports on progress against review recommendations to Planning and Resources Committee. Planning and Resources Committee reports annually to Council on the implementation of post-review actions.

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

Top

Related Documents

MOPP A/2.2 University planning framework

Top

Modification History

Top