View Current

Organisational Reviews Policy

This is the current version of this document. To view historic versions, click the link in the document's navigation bar.

Section 1 - Purpose and Scope

Purpose

(1) This Policy sets out the University's approach and processes for conducting Organisational Reviews.  

Scope

(2) This Policy applies to all:

  1. Work Units (Academic and Support); and
  2. University functions, services, and processes.

(3) This Policy does not apply to:

  1. Educational collaboration arrangements which are reviewed in accordance with the Educational Partnership Policy and associated Procedures.
  2. Courses which are reviewed in accordance with the Academic Quality Standards and Integrity Policy and Course Review Procedures.
  3. Reviews conducted in accordance with the Internal Audit Charter. 
Top of Page

Section 2 - Definitions

(4) For the purposes of this Policy, the following definitions apply:

  1. Academic Unit - means the faculties and colleges of the University.
  2. Organisational Review - means a review of a work unit, University service, function or process.
  3. Support Unit - means a work unit, other than an Academic Unit.
Top of Page

Section 3 - Policy Statement

(5) The University conducts Organisational Reviews as part of its commitment to quality enhancement.

(6) Reviews are conducted according to the following principles:

  1. Reviews extend beyond satisfying compliance requirements and encourage a culture of self-reflection and peer review so that strengths may be acknowledged and weaknesses identified and addressed.
  2. Use evidence-based practice and quantitative and qualitative data for effective decision making and strategy evaluation.
  3. Embrace a student-focussed approach where student participation and feedback inform all phases of the quality cycle.
  4. Do not impose undue burden on staff members, nor impede normal operations of the area under review.

Review Elements

(7) The key elements of Organisational Review are:

  1. Reflective analysis portfolio;
  2. Independent Review Panel;
  3. Written submissions;
  4. Review visit and active engagement with stakeholders;
  5. Review Report; and
  6. Follow-up action and accountability.

Part A - Academic Unit Review

(8) Academic Units are reviewed on a five-year rolling review cycle which is determined by the Pro Vice Chancellor (Academic Quality).

(9) For each Academic Unit Review, the Pro Vice Chancellor (Academic Quality) determines:

  1. The Terms of Reference;
  2. Membership of the Review Panel; and
  3. The timeline for conducting the review.

Terms of Reference

(10) The Terms of Reference will normally include the following areas of strategic importance:

  1. Teaching and learning;
  2. Research and research training;
  3. Scholarship of Learning and Teaching;
  4. Improving the student experience;
  5. Engagement with the region aligned professions and external accrediting authorities;
  6. Leadership and innovation (including enhancing the potential and performance of staff);
  7. Internationalisation;
  8. Financial management;
  9. Alignment of the Academic Work Unit's activities to the University's priorities set out in the Strategic Plan and functional plans;
  10. Significant planning and review activities.

The Review Panel

(11) The Review Panel will normally consist of three members - two external to the University and one internal member from an area outside the work unit being reviewed.

(12) The Review Panel members will be suitably qualified with appropriate academic, strategic and industry-oriented expertise and be appointed by the Pro Vice Chancellor (Academic Quality) following consultation with the Executive Dean or College Dean.

(13) The Review Panel will be chaired by an independent expert, selected in accordance with the TEQSA Guidance Note - Independent Experts engaged by providers.

(14) A Review Administrative Officer will be appointed to support the Review Process and provide guidance to the Faculty or College.

Review Process

(15) Academic Unit Reviews are conducted in accordance with the Academic Unit Review Process

Review Documents

(16) The key review documents are:

  1. Data Portfolio;
  2. Stakeholder Feedback (alumni, current students and staff);
  3. Review Submission; 
  4. Review Report; and
  5. Management Response. 

Data Portfolio 

(17) The Office of Business Intelligence and Quality assembles the Data Portfolio.  

Stakeholder Feedback 

(18) The Office of Business Intelligence and Quality facilitates the collection of stakeholder feedback including from alumni, current students and staff members. 

Review Submission

(19) The Review Submission comprises the Data Portfolio and collated submissions from invited staff, students, alumni and other key stakeholders.

Review Report

(20) The Review Panel Chair is responsible for preparing the Review Report which will address the terms of reference and include:

  1. Commendations, where significant strengths and exemplary performance or outcomes have been identified; and
  2. Recommendations, where gaps or opportunities for improvement have been identified.

(21) The Review Report may also include recommendations regarding an action plan and suggest timeframes for implementation. 

(22) The Review Report is provided to the Executive Dean/College Dean and Pro Vice Chancellor (Academic Quality). The Executive Dean/College Dean provide a management response including comments on matters of fact or emphasis and recommended action plan. Once completed, the final Review Report is submitted to the Vice Chancellor.

(23) The Vice Chancellor responds to the Review Report and endorses responsibility for implementation of agreed recommendations. 

(24) Following the Vice Chancellor’s response to the report, the relevant Executive Member distributes the management response to the Vice Chancellor’s Group. 

Post Review - Implementation and Follow Up

(25) Actions identified for implementation from the Review Report are added to a Review Action Register. Actions are managed within the Faculty or College with the Executive Dean/College Deans responsible for:

  1. Implementing those actions;
  2. Keeping accurate records of completed actions;
  3. Reporting progress on implementation to Vice Chancellor's Group, as appropriate.

Part B - Support Unit Reviews and Function Reviews

(26) Support Unit Reviews and Function Reviews are conducted on an ad hoc basis at the direction of the Vice Chancellor or relevant Executive Member.

(27) For each Support Unit or Function Review, the relevant Executive Member determines:

  1. The terms of reference;
  2. Membership of the Review Panel; and
  3. The timeline for conducting the review.

Terms of Reference

(28) The Terms of Reference for a Support Unit or Function Review normally include the following areas:

  1. Support functions of the work unit;
  2. Engagement with other University work units;
  3. Improving the University experience for students;
  4. Engagement with international activities;
  5. Engagement with the region and professions;
  6. Leadership and innovation (including enhancing the potential and performance of staff);
  7. Quality assurance and improvement processes; and
  8. Significant planning and review activities

Review Panel

(29) The Review Panel is determined by the relevant Executive Member with consideration of the scale and scope of the review as well as the inherent quality risks.

Review Documents

(30) The key review documents are:

  1. Data Portfolio;
  2. Review Submission;
  3. Review Report; and 
  4. Management Response. 

Data Portfolio 

(31) The relevant Executive Member nominates a Head of Work Unit to facilitate the creation of the Data Portfolio.

Review Submission

(32) The Review Submission will be collated by the nominated Work Unit in alignment with the Review’s Terms of Reference. 

Review Report

(33) The Review Panel Chair is responsible for preparing the Review Report which will address the terms of reference and include:

  1. Commendations, where significant strengths and exemplary performance or outcomes have been identified; and
  2. Recommendations, where gaps or opportunities for improvement have been identified.

(34) The Review Report may also include recommendations regarding an action plan and suggest allocation of responsibilities and timeframes for implementation. 

(35) When available, the Review Report is forwarded to the relevant Executive Member for comment on matters of fact or emphasis. The Executive Member provides a management response including comments of fact or emphasis and a recommended action plan. Once completed, the final Review Report is submitted to the Vice Chancellor.  

(36) The Vice Chancellor responds to the report and endorses responsibility for implementation of agreed recommendations.

(37) Following the Vice Chancellor's response to the report, the relevant Executive Member distributes the management response to the Vice Chancellor's Group. 

Post Review - Implementation and Follow Up

(38) Actions identified for implementation from the Review Report are added to a Review Action Register. The Head of Work Unit is responsible for:

  1. Implementing those actions;
  2. Maintaining and updating the Review Action Register; 
  3. Reporting progress on implementation to the relevant Executive Member on a regular basis; and 
  4. Reporting progress on implementation to the Vice Chancellor's Group, as appropriate.