1. University of Queensland School, Institute and University Centre Review Process
To achieve improvement through:
Self assessment
Benchmarking
Critical reflection
Forward planning
Peer review

2. 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 00025B

3. Review committee Institute Reviews School Reviews Centre Reviews
Schools, institutes and centres are asked to nominate potential committee members.
The reviews procedures (PPL and PPL ) 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
Committee:
2–3 externals (1 serves as Chair)
Academic Board Standing Committee representative
Member from a cognate field (generally Head of a cognate school)
Secretary:
Faculty Executive Officer
Institute Reviews
Committee:
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
Centre Reviews
Committee:
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
Review | Briefing Session
CRICOS code 00025B

4. 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 00025B

5. 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:
Core data
Data specific to Discipline/School/Institute/Centre
Benchmark data
Data is linked to the following
key areas of performance:
Schools:
Governance and Vision
Teaching and Learning
Research and Research Training
Internationalisation
Professional and Industry Links
Alumni and Community Links
Equity and Diversity
Organisation and Administration
Resources
Faculty and University- wide Issues
Institutes:
Purpose and Goals
Assessment of Activities
Role within the University
Governance and Management
Discovery
Resources
Education
Links with other University Units
Organisational Structure
Engagement
Review | Briefing Session
CRICOS code 00025B

6. 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.
Recommended submission length:
Submission: around 50 pages
Appendices: up to 100 pages
Review | Briefing Session
CRICOS code 00025B

7. 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:
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:
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 00025B

8. Review week schedule Evening prior to review: Third day of review:
Review committee meets for informal dinner
Discussion and progressive report preparation
Additional interviews
First and second days of the review:
Interviews/discussions with:
Final day of review:
President of Academic Board, VC, Provost, DVCs, Dean of Graduate School, PVC (IE)
Verbal presentation of draft recommendations to:
Executive Dean (where relevant)
Head of School/Director of Institute/Centre and Executive Dean (where relevant)
Head of School/Director of Institute/Centre
School/Institute/Centre staff; other University staff; students; external stakeholders
President of Academic Board and Provost
all School/Institute/Centre staff
Inspection of School/Institute/Centre facilities
Production of draft report before disbanding
Informal lunch (or morning/afternoon tea) with staff and students
Second day of the review:
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.
Review | Briefing Session
CRICOS code 00025B

9. 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 00025B

10. 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 00025B

11. Questions