University of Queensland School Institute and University Centre
- Slides: 11
University of Queensland School, Institute and University Centre Review Process To achieve improvement through: • • • Self assessment Benchmarking Critical reflection Forward planning Peer review
Early review planning 12 months prior to review: Head/Director and support staff attend briefing session presented by President of the Academic Board Information on review committee nominees, terms of reference, duration and timing sought from School/Institute/Centre Academic Board Standing Committee and Vice Chancellor’s Committee determine the composition of the review committee, terms of reference and duration 8 -12 months prior to review: External members invited, and review date set based on availability Submission is requested from the School/Institute/Centre, due approximately one month before the review date 1 month prior to review: School/Institute/Centre finalises submission Review | Briefing Session CRICOS code 00025 B 2
Review committee Schools, institutes and centres are asked to nominate potential committee members. The reviews procedures (PPL 1. 40. 06 and PPL 1. 40. 08) request external nominees with ‘nationally/internationally recognised discipline expertise and knowledge, drawn from a range of institutions, including international partner or benchmarking universities or institutes’. School Reviews Institute Reviews Centre Reviews Committee: • 2– 3 externals (1 serves as Chair) • 3 externals (1 serves as Chair) • Academic Board Standing Committee representative • Senior researcher from cognate Institute, nominated by Provost Secretary: • Deputy Director (Operations) from a cognate Institute • Academic Board Standing Committee representative • Member from a cognate field (generally Head of a cognate school) Secretary: • Faculty Executive Officer Review | Briefing Session • • 2– 3 externals (1 serves as Chair) Academic Board Standing Committee representative Associate Dean (Research) from a relevant Faculty Director/senior researcher from a cognate Centre Secretary: • Deputy Director (Operations) from a cognate Centre CRICOS code 00025 B 3
Review committee Conflict of interest When nominating external committee members, the following conflict of interest criteria applies. Nominees must not: be involved in joint projects with staff in the School/Institute/Centre currently in the last five years be frequent visitors to, or have had a close or prolonged association with, the School/Institute/Centre or Faculty in the last five years have been former staff of the School/Institute/Centre or Faculty within the last seven years be currently seeking employment with the School/Institute/Centre or Faculty Review | Briefing Session CRICOS code 00025 B 4
Submission to the review committee SECTION 1: Overview/Summary of the submission SECTION 2: History of the School/Institute/Centre • Origins and histories of composite disciplines • Teaching programs closely associated with the Unit (if applicable) • Amalgamations of disciplines • Management structures and leadership positions established (e. g. Chairs, executive committees, advisory boards) and the rational for creation • Major outcomes of previous review (if applicable) • Major changes since previous review SECTION 3: School/Institute/Centre at Present • Analysis of School's/Institute’s/Centre’s goals and priorities • Presentation of 3 types of data: 1. Core data 2. Data specific to Discipline/School/Institute/Centre 3. Benchmark data Review | Briefing Session Data is linked to the following key areas of performance: Schools: • • • Institutes: Governance and Vision • Teaching and Learning • Research and Research • Training • Internationalisation Professional and Industry Links Purpose and Goals Assessment of Activities Role within the University Governance and Management • Discovery Alumni and Community Links • Resources • Education • • Equity and Diversity • Links with other University Units • • Resources • Organisational Structure • Engagement • Organisation and Administration Faculty and University wide Issues CRICOS code 00025 B 5
Submission to the review committee SECTION 4: School/Institute/Centre in Future This section should be the focus of the submission • Description of plans and strategies for future development and improvement over next three to five years • Goals and courses of action tied to: conclusions drawn from performance as indicated by data from Section 3 areas of potential growth School's/Institute’s/Centre’s potential contribution to strategic plans of Faculty and University • Consideration given to School's/Institute’s/Centre’s human, financial and physical resources SECTION 5: Appendices • Appendices should only be relevant, and not duplicate information readily available on School/Institute/Centre websites that is not related to the submission. Review | Briefing Session Recommended submission length: Submission: around 50 pages Appendices: up to 100 pages CRICOS code 00025 B 6
Pre review planning 6 -8 months prior to review: The Academic Board office will: • Request from the Head of School/Director names of individuals to make submissions to the review, and individuals to invite to a stakeholder dinner. • Invite written submissions from: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. All School/Institute/Centre staff and students Senior Management Members of relevant Faculty Boards University community External individuals/organisations 1 -2 months prior to review: The Academic Board office will: • Collate submissions and prepare other material for review committee The Review Secretary will: • Convene pre-review meeting of internal committee members • Invite internal and external stakeholders to meet with review committee Review | Briefing Session CRICOS code 00025 B 7
Review week schedule Evening prior to review: • Review committee meets for informal dinner First and second days of the review: • Interviews/discussions with: President of Academic Board, VC, Provost, DVCs, Dean of Graduate School, PVC (IE) Executive Dean (where relevant) Head of School/Director of Institute/Centre School/Institute/Centre staff; other University staff; students; external stakeholders • Inspection of School/Institute/Centre facilities • Informal lunch (or morning/afternoon tea) with staff and students Third day of review: • Discussion and progressive report preparation • Additional interviews Final day of review: • • Verbal presentation of draft recommendations to: Head of School/Director of Institute/Centre and Executive Dean (where relevant) President of Academic Board and Provost all School/Institute/Centre staff Production of draft report before disbanding Second day of the review: • Review | Briefing Session Review committee holds a dinner with external stakeholders (e. g. representatives of professions, business) *note: for Institute/Centre reviews, the standard duration is three days. CRICOS code 00025 B 8
Post review process Two weeks after review conducted • Final report completed. Report considered as confidential at this stage and distributed on a need to know basis • School/Institute/Centre is sent a copy of report and requested to submit a response within one month • Copies of report are distributed to: VC, Provost, DVCs, Dean of Graduate School, PVC (IE) Six weeks after review report received • School/Institute/Centre sends response to review report to ABSC Assistant Secretary, via the Executive Dean’s/Provost’s Office for comment. Next Academic Board Standing Committee meeting • ABSC considers the report and School/Institute/Centre response, and interviews the Head/Director and Executive Dean/Provost • ABSC prepares a statement to accompany final report for consideration by the Academic Board Review | Briefing Session CRICOS code 00025 B 9
Post review process Next Academic Board meeting • Academic Board considers the review report, response from the School/Institute/Centre, and comments from ABSC Subsequent to the Academic Board meeting • Review report and statement from the Academic Board are sent to the Vice Chancellor for approval • Once approved by the Vice Chancellor, report becomes a public document Within twelve months of Vice-Chancellor approval of review report • 12 month implementation report submitted to ABSC Implementation of review recommendations is the responsibility of the Head/Director in consultation with Executive Dean/Provost Review | Briefing Session CRICOS code 00025 B 10
Questions