(1) To provide a basis for formal quality and strategic review of the University’s Administrative Divisions. The review will provide an evidence-based assessment of the performance of a Division and its contributions to the strategic objectives of the University. Reviews also consider the effectiveness of the internal management and operations of the Division. (2) Reviews of Divisions will normally be conducted on a five year cyclic basis. The review will provide a basis for quality assurance of a Division in relation to its activities, organisation and management and the resourcing of these to ensure alignment with the University’s Strategic Plan. (3) A calendar of planned reviews will be published, and may be varied at the discretion of the Vice-Chancellor. An out of cycle review may be commissioned at the Vice-Chancellor's discretion or upon the advice of the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic) or Vice-President (Administration). (4) Provision for formal reviews of Administrative Divisions is an important element of the University’s planning and quality assurance framework. Generic terms of reference are provided, which are customised, as required, by the Vice-Chancellor. (5) Applies to all Administrative Divisions are covered by this Policy. (6) Reviews of Divisions will normally be conducted on a five year cyclic basis. A calendar of planned reviews will be published, and may be varied at the discretion of the Vice-Chancellor. (7) Timing of reviews will take account, to the extent possible, of planned in-depth UniForum Project Study Topics and other external reviews. (8) An out of cycle review may be commissioned at the Vice-Chancellor's discretion or upon the advice of the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic) or Vice-President (Administration). (9) A Review of a Division will: (10) A Review of a Division will: (11) Reviews of Divisions will normally be conducted on a five year cyclic basis. A calendar of planned reviews will be published, and may be varied at the discretion of the Vice-Chancellor. (12) Timing of reviews will take account, to the extent possible, of planned in-depth UniForum Project Study Topics, and other similar external reviews. (13) A review is formally commissioned by the Vice-Chancellor. (14) The Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic), supported by the Planning and Institutional Performance Unit, will make recommendations to the Vice-Chancellor with respect to review timing, terms of reference and panel membership. (15) The Vice-Chancellor will inform the Senior Executive Group, the Academic Board and the University Council when a review has been commissioned. (16) The Vice-Chancellor will issue formal invitations to Panel members, and approve any customisation of the Generic Terms of Reference. (17) Costs associated with the review, including the travel and accommodation costs of the review panel, will be borne by the Division under review. (18) Each Review Panel will include suitably qualified and experienced people who can comment authoritatively on the professional services under review. Panel members may be drawn from another Australian university, from sectors other than higher education and from business/industry taking account of commercial in confidence considerations. Panel members will be requested to sign a confidentiality agreement.Each review Panel will be supported by an Executive Officer nominated by the Executive Director, Planning and Governance. (19) The Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic) will provide recommendations to the Vice-Chancellor regarding an appropriate Chair and membership for each Panel. (20) The relevant senior executive report (DVC/VP/Chief of Staff) and the Director of the area under review will be invited to comment to the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic), in confidence, on a proposed short-list of potential panel members to identify any potential conflicts of interest. (21) The Planning and Institutional Performance Unit will provide support for this process. (22) The Director of the Division has overall responsibility for the preparation of the self-review document. The Division will receive support from the Planning and Institutional Performance Unit in the provision of data to underpin the Division’s analysis. (23) The self-review document will be submitted to the Review Panel via the Executive Officer at least six weeks before the panel’s site visit. (24) The Executive Officer will ensure the self-review document is made available to La Trobe staff via the University intranet, and made available on request to relevant external stakeholders. (25) The Director of the Division will meet with the review panel during the site visit. (26) The Director of the Division will nominate an administrative officer who will be allocated to support the logistics for the review. (27) The appropriate senior executive report (DVCA/VP(Admin)/Chief of Staff) will be invited to provide comment to the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic) on possible panel members. (28) The appropriate senior executive report (DVCA/VP(Admin)/Chief of Staff) will approve the self-review document prepared by the Division prior to its submission, and will meet with the review panel during the site visit. (29) The relevant senior executive will approve the draft plan prepared by the Director prior to its submission to the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic). (30) The relevant senior executive plays a key role in supporting the Director in the implementation of the agreed Action Plan. (31) The Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic) plays a key role in overseeing the review process, including: (32) Where the Division under review is within the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic)'s portfolio, the Vice-Chancellor nominates another executive level staff member to perform these roles. (33) The nominated Divisional Administration Officer will work with the panel Executive Officer to make detailed arrangements for the smooth-running of the panel site visit, including calendar invitations, room bookings and catering. (34) The Review Panel will: (35) Planning and Governance will appoint an appropriately qualified person to act as Executive Officer to the review panel. This person may be a Planning Unit staff member, or drawn from another area within La Trobe. The Executive Officer to the panel will provide professional advice and administrative support to the panel. (36) The Executive Officer will: (37) The role of the Executive Officer is fully specified in the Reviews Handbook. (38) The Division will receive support from the Planning Unit (Planning and Governance) in the provision of data to underpin the self-review portfolio, including comparative data where available. (39) The Planning Unit can also assist by providing advice on drafts of the self-review document. (40) The self-review process provides an opportunity for critical self-assessment by the Division, and should identify areas of achievement and success, as well as opportunities for improvement. Self-assessment focuses on both current and future performance, and includes a critical examination of how the Division can contribute most effectively to the University’s strategic objectives. The Division being reviewed will prepare a self-review document to summarise its performance in relation to the review’s Terms of Reference, drawing on appropriate comparative data. (41) The self-review document will: (42) The self-review document will be no longer than 20 A4 pages, excluding appendices, and must address the Terms of Reference for the review. (43) The self-review document allows the Division to reflect upon and analyse operations in order to optimise future performance. Consequently, the focus of the submission is to identify future directions and strategic intentions for the Division. However, to set the context for the review, it is important to briefly address the Division’s history and its present circumstances with a focus on factors that have contributed to the current operating environment and potential future outlook of the Division. (44) The self-review document should include: (45) The section includes reference to: (46) This section includes a comprehensive analysis of the Division’s current service offerings, operations and performance levels. An overview of the Division’s goals and priorities should be provided with an analysis of the extent to which these goals and priorities are being achieved. The self-review should identify the key services provided by the Division and for each key service, assess: (47) There are two types of data required: (i) Division-specific data or documentation; and (ii) external comparative/benchmark data from higher education and elsewhere. Time series data for the past five years should be provided as the default. (48) Submissions include an assessment of performance according to the areas covered by the generic terms of reference. The self-review should include quantitative and qualitative data for the past 5 years (where possible). Where quantitative data are available, comparable data for other relevant units within and external to the University should be supplied. (49) Data requirements include: (50) The Division should present relevant comparative data, including at least two IRU member universities. Other relevant university or non-higher education sector external comparators may be used. Relevant data from the UniForum Project must be used. (51) This section should be the focus of the submission. (52) Refer to the: (53) With the exception of submissions clearly marked ‘CONFIDENTIAL’, submissions to the review panel will be made available on the University intranet, accessible to staff of the University. Submissions will be made available to the review panel at least one week before the site visit. (54) The panel’s site visit schedule is prepared by Planning and Governance, with input from the School under review and the review panel members. The Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic) approves the final site visit schedule. (55) The site visit schedule, room bookings and invitations to interviewees will be coordinated by the allocated Divisional Administration Officer and the panel Executive Officer. (56) The review report will be prepared in accordance with the Review Handbook. (57) Within six weeks of the site visit a draft report will be submitted to the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic). He/she will request the Divisional Director to check the report for matters of fact as well as circulate the draft to other staff at her/his discretion, for comment. The report will then be returned to the Panel for consideration of comments and final sign-off by the Panel Chair. (58) The Panel will submit the final report to the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic) who will receive the report and make recommendations to the Vice-Chancellor. (59) The Vice-Chancellor will provide Divisional Director with a copy of the Panel’s report and invite the preparation of an Action Plan, using the approved pro-forma. The Action Plan will be expected within one month of the Vice-Chancellor's invitation to the Director. The draft Action Plan will first be submitted by the Divisional Director to the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic) for consideration. The final version of the Action Plan will be submitted by the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic) to the Vice-Chancellor for approval. (60) The Review Report is intended to be primarily focussed on the activities of the Division. During the process the Panel may identify issues outside the Division that impact on its capacity to fulfil its mission. These issues should be identified in a discrete section of the report, but without specific recommendations related to wider organisational matters, other than the suggestion that these matters might be reviewed in the wider organisational context. At the time of preparing the Action Plan the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic) will seek input from the University officer with accountability for that area to determine the action that needs to be taken and these details will be included in the Action Plan. (61) The Director of the area under review will make the report available to members of the Division and is expected to consult with Division staff as appropriate in the development of an Action Plan. (62) The Action Plan will respond directly to the recommendations made by the Panel, and will be prepared in accordance with the format provided by Planning and Governance. (63) Where these relate to matters outside the Division, the Senior Deputy Vice-Chancellor will seek input from the University officer with accountability for that area and include the University actions in the draft Action Plan submitted by the Divisional Director. (64) The Action Plan will be submitted to the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic) within one month of the invitation to the Divisional Director. The Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic) will provide initial feedback on the draft Action Plan and will submit the final Action Plan to the Vice-Chancellor for formal approval. (65) The Action Plan and the Panel’s Review Report will be presented to Senior Executive Group for noting. (66) The Vice-Chancellor will advise Council and Academic Board of the review findings and recommendations, and of implementation of the Action Plan. (67) Items in the Action Plan will be incorporated into the Division Business Plan. Reporting on the Action Plan will be integrated into the Division’s annual reporting against Business Plan objectives. (68) The Division will provide the Vice-Chancellor with a consolidated report of progress against each relevant review recommendation at 12 months and 18 months and each following 12 months until such time as the Division is due for another cyclical review. (69) The 12 and 18 monthly Progress Reports will be provided to Senior Executive Group; and a summary report provided to Academic Board and Council for noting via the Vice-Chancellor. This process will be facilitated by Planning and Governance. (70) All confidential submissions, drafts of the review report, and notes taken during the review, will be returned by panel members to the secretariat upon completion of the review for confidential disposal. (71) Records and Archives Services will retain a copy of the Panel report and associated documentation and submissions. (72) An Executive Summary of the Panel’s report, together with the Panel’s recommendations, will be posted on the University intranet. (73) For the purpose of this Procedure:Administrative Division Review Policy
Section 1 - Background and Purpose
Preamble
General
Section 2 - Scope
Section 3 - Policy Statement
Top of PageSection 4 - Procedure
Part A - Purpose of Review
Part B - Timing of Reviews
Part C - Commissioning the Review
Part D - Review Costs
Part E - Composition of the Review Panel
Part F - Formal Appointment of the Review Panel
Part G - Role of the Director of the Division
Part H - Role of the relevant DVC/VP/Chief of Staff
Part I - Role of the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic)
Part J - Role of the Divisional Administration Officer
Part K - Role of the Review Panel
Part L - Role of the Executive Officer, Planning and Governance
Part M - Role of the Planning Unit
Part N - Self-Review Process and Self-Review Document
A:The History of the Division
B: The Division at Present
Division-Specific Data and Documentation
External Comparative Data
C: The Division in the Future
Part O - Additional Documents
Part P - Publication of Written Submissions to the Review
Part Q - Arrangements for Site Visit Schedule
Part R - Report of the Panel
Part S - Scope of the Review Report
Part T - Distribution of the Panel Report
Part U - Division Response to the Report - Action Plan
Part V - Reporting on Review Outcomes
Part W - Implementation of Action Plans
Part X - Progress Reports
Part Y - Records Management
Section 5 - Definitions
Top of PageSection 6 - Stakeholders
View Document
This is not a current document. It has been repealed and is no longer in force.
Responsibility for implementation – Vice-Chancellor; Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic); Vice-President (Administration); Executive Directors; Executive Director, Planning and Governance.
Responsibility for monitoring implementation and compliance – Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic); Vice-President (Administration); Academic Board; and University Council.