• Section 1 - Purpose and Context
• Purpose of this Policy
• Purpose of a Review
• Section 2 - Definitions
• Section 3 - Policy Statement
• Part A - Scope
• Part B - Types of Review
• Part C - Timing of Reviews
• Part D - Initiation of Reviews
• Part E - Review Panels
• Part F - Coordination and Accountability
• Part G - Outcomes and Reporting
• Part H - Action on the Outcomes of Each Review
• Part I - Support
• Part J - Key Operating Principles
• Section 4 - Procedures
• Section 5 - Guidelines
• Implementation Guidelines and Support for University Reviews

Section 1 - Purpose and Context

Purpose of this Policy

(1) This policy seeks to consolidate a range of formal and informal review processes already underway across the University. It subsumes and revises the existing policy on academic reviews and brings in coverage of reviews for the administrative, management and support areas of the University.

(2) Specifically the policy seeks to:

1. define the nature, scope, focus, and types of reviews to be undertaken at the University and their relationship to each other;
2. clarify which reviews are to be undertaken locally and which are to be undertaken centrally;
3. identify which sorts of review should be cyclical (e.g. undertaken formally every five years); which should be ongoing (i.e. at the end of each semester or year); and which need to be undertaken only when required;
4. clarify the key operating principles for all reviews; having ensured that these are benchmarked against national and international best practice and are demonstrably known to 'value add';
5. make clear key reporting processes and accountabilities for each type of University review.

Purpose of a Review

(3) The University adopts a 'fitness for purpose' approach to review. That is, each review seeks to determine the extent to which the selected aspect of the University's activities is directly, efficiently, consistently and effectively contributing to achievement of the University's mission and key strategic objectives.

(4) Within this overarching framework the key purposes of each review are to:

1. identify strengths and areas of excellent performance/good practice;
2. identify weaknesses or gaps and recommendations to address these;
3. establish, using a range of comparative trend data and performance measures, the quality of the program, service or organisational unit;
4. provide guidance on what, in the area being reviewed, needs to be retained in its current form, what needs to be improved and what should be deleted.

(5) The Review processes identified in this policy are part of the University's Plan, Implement, Review, Improvement (PIRI) cycle.

Section 2 - Definitions

(6) Nil.

Section 3 - Policy Statement

(7) A review seeks to examine and evaluate a university unit, process or activity with a view to identifying both:

1. areas of good practice; and
2. areas requiring improvement and recommended action.

(8) Evaluation entails making evidence-based judgements about the 'value' of the area examined. Key criteria for evaluation include making judgements of relevance, alignment, efficiency, distinctiveness, clarity, consistency of operation and effectiveness of the area being reviewed.

(9) A formal review of the type covered by this policy has agreed terms of reference, a specified focus and set of evaluation criteria, agreed processes and clear accountabilities for both delivering it and acting upon its agreed recommendations.

Part A - Scope

(10) This policy covers reviews of:

1. academic units (e.g. Schools, Research Institutes, University Research Centres ) - both their performance and strategic directions;
2. administrative/support/management units (e.g. Information Technology and Digital Services, Student Administration, the Office of Strategy and Performance, Office of People and Culture, Office of Public Affairs, Office of the Vice-President, Finance and Resources, etc);
3. key areas of provision (e.g. fields of study and discipline areas; learning programs, research, research student training, university engagement);
4. key University services and processes (e.g. the policy development and review process; Office of People and Culture processes such as recruitment; the first year experience of students; staff professional development processes etc).

(11) Professional accreditation applications and renewals are not subject to this policy.

Part B - Types of Review

(12) Reviews can vary in their formality, focus and locus of control.

(13) The University requires all academic units and Divisions and their respective sub-units to engage in continuous monitoring of their current performance, with assistance from the Office of Strategy and Performance if required. These 'embedded', ongoing reviews are undertaken and monitored by the Dean or senior delegate, the relevant Deputy Vice-Chancellor or Director. The focus of these ongoing processes is on continuous tracking and improvement. This process is given oversight by the Strategy and Quality Committee (SQC) in conjunction with other relevant University committees. The outcomes of 'embedded' reviews provide data for more formal reviews.

(14) Formal University Reviews are commissioned and approved by the Vice-Chancellor and President and have clear, agreed Terms of Reference; a comprehensive scope; an appropriately constituted and trained review panel. They generate formally considered recommendations which, once agreed, are binding and monitored for effective implementation by the Strategy and Quality Committee, assisted by the Office of Strategy and Performance.

(15) It is these more formal reviews that are the primary focus of this policy.

Part C - Timing of Reviews

(16) Reviews can be:

1. cyclical (e.g. undertaken on a fixed schedule every five years with variation at the discretion of the Vice-Chancellor and President ) or commissioned on a 'need to know' basis, typically as a result of emerging evidence of risk, the impact of rapidly changing external circumstances etc;
2. ongoing (e.g. the University's Annual Course Report and Review System or by the semester Unit Report and Review system).

Part D - Initiation of Reviews

(17) It is an expectation that all major services, processes and functional areas will be subject to a formal review at least every five years, either separately or as part of a targeted and more comprehensive review.

(18) Deans, Director, University Research Institutes and Deputy Vice-Chancellors will confer with their senior staff on an annual basis. They will specify the formal reviews for the coming three years which they regard, on available evidence, to be timely and strategic and inform the Vice-Chancellor and President (with reasons) of these in their annual performance plans. All reviews set down for cyclical attention will be considered as part of this process.

(19) The resulting list of reviews identified with the Vice-Chancellor and President are to be presented as one document to the Strategy and Quality Committee at the beginning of each year. The SQC will confirm the justification, focus, and criteria for each review and identify ways in which scheduled reviews might work together. It will then work with the senior person accountable to design each review, assisted by the Office of Strategy and Performance.

(20) This process will operate on the basis of a rolling triennium, with the ability to move, add or substitute reviews as deemed necessary.

Part E - Review Panels

(21) The key role of the review panel is to test the veracity of each review's self assessment portfolio and formulate/confirm:

1. areas of good practice; and
2. key recommendations for improvement action.

(22) The decision to use an external or an internal panel or a single, independent reviewer will be made by the SQC in conjunction with the member of the University Executive responsible for the review.

(23) External panels will only be used when the area under review is high risk, subject to rapid external change pressures and of significant importance to the university financially and/or strategically.

(24) The selection of external panel members will normally focus upon the extent to which each member has demonstrable expertise in the area to be reviewed, access to good practice solutions of benefit to the university, and proven experience in participating productively in such processes.

(25) Review panels will be briefed on effective approaches and on key strategies to use when testing the veracity of the self-assessment, along with their expected role in helping the University identify proven improvement solutions in the area being assessed.

(26) Not all review panels have to engage in extensive site visits and interviews to test the veracity of the area's self-assessment. In some instances this process can be undertaken more efficiently via electronic means and teleconference. However, in other instances face to face interviews and site visits will be essential. Decisions concerning the nature of the review will be undertaken by the SQC in conjunction with the member of the University Executive responsible for the review.

(27) All review panels will be endorsed by the Strategy and Quality Committee in conjunction with the relevant member of the University Executive.

Part F - Coordination and Accountability

(28) The Strategy and Quality Committee (SQC) will be responsible for the overall coordination, commissioning, staging and quality of University Reviews and, in conjunction with the relevant member of the University Executive or delegate, for ensuring that key recommendations are acted upon promptly and wisely. The Office of Strategy and Performance will support the Strategy and Quality Committee in delivering this accountability.

(29) A designated member of the University Executive, or senior delegate, will be responsible for the implementation of each review, against the operating principles specified in this policy and its agreed plan, along with ensuring that its agreed recommendations are acted upon.

Part G - Outcomes and Reporting

(30) Each review will produce an agreed set of commendations, affirmations and recommendations along with a specific set of suggested actions to address these outcomes.

(31) Strategy and Quality Committee will report the outcomes of all reviews, along with its own assessment of each review report, to the University Executive which will consider the report's recommendations, along with its resource, change management and IR implications. Their conclusions will be reported to the Board of Trustees.

(32) A copy of all academic reviews will be forwarded to Academic Senate; a copy of all administrative reviews will be forwarded to the Audit and Risk Management Committee. Where recommended actions have the potential to affect the employment conditions of staff, the Office of People and Culture will be advised and the relevant industrial processes followed.

(33) The release of these reports, other than a summary, is at the discretion of the Vice-Chancellor and President.

(34) The Office of Strategy and Performance will monitor implementation and give regular reports on progress to Strategy and Quality Committee which will, in turn, provide regular summaries to the University Executive and the Board of Trustees.

(35) (35) The Office of Strategy and Performance will continue to produce overall 'Vital Signs' reports which provide an overview of university performance as a complement to the specific review processes identified in this policy.

Part H - Action on the Outcomes of Each Review

(36) The relevant member of the University Executive will be accountable for actioning the agreed recommendations of each review. An action plan will be agreed with the Vice-Chancellor and President with input from Strategy and Quality Committee and support from Office of Strategy and Performance. In particular:

1. implementation and evaluation strategies will be integrated into the School's or Unit's strategic planning and action plans;
2. the relevant member of the University Executive will be responsible for providing progress reports on implementation of recommendations in person to Strategy and Quality Committee, with evidence that the strategies adopted are working effectively and being sustained; and
3. annual progress reports on implementation of review recommendations will be combined with progress reports on implementation of the University's Integrated Plan and circulated to the University Executive, Academic Senate (academic matters) or the Audit and Risk Management Committee (administrative matters). These progress reports will be compiled by the Office of Strategy and Performance.

Part I - Support

(37) The Office of Strategy and Performance will be the key unit accountable for providing practical advice, guidance and support for all reviews covered by this policy. It will act as the University's (internal) consultancy service for reviews.

Part J - Key Operating Principles

(38) Each review will directly address each of the following operating principles. They are consistent with the AUQA audit review principles which were endorsed by an international review of the Agency in 2006.

(39) The Strategy and Quality Committee, supported by the Office of Strategy and Performance, will be accountable for ensuring that each review directly demonstrates that it has attended to each of these principles.

(40) Formal University reviews of both academic or administrative areas will be:

1. be demonstrably justified and feasible;
2. be scheduled with sufficient advanced notice for sound planning and for those concerned to become actively involved in the process;
3. involve an initial self assessment against agreed criteria and indicators;
4. be managed to provide assurance of objectivity and independence;
5. be evidence based - the focus should be on outcomes, not simply on inputs;
6. use existing data whenever possible. These data should be both quantitative and qualitative, as well as time series and benchmarked;
7. look at both current performance and future positioning.
   1. For example, the self-assessment will include an analysis of:
      1. the data provided annually over the previous three years as part of the 'embedded' processes (e.g. in a School Review, this would include trends in data from its Annual Course Reports, Unit reports, research performance data, etc);
      2. a range of strategic intelligence and external data to determine if their current focus and profile will keep them competitive in a rapidly changing external environment.
8. The reviewer or review panel will test and make recommendations about both areas: current performance and future directions;
9. demonstrate how the area reviewed has been addressing the University's Integrated Strategy;
10. assess quality at four levels
    1. design and organisation;
    2. support and management;
    3. current implementation;
    4. impact.
11. take into account the outcomes of earlier reviews of the area and related ones;
12. use all feasible mechanisms to independently verify the review's self-assessment document and identify key areas for follow-up;
13. include a review plan endorsed by the Strategy and Quality Committee. The Office of Strategy and Performance will assist and advise on the formulation of each plan. The final plan will, at minimum, cover the following:
    1. the focus of the review;
    2. the timetable and key phases of the review;
    3. who will be accountable for delivering each of these phases;
    4. what is to be produced;
    5. key criteria to be addressed in the self assessment;
    6. what evidence will be used in the self assessment;
    7. who the reviewers are, who will chair any panel, how the reviewers will test the veracity of the data and make meaningful recommendations.

Section 4 - Procedures

(41) Nil.

Section 5 - Guidelines

Implementation Guidelines and Support for University Reviews

(42) A set of support guides for those involved in designing and delivering University reviews have been produced. They are consistent with the University's approach to project management. Guidelines are available for the:

1. accountable member of the University Executive who is responsible for the review;
2. chair and members of any review panel; and
3. person responsible for documenting the review and the staff or other key stakeholders contributing to it.

(43) The Office of Strategy and Performance will provide a briefing on all of the relevant data available for each review and will produce custom-tailored diagnostic reports.