UniSA policy A-35B.5 Review sets out the scope and responsibilities for a number of categories of review activity that reflect the University's commitment to quality, effectiveness and continuous improvement. These guidelines provide further information and advice on giving effect to the policy for the categories of Nominated, and Vice Chancellor's reviews. The guidelines aim to enhance the value to the University's quality framework of these reviews through attention to:
These aspects of review are informed by the key principles of the policy.
Policy A-35B.5 incorporates a number of important principles-that is, that review:
The policy is an academic policy of the University and it is therefore expected that scholarly approaches and standards apply.
The requirement for review to be systematic incorporates the expectation that it will be well planned, methodical and well ordered. The relationship will be clear and logical between the scope and terms of reference; identification of the sources of information; methods of information gathering, analysis and interpretation; and formulation of findings.
It is expected that reviews will identify, gather, analyse and interpret relevant quantitative and qualitative information in forming its conclusions. The policy states that review will utilise key performance and other indicators, and undertake benchmarking against national and international good practice. Review will include comparison of UniSA with other institutions and organisations.
Benchmarking against good practice at a national and international level is an essential component of review to assess UniSA's relative standing, and also to identify areas of good practice that may inform quality improvement or strategic innovation.
The policy requires that an external reviewer conduct a review or join a review panel. This requirement contributes to the value of the process by ensuring broader perspectives and independence from the outcomes of the review. However, this requirement means that it is important to ensure the reviewer is well briefed and oriented to the University and has access to relevant and adequate support.
Reviews must take account of stakeholder views. Systematic approaches will include identifying stakeholder groups and the nature of their interest, determining appropriate ways to gather such views, and ensuring that their views are appropriately recorded.
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, ranging across the provision of opportunities for formal submissions, focus group activity, personal interviews and questionnaires.
The method(s) adopted must be appropriate and encourage input.
The purpose of Nominated and Vice Chancellor's reviews is to inform planning for both quality improvement and strategic innovation. Review reports are therefore expected to make recommendations. These may suggest improvement activities or the consideration of completely new approaches.
It is also important that review is balanced, and areas of good practice or strength should also be acknowledged and affirmed.
The review brief needs to provide an external reviewer and the University community with a clear idea of the task to be undertaken, its timelines and reporting arrangements.
Framing the review therefore needs to include:
The Vice Chancellor must approve the reviewer (or membership of the review panel) and the proposed approach. In seeking such approval, a document must be provided that includes:
As indicated above, reviewers (including the members of a review panel) must be approved by the Vice Chancellor.
The choice of reviewer is important as it will influence the quality of the review and the credibility of findings. Selection of a reviewer therefore needs to include the following considerations:
Where a review panel is to oversee the review, then the team as a whole needs to meet these considerations.
The effectiveness of review is indicated by the extent to which review findings are relevant and actionable. Careful selection of reviewer (or panel) that includes consideration of reviewer expertise as well as consideration of any potential risks to the appearance of impartiality in the eyes of stakeholders is therefore essential.
The effectiveness and efficiency of the review process will depend on:
Consideration needs to be given to the briefing process, the orientation and induction to relevant University processes, and the availability and access to resources necessary to the conduct of the review. It is the responsibility of the member of Senior Management Group commissioning the review to ensure that these processes and resources are provided.
Undertaking a review will involve a number of activities that need to be managed effectively and efficiently.
Review activities can include gathering, analysing and storing relevant information; meeting with relevant stakeholders; undertaking benchmarking; visiting different locations; and drafting reports. Assistance with such matters as diary management, access to relevant information and communication technology, access to information resources, research, travel and accommodation may be required.
It is important to ensure at the point of framing a review that the organisation and resources underpinning review activity have been anticipated and addressed.
It is also 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 member of Senior Management Group 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 it and the findings against the original brief and, if necessary, discuss and resolve any issues arising with the reviewer (or panel) before formally receiving the report.
The following points set out the sequence of actions to be undertaken in response to the review findings.
Approved by Vice Chancellor, 20 September 2005