POLICY NO: C-34
DATE OF APPROVAL: 22 June 2001 (as policy A35B)
Director: Student and Academic Services - January 2011
Academic Board - May 2011
As Policy C-34 - 18 October 2012 Council Resolution 2012/5/7
REFERENCE AUTHORITY: Vice Chancellor
A-35.A: Quality assurance and improvement: Programs, Courses and
Internal Audit Charter
RES-15: Quality assurance and improvement in research degrees
C-24.1 Risk Management
Guidelines for Managing Business Risk
The university’s vision is that it will be a leading contributor to Australia having the best higher education system in the world, supporting the world’s best educated and most innovative, cohesive and sustainable society.
Systematic review supports the university’s efforts to realise its vision by contributing to continuous improvement and the delivery of high-quality teaching and learning, research and administration. It utilises key performance and other indicators and international benchmarks of good practice, takes into consideration stakeholder views and the external environment, and informs innovation and planning for quality improvement.
Annual reviews and internal audit are part of the regular assessment of the university’s operations. Nominated and Vice Chancellor’s reviews supplement annual reviews and internal audit and address concerns identified through comprehensive risk assessment and continuous monitoring and evaluation. This allows the university to allocate resources efficiently and to identify and respond quickly to concerns.
This policy applies to all areas, functions, priorities and disciplines of the university.
Head of School includes the Head of UniSA College and the Director: Centre for Regional Engagement.
School includes the UniSA College and the Centre for Regional Engagement.
A senior manager is a member of the university’s Senior Management Group.
Senior Management Group will determine the structure and timing of annual reviews and will consider their outcomes.
Where an external body such as a professional association or accrediting/registering organisation undertakes a review within the university, the relevant senior manager will include a short summary of the outcomes and any significant recommendations in the annual review of the division/portfolio.
Each year, Senior Management Group will agree to a schedule of nominated reviews for the following year. Nominated reviews may be contemplated because of internal priorities or following external feedback and will take into account other quality improvement and audit activities.
The schedule of nominated reviews will take into account previous or intended reviews by external bodies such as professional associations or accrediting/registering organisations.
Nominated reviews may cover areas of excellent, satisfactory or poor performance and should be consistent with institutional priorities.
A senior manager may, with the approval of the Vice Chancellor, initiate a nominated review outside the schedule.
The Vice Chancellor must approve the membership of the review panel and the proposed approach.
Reviews will include relevant national and international data and comparisons with other institutions.
The Vice Chancellor will inform Council, through the Corporate Performance Report, about nominated reviews conducted or in process in the previous year.
The Vice Chancellor will inform Council, through the Corporate Performance Report, about Vice Chancellor’s reviews conducted or in process in the previous year.
Approved by Senior Management Group – 18 April 2012
Reviews will be well planned and methodical. There will be clear and logical relationships between the scope and terms of reference, methods of information gathering, analysis and interpretation, and formulation of findings.
Evidence and benchmarking
Reviews will identify, gather, analyse and interpret relevant quantitative and qualitative information. They will utilise key performance and other indicators, and undertake benchmarking against national and international good practice. Reviews will include comparison of UniSA with other institutions and organisations.
Benchmarking against good practice at a national and international level is essential to assessing UniSA's relative standing and to identifying areas of good practice that may inform improvement, future priorities or innovation.
Stakeholder views and the external environment
Reviews must take account of stakeholder views. The review panel must identify stakeholder groups and the nature of their interest, determine appropriate ways to gather such views, and ensure that their views are appropriately recorded.
Reviews must take account of the external environment, including legislation and regulation, changes in the education sector, the economy and society in general, and relevant international developments or events.
Issues such as the confidentiality or otherwise of responses and the attribution of views in any reporting need to be made clear from the outset.
Depending on the nature of the review, different approaches may be considered, including formal submissions, focus group activity, personal interviews and questionnaires.
The methods adopted must be appropriate and encourage input.
The policy requires that an external reviewer conduct a review or join a review panel. This ensures that the review takes broader perspectives into account and provides independent advice to the university. However, this means that the reviewer must be briefed well, understand the university and be given appropriate support.
External reviewers must sign appropriate confidentiality agreements.
Improvement and innovation
The purpose of reviews is to inform quality improvement, planning and priority setting. Review reports are therefore expected to make recommendations. These may suggest improvements or the consideration of completely new approaches.
It is also important that review is balanced, and areas of good practice or strength should be acknowledged.
The senior manager who commissions the review must:
• ensure that the review is properly framed
• appoint an appropriate reviewer/review panel
• secure the Vice Chancellor’s approval as specified below
• provide adequate resources and orientation for the reviewer/review panel
• enable stakeholders to contribute to the review
• evaluate the report and prepare an appropriate action plan.
The review brief needs to provide the review panel and the university community with a clear idea of the task to be undertaken, the timelines and the reporting arrangements.
Framing the review therefore needs to include:
Vice Chancellor's approval
The senior manager (other than the Vice Chancellor) proposing the review must give the Vice Chancellor:
The choice of reviewer will influence the quality of the review and the credibility of findings. The following considerations are relevant:
Where a review panel is to oversee the review, then the team as a whole needs to meet these considerations.
The effectiveness of a review is measured by the extent to which its recommendations are relevant and can be implemented. It is therefore essential to select the reviewer (or panel) carefully and to consider their expertise and any risks to the appearance of impartiality in the eyes of stakeholders.
The effectiveness and efficiency of the review process will depend on:
Consideration needs to be given to the briefing process, orientation to relevant university processes, and the availability of resources necessary to the conduct of the review.
A review will involve a number of activities that need to be managed effectively and efficiently. These can include gathering, analysing and storing relevant information, meeting relevant stakeholders, undertaking benchmarking, visiting different locations and drafting reports. Reviewers may require assistance with matters such as diary management, relevant information and communication technology, information resources, research, travel and accommodation.
It is important to ensure that the relevant community is able to participate as appropriate. Relevant staff and stakeholders should, with reasonable notice, be informed of the review, provided with information about the reviewer (or review panel) and advised to make themselves available as required.
The review report will be presented to the senior manager who commissioned the review. It is to be submitted in accordance with the reporting requirements in the review brief.
The relevant senior manager should evaluate the report and its findings against the original brief and, if necessary, discuss and resolve any issues arising with the reviewer (or panel) before formally receiving the report.