• Section 1 - Purpose and Scope
• Section 2 - Process and Key Controls
• Section 3 - Key Requirements
• Schedule of Reviews
• Confirmation of the Review Committee, Terms of Reference and Duration
• Format of the Review
• Submissions to the Review
• Review Timetable
• Committee Deliberations
• Review Report
• Response to the Review Report
• Implementation Process
• Section 4 - Roles, Responsibilities and Accountabilities
• Chair of the Review Committee
• Review Committee Members
• Academic Board Standing Committee Representative
• Member from a Cognate Field
• International Contributors
• Review Committee Secretary
• Review Coordinator
• Executive Support Officer
• President of the Academic Board
• Head of School
• Executive Dean
• Academic Board Standing Committee
• University Senior Executive Team
• Section 5 - Monitoring, Review and Assurance
• Section 6 - Recording and Reporting
• Section 7 - Appendix
• Appendix A: Definitions
• Appendix B: Standard Terms of Reference

Section 1 - Purpose and Scope

(1) The Supervisory Organisational Structure Policy sets out the principles applicable to the cyclical review of all schools at The University of Queensland (UQ). The purpose of this Procedure is to outline the process for the conduct of those cyclical reviews.

Section 2 - Process and Key Controls

(2) Academic Board, through its Academic Board Standing Committee, conducts school review process on a seven-year cycle.

(3) As part of the review process, schools undertake a self-assessment process of analysis, benchmarking, critical reflection and forward-planning.

(4) The Review Committee considers feedback from submissions and interviews with staff, students, other members of The University and external stakeholders, and the school’s relationships with other organisational units, resourcing, resource management and organisational structure.

(5) Through the review process, the review committee provides expert comment on the degree to which the school contributes effectively and coherently to the UQ Strategic Plan 2022-2025, and whether the school is positioned to achieve its goals and objectives and to reach its potential.

(6) Following the review, the review committee’s report (with recommendations), the school’s response, and the advice from Academic Board Standing Committee (ABSC) are considered by the University Senior Executive Team (USET).  Academic Board then reviews the report with corresponding feedback before being submitted to Vice-Chancellor for approval.

(7) The Executive Dean and the Head of School are responsible for implementing the adopted recommendations. The implementation of report recommendations are monitored by the Academic Board Standing Committee through a twelve-month and a three-year implementation report from the School.

Section 3 - Key Requirements

Schedule of Reviews

(8) The Academic Board Standing Committee, in consultation with Executive Deans, proposes a list of schools to be reviewed in the following year, for consideration and approval by USET.

Confirmation of the Review Committee, Terms of Reference and Duration

(9) The membership of the review committee, duration and any modifications to the standard terms of reference of the review are proposed by the Head of School and Executive Dean. ABSC considers and nominates review committee membership and a Chair (including reserve members), and endorses the terms of reference and duration of the review. ABSC will advise USET if changes have been made to the review committee membership, duration of the review and terms of reference proposed by the school.

(10) USET approves the nominees, reserve list, terms of reference and duration of the review. If further reserve members are required, the addtional nominees will be considered and approved by USET.

(11) The Provost, following consultation with the President of the Academic Board, is authorised to:

1. approve changes to the approved terms of reference; and
2. replace a member unable to participate in the review with a person on the USET approved membership reserve list.

(12) The Provost will also consider any issues that are raised in relation to the proposed membership of the review committee, including late changes. The Provost will bring these issues to USET for further consideration.

Membership of the Review Committee

(13) The minimum requirement for the composition of a school review committee is:

1. at least two external members (depending on the size and diversity of the school). One external member should be from an overseas university, where this is not possible up to two international contributors will be engaged;
2. one representative of the Academic Board Standing Committee; and
3. one member of the University community in a senior leadership role, from a cognate field.

(14) One of the external review committee members shall be appointed to chair the review committee.

Secretary to the Review Committee

(15) The Secretary to the review committee is a senior member of administrative staff nominated by the Executive Dean of the faculty to which the school belongs. The Secretary will typically be the Faculty Executive Manager from the Faculty of the School under review.    

(16) The Secretary will be determined by USET when considering the review committee membership composition, terms of reference and duration of the review.

(17) The Secretary is supported by the Review Coordinator, with additional administrative support provided by the Executive Support Officer in the Academic Board Office, as required.

Terms of Reference of the Review

(18) The terms of reference for the review provide the framework in which the school, through its self-assessment, and the review committee, through its enquiries, can analyse the school’s performance and plans in relation to appropriate and attainable future objectives.

(19) Standard terms of reference are provided in Appendix B. Selection, modification or removal of specific terms of reference can be proposed by the Head of School, Executive Dean, ABSC or USET. Changes to the terms of reference may be appropriate when the school or one or more of its key activities has recently been, or will soon be, subject to external review (for example, by an accrediting body).

Duration of the Review

(20) The standard duration of a review is four days, which may be consecutive or scheduled over a period of time, depending on the needs of the review panel. A shorter (minimum three days) or longer duration can be requested if appropriate by the Head of School, Executive Dean, ABSC or USET. If it is determined that the review will be held online, the duration may need to be adjusted. The panel will meet prior to the commencement of the review to determine roles of members.

Format of the Review

(21) A review is generally conducted with review committee members in-person for the duration.

(22) Alternative formats are available, if an in-person review (with the standard with a mix of Australia-based and international committee members) is not possible, or there are other good reasons to adopt a different format. Alternative approaches may include:

1. a review conducted online, with all members participating remotely in online meetings for interviews; or
2. a review conducted in-person with Australia-based external review committee members only, with feedback sought from international contributors (as detailed in the ‘Membership of the Review Committee’ provisions above).

(23) An online review must meet the requirements for a review as detailed in the ‘Committee Deliberations’ and ‘Review Report’ provisions below. Details of considerations and possible adjustments to make to the structure of the review are outlined in Review of Schools Guideline.

Submissions to the Review

(24) The President of the Academic Board invites submissions from the school, staff, students, others within the University, and external stakeholders. The submissions inform deliberation by the review committee and assist review panel members to make decisions and recommendations. The Review Coordinator sets the due date for submissions (generally one month before the commencement of the review).

The School’s Submission

(25) The school’s submission includes information about the school that is accurate, focused, comprehensive and informative. The submission should focus on future directions and strategic intentions for the school and include copies of the school’s future planning documents, such as strategic and/or operational plans. Planning and Business Intelligence will assist with the provision of key data to assist the school in the preparation of the submission, as well as to provide additional data that may be required by the panel during the review.

(26) An overview of the structure and contents of the school’s submission is in Review of Schools Guideline.

Individual Submissions

(27) Invitations to make a submission to the review are sent to interested parties, including staff, undergraduate and postgraduate students of the school, heads or directors of units within the University and individuals nominated by the Head of School.

(28) Individuals have the opportunity to request confidentiality when their submission is shared to anyone outside of the review committee by completing a Review of Schools, Institutes, Centres and Generalist Degree Programs - Request for Confidentiality Form form.

Anonymous Submissions

(29) If an individual would prefer to make an anonymous submission (with no identifying information revealed to the review committee), they are able to contact the President of the Academic Board or Deputy President of the Academic Board to share and de-identify their submission.

Release of Submissions

(30) Approximately one month before the commencement of the review:

1. all submissions received are provided to the review committee, the President of the Academic Board, the Secretary, the Provost and the Vice-Chancellor, subject to confidentiality obligations; and
2. the school’s submission is provided to the Vice-Chancellor, Deputy Vice-Chancellors, Executive Dean, Pro-Vice-Chancellors and Associate Deans who have been invited to meet with the review committee.

(31) The school’s submission may be made available, upon request and at the discretion of the Head of School, to other University units, individual University staff members and to persons external to the University.

(32) In the week prior to the review, all individual submissions received are provided to the Head of School and Executive Dean, subject to confidentiality obligations. For example:

1. in the case of students' submissions, all identifying details will be removed from the submission prior to release, unless a student requests to be identified; and
2. if an individual University staff member or a person external to the University requests confidentiality (by completing the Review of Schools, Institutes, Centres and Generalist Degree Programs - Request for Confidentiality Form form), identifying details will be removed from their submission prior to release.

(33) All submissions may be made available to any UQ-based inquirer by the Review Coordinator after the review report has been approved by the Vice-Chancellor, subject to the above conditions regarding confidentiality.

Review Timetable

(34) The review timetable is developed by the Chair, the Review Committee, review Secretary and other stakeholders as required. The Executive Support Officer organises interviews, in consultation with the review Secretary.

(35) Based on written submissions received, the panel will identify individuals to be invited to attend an interview with the panel.

(36) A draft timetable must be circulated to review committee members, along with invitations to interviewees, at least two weeks prior to the review, and subsequent changes communicated to the committee. In developing the timetable, sufficient time should be provided to enable the panel members to consider the input to the review, as well as providing time for additional interviews as determined to be required through the course of the review.

(37) As part of the timetable, an initial dinner hosted by the Executive Dean will be held for the review committee on the evening immediately prior to the start of the review. The Executive Dean will provide additional context regarding the University and the Faculty to assist the panel in its deliberations.

Stakeholder Dinner

(38) A stakeholder dinner will be held on the evening of the second or third day of the review. The Executive Dean will host the dinner which will be attended by members of the review committee and representatives of industry, government, professional bodies, employer groups, and alumni. Attendees will be considered on the basis of their relevance to the school’s activities in research, learning, and engagement.

(39) A draft invitation list must be prepared well in advance by the Head of School for consideration by the Executive Dean, who will ensure that those attending will be able to offer insight into the school’s activities relevant to the terms of reference for the review. The secretariat will determine whether Protocol and Events need play a role. Invitations will be issued three months prior to the date of the dinner.

Committee Deliberations

(40) The review committee is required to consider all submissions and interview relevant school staff, students and other University or external stakeholders.

(41) Interviews or other direct substantive communication from any staff, students or external stakeholders should not be made individually with the Chair or any review committee member(s). All information relevant to the review is expected to be made available to the entire review committee. The Chair is required to address conflicts of interest that may arise through the course of the review and can make use of in-camera sessions or confidential submissions, where appropriate.

(42) At the end of the review, the review committee meets with the Executive Dean, Head of School, and President of the Academic Board and Provost to discuss the findings and draft recommendations, and presents an overview of the findings and recommendations to a full meeting of the school.

Review Report

(43) The review report is prepared by members of the review committee with support from the review Secretary.

(44) An overview of the suggested structure of the review report is in Review of Schools Guideline, and a review report template is in Review of Schools - Report Template.

(45) The report will be finalised by the Chair in consultation with the Secretary and the other members of the review committee following the review. The report should be finalised as soon as possible, but normally within two weeks after the conclusion of the review.

(46) Initially, a copy of the review report is sent to the President of the Academic Board for review, to confirm that the report does not disclose any confidential information or include recommendations beyond the scope of the review. If the President of the Academic Board has any comments on the report regarding confidentiality concerns or scope, the feedback is sent to the Chair for the review committee’s consideration and changes if required. When the President of the Academic Board is satisfied that the report does not disclose confidential information and that the scope is correct, copies of the review report are sent to:

1. the Head of School, for distribution to staff in the school;
2. the Executive Dean;
3. members of ABSC, in the relevant meeting agenda; and
4. USET (as set out in the ‘Response to the Review Report’ provisions below).

Response to the Review Report

(47) The Head of School is required to provide a response to the recommendations in the review report. The response to the review report includes comments from the Executive Dean, relevant implementation strategies and any anticipated challenges to implementation. Wherever possible, the response should also take into consideration alignment of implementation activities with the University’s Strategic Plan.

(48) The response should generally be finalised four to six weeks after the Head of School and Executive Dean have received the review report.

(49) Copies of the response are sent to ABSC and the Provost.

(50) ABSC meets with the Provost (or delegate), the ABSC representative on the review committee, the Head of School and the Executive Dean to discuss the final report and response.

(51) The review report, the school’s response, and the report from ABSC will be considered by USET, particularly to consider recommendations that may have broader university significance.  The review report and comments will then be provided to the Academic Board, prior to being sent to the Vice-Chancellor for approval. An annual report of the key themes arising from reviews throughout the year will be provided by the Academic Board to USET, prior to being submitted to Senate.

(52) Once approved, the review report, together with a composite statement from the Academic Board based on the report from ABSC, is distributed to the Head of School for dissemination to school staff and to the University Senate for noting.

Implementation Process

(53) The Executive Dean and the Head of School are responsible for implementing the adopted recommendations. The Executive Dean or the Provost may seek advice or raise specific risks with USET at any point during the implementation process. It is expected that stakeholders, including students, are consulted and involved in the implementation of the recommendations.

(54) The Head of School is required to prepare a twelve-month and a three-year implementation report. These reports should include the initial response to the recommendations, details of the progress made on all the approved recommendations, and comments from the Executive Dean.

(55) ABSC meets with the Provost (or delegate), the ABSC representative on the review committee, the Head of School and Executive Dean to discuss the twelve-month implementation report and prepare a report on its deliberations to the Academic Board.

(56) The three-year implementation report is noted by ABSC. ABSC may refer the implementation report to the Provost, USET, Vice-Chancellor or any relevant person or committee as required.

Section 4 - Roles, Responsibilities and Accountabilities

Chair of the Review Committee

(57) The Chair of the review committee:

1. liaises with the President of the Academic Board, Provost, Executive Dean and the Head of School to discuss issues related to the school as required;
2. liaises with the review Secretary to finalise the review timetable and list of interviewees;
3. is responsible for creating an environment that is conducive to free and open discussion without prejudice to any staff member;
4. is required to address conflicts of interest that may arise through the course of the review. The Chair can make use of in-camera sessions or confidential submissions, where appropriate;
5. delegates report-writing tasks to review committee members and ensures the penultimate draft report is complete prior to the departure of members;
6. presents the draft review recommendations to the Head of School, Executive Dean, President of the Academic Board, Provost and all school staff; and
7. ensures completion of the final version of the report normally within two weeks of the review and finalises the review report.

Review Committee Members

(58) The Review Committee members:

1. review all submissions to the review and other review documentation;
2. liaise with the Secretary to finalise the review timetable and list of interviewees, as required;
3. participate in scheduled meetings, interviews and other events during the review week; and
4. assist in the preparation and finalisation of the report as directed by the Chair.

Academic Board Standing Committee Representative

(59) In addition to the responsibilities listed in the ‘Review Committee Members’ provisions above, the Academic Board Standing Committee representative on the review committee:

1. represents the broader interests of the University and provides advice on relevant University policies and procedures, particularly relating to school reviews;
2. informs the school about the implementation process following the presentation on the review recommendations;
3. introduces the discussion on the review report at the Academic Board Standing Committee meeting when the report and response are discussed; and
4. participates, if available, in the twelve-month implementation discussion at Academic Board Standing Committee and introduces the discussion.

Member from a Cognate Field

(60) In addition to the responsibilities listed in the ‘Review Committee Members’ provisions above, the member from a cognate field:

1. represents the broader interests of the University and discipline, as applicable;
2. advises the school on the rationale underlying a recommendation if clarification is required; and
3. assists in the preparation of the report as directed by the Chair.

International Contributors

(61) An international contributor is not a member of the review committee, and therefore does not participate in the review committee’s deliberations. When an international contributor is asked to participate in a review, the international contributor will:

1. review the school’s submission to the review;
2. provide written feedback on the school’s submission, which may include consideration of the school’s global focus or activities, or recommendations for the review committee to consider; and
3. participate in a meeting with the review committee to discuss their feedback.

Review Committee Secretary

(62) The review committee Secretary plays a key role in the preparation and conduct of the review, and leads the secretariat.

(63) The Secretary is not a member of the review committee, and therefore does not participate in the review committee’s deliberations. During the review, the Secretary reports directly to the Chair on all matters relating to the review.

(64) The Secretary:

1. oversees the organisation of interviews and the structure of the review in consultation with the Review Coordinator, Executive Support Officer, the Chair and the President of the Academic Board, and liaises with the Review Committee members, the Executive Dean, the Head of School and interviewees;
2. provides support for the Chair and Review Committee members, and provides advice on relevant University policies and procedures;
3. facilitates and, where appropriate, undertakes follow-up action arising from review committee meetings;
4. ensures that recommendations made by the review committee are consistent with University policy and practices and drafted accordingly; and
5. takes notes during the review proceedings and assists in the drafting of the review report.

Review Coordinator

(65) The Review Coordinator liaises with the President of the Academic Board, the Secretary to Academic Board Standing Committee and the review committee Secretary to provide support in the lead up to the Review. The Review Coordinator:

1. confirms that members of the review committee are available to attend the review;
2. sends advice from ABSC to the Executive Dean and Head of School on the finalised membership, terms of reference and timing of the school review;
3. sends invitations on behalf of the President of the Academic Board to individuals to make written submissions;
4. disseminates relevant information to the review committee and the review Secretary including the school's submission and individual submissions;
5. provides other administrative assistance during the review as required; and
6. ensures the review report is disseminated as outlined in the procedure.

Executive Support Officer

(66) The Executive Support Officer in the Academic Board office provides support to the review committee Secretary in organising elements of the review.

(67) The Executive Support Officer:

1. liaises with the review committee Secretary regarding scheduling and logistics for the review, including travel, accommodation, catering and dinner meetings;
2. schedules interviewees from the schedule developed by the review committee Chair and the Secretary;
3. coordinates and any additional documentation requested by the Review Committee; and
4. assists the review committee Secretary to undertake follow-up action arising from review committee meetings.

President of the Academic Board

(68) The President of the Academic Board:

1. provides advice to USET on review committee membership and Chair (including reserve members), terms of reference and duration of the review as recommended by ABSC;
2. advises the Provost on requests to appoint representatives from the reserve list, and on requests to amend Terms of Reference or duration of the Review;
3. invites submissions to the Review;
4. receives anonymous submissions for Reviews;
5. participates in an interview with the review panel;
6. receives the draft report to ensure that confidentiality is maintained and scope of the review is appropriate; and
7. presents to USET on the broad themes of the review outcomes; and
8. provides an annual report to Senate via USET, of the key themes arising from the reviews throughout the year.

Head of School

(69) The Head of School:

1. in consultation with the Executive Dean, makes recommendations to ABSC on the proposed composition of the review panel;
2. makes recommendations to the Executive Dean on the invitees to the stakeholder dinner, if held;
3. oversees preparation of the School’s submission to the review;
4. provides a response to the recommendations for consideration; and
5. ensures implementation on approved review responses.

Executive Dean

(70) The Executive Dean:

1. in consultation with the HOS, makes recommendations to ABSC on the proposed composition of the review panel;
2. nominates the Secretary to the review committee as outlined in the ‘Secretary to the Review Committee’ provisions above;
3. meets with the review committee prior to the start of the review, on the first day to discuss the faculty's perspectives on the school; towards the end of the review to discuss the draft recommendations; and by request during the review.
4. hosts the initial dinner for the review committee, held on the evening immediately prior to the start of the review;
5. approves invitations to, and hosts the stakeholder dinner held during the review;
6. meets with the review committee, by request, and in any event at the conclusion of other business each day, in order to discuss the progress of the review and to provide guidance on the drafting of recommendations and commendations;
7. meets with the review committee towards the end of the review to discuss the draft recommendations;
8. meets with ABSC regarding the review report;
9. presents to USET on the review outcomes as they relate to the University's broader strategic priorities; and
10. oversees the implementation and follow up on review recommendations.

Academic Board Standing Committee

(71) The Academic Board Standing Committee:

1. in consultation with the Executive Dean, make recommendations to USET on the schedule of reviews;
2. consider and nominate the membership of review committees (including Chair and reserve members), Terms of Reference, review duration for approval by USET;
3. ABSC meets with the Provost (or delegate), the ABSC representative on the review committee, the Head of School and the Executive Dean to discuss the final report and response;
4. provide a report to USET on the review and comments received, particularly to identify recommendations that may have broader university significance;
5. provide the review report and comments to the Academic Board; and
6. oversee 12 month and three-year implementation reports and report to the Academic Board, USET or Provost as required.

University Senior Executive Team

(72) The University Senior Executive Team:

1. approves the annual schedule of reviews and membership of panels;
2. individual members participate in interviews, as appropriate;
3. considers the review report, with comments from the Executive Dean, Head of School and ABSC, with particular attention given to recommendations that raise systemic observations or which have strategic significance for the University; and
4. addresses university-wide matters that may be identified through the reviews.

Section 5 - Monitoring, Review and Assurance

(73) The Academic Board Standing Committee (ABSC) and with support from the Review Coordinator, administers and monitors the cyclical seven-year school review process. The review process includes iterative liaison with the University Senior Executive Team (USET) to ensure alignment of school reviews with the University’s strategic objectives.

(74) Specifically:

1. ABSC reviews and endorses the seven-year school review schedule, with advice from the Executive Deans, annually. The schedule of reviews for the upcoming year is submitted to USET for approval;
2. On the recommendation from the Head of School, ABSC nominates the Review Committee members and endorses the terms of reference and the duration of each review, which are submitted to USET for approval;
3. The review report, the school’s response, and the report from ABSC are considered by USET, particularly to consider recommendations that may have broader university significance.  The review report and comments are provided to the Academic Board, prior to being sent to the Vice-Chancellor for approval.
4. ABSC, with the Provost, monitors the implementation of the review recommendations twelve months and three years after approval of the review report by the Vice-Chancellor.
5. USET to receive reports on implementation of review recommendations to monitor university-wide and strategic matters.

(75) These Procedures are monitored and reviewed by ABSC.

Section 6 - Recording and Reporting

(76) The following reports will be produced as part of the review process:

Section 7 - Appendix

Appendix A: Definitions

(77) Online review: a review where all review committee members participate through online meetings. External members (both Australia-based or overseas) do not travel to UQ in order to participate in the review.

Appendix B: Standard Terms of Reference

(78) Terms of Reference.