Report on a Review of the Centre for Higher Education Quality 5–7 May 2004 Overview Review Purposes & Terms of Reference The review was sponsored by the Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Professor Stephen Parker. Its purpose was to identify key areas of current good practice and priority areas for improvement in the focus and operations of the Monash Centre for Higher Education Quality (CHEQ). The terms of reference for the review brought together relevant aspects of Monash University’s standard terms of reference for academic reviews and support service reviews. The final five areas of focus for this review were: 1. Organisational structure, leadership, alignment with the university’s key strategic directions, quality assurance, improvement and communication processes 2. Human and physical resources 3. Core services 4. Research and development activities 5. Professional engagement The detailed terms of reference are attached (Attachment A). Review Panel Professor Geoff Scott, PVC Quality, University of Western Sydney (Chair) Professor Ken Milne, Dean, Graduate Research School, and Acting Principal, Palmerston North Campus, Massey University, New Zealand Professor Colin Chapman, Dean, Victorian College of Pharmacy, Monash University Ms Sue Gleeson, Faculty Registrar, Faculty of Information Technology, Monash University Mr John Levine, Divisional Director, Financial Resources Management Division, Monash University Secretary to the review panel: Ms Janice Newham Review Panel’s Methodology After reading the detailed self-review report provided by CHEQ, the review panel conducted a series of interviews and consultations from Wednesday 5 May to Friday 7 May 2004. The panel’s interview schedule is attached (Attachment B). The panel also invited confidential written submissions from those with whom they met and from others who were invited but were unable to attend. A copy of the general questions, prompts and targeted questions used is attached (Attachment C). Context Monash is a large, multi-campus university, catering for more than 50,000 students in ten faculties. It has a high profile in many research areas including: drug development; early childhood and primary education; economic theory; fluid mechanics; uman rights law, multimedia design; pervasive computing; politics and international relations; and stem cell science. Monash has 75 research centres and is involved with 17 Co-operative Research Centres. The academic staff publish some 5,000 research works annually. Monash operates two major offshore campuses – one in South Africa and the other in Malaysia. CHEQ was created on 1 September 2000 as part of a major restructure of the university’s central support service divisions. It now has a total of 11 staff (10.4 EFT) consisting of a Director, an Executive Officer & an Administrative Officer, Quality Advisers for Academic Programs, Support Services, Service Level Agreements and Research & Evaluations. The Quality Adviser for Research and Evaluations works with a team made up of an Evaluations Manager, two Evaluations Administrators and an Evaluations Assistant. The Centre has a wide ranging mission to lead and support quality assurance and improvement across the university. It has eight stated aims. These aims have been affirmed by Vice-Chancellor Professor Richard Larkins. They are: 1. Developing quality assurance and improvement policy and practice (principal aim) 2. Developing quality assurance and improvement in academic programmes 3. Developing quality assurance and improvement in research and research training 4. Developing quality assurance and improvement in central and faculty based support services 5. Preparing for national and international quality audits 6. Providing evaluation services 7. Developing professional engagement 8. Developing and documenting internal processes in accordance with the Quality Cycle As part of the review the panel met with the Vice-Chancellor who identified a range of key emerging quality management issues facing Monash University in which CHEQ will be involved in the coming years. They include: 1. Monash being able to demonstrate the quality of what it does; 2. Ensuring that CHEQ continues to benchmark with similar centres; 3. The new Monash Experience Questionnaire (MEQ) should be undertaken at least every two years, possibly every year initially, and its results should be directly linked to the improvement cycle; 4. Unit evaluations should be undertaken as a matter of course at the end of every unit’s delivery; 5. Teaching evaluations need to be more routine and part of a Monash culture of seeking to continuously improve the quality of what is done; 6. The whole tracking and improvement system needs to be automated; 7. Leadership development is a key issue; 8. A major challenge which confronts Monash is to determine how best to manage the multi-campus nature of the University (Still Learning pg 8). This includes figuring out how to get the right balance between faculty assurance of quality and consistency wherever their programs are delivered, and each campus having a distinctive position and being locally responsive; 9. Funding, including how best to manage in an increasingly market-based environment involving decisions about price setting, fee setting, securing new sources of income whilst maintaining quality and traditional standards. A number of key challenges and dilemmas emerged during the review which in the panel’s view, the university needs to address if the impact of CHEQ is to be optimised. They include deciding how best to: * balance ‘top down’ and ‘bottom up’ approaches to quality management; * manage working relationships when there is a continuous turnover in senior positions at Monash University; * assist the university to get multiple payoffs from all of CHEQ’s activities. This includes ensuring that what is done by way of evaluations and improvements links to the reporting needs of DEST, assists Monash to successfully access the new Learning & Teaching performance fund, and helps the university to establish and review the implementation of its research priorities and to prepare efficiently for a forthcoming AUQA audit. Key Findings The panel concludes that, given the relatively short time it has existed, CHEQ has made impressive progress in effectively addressing its eight stated aims. The panel would like to highlight the dedication with which the staff of CHEQ have taken on the challenges of making a new centre work. Their commitment and responsiveness to stakeholder needs and to a ‘client service philosophy’ was consistently identified during panel interviews. The effectiveness of the work of the Director in building relationships with senior staff across the university and in senior committees and policy formation was also consistently noted. The panel is of the view that CHEQ is having the significant impact on the culture change it is expected to facilitate at Monash University. During interviews those who have had contact with CHEQ consistently indicated their support for its work. Many indicated that they have started to embed continuous monitoring and improvement into their ongoing practice, rather than relying only on more periodic, externally initiated reviews. When suggestions for improvement were made it was always within the context of making an effectively operating unit even better. 1. Current areas of good practice In a number of ways CHEQ represents a ‘good practice’ model for the many quality units that are now emerging in Australian universities, as national and international pressures for effective quality management in higher education grow. The following achievements of CHEQ over the first three years of its existence were confirmed during interviews and are seen as being particularly significant: 1. The high level of understanding and ownership of key quality concepts by the staff interviewed by the panel, in particular the ‘fitness for purpose’ definition of quality, and the principles and values outlined in the key CHEQ overview document ‘Quality at Monash: Values & Principles’; 2. CHEQ’s initiation of the idea of a whole of institution self-review (Still Learning: The Report of our Self-Review) which helped set the organisational development priorities pursued by the Monash Quality Development Committee over the past two years; 3. The reinvigoration of the review processes at Monash, underpinned by a wide range of new training and support materials and the establishment of a distinctive review schedule database; 4. The dramatic expansion of the university’s quality tracking and improvement processes, from a focus on the use of teaching evaluations when the Centre was first constituted to the currently extensive suite of instruments and their associated administration, processing, analysis and reporting strategies as outlined in Section 3.7 of the CHEQ Self Review Report. Two of the many recent developments in this area which are noteworthy are the Monash Experience Questionnaire (the results of which are provided to faculties on a CD to enable further analysis) and the Monash Employer Survey. The panel also endorses the use of ratings of importance as well as performance in the relevant CHEQ surveys – as was the case, for example, in the Caulfield PG Facilities & Services Survey. 5. A number of those who met with the panel, such as people associated with residential services, noted that their collaboration with CHEQ in developing a survey-feedback system had demonstrably improved daily practice and key outcomes; 6. The use of the ‘CHEQ Standard’ to assure the quality of surveys developed under CHEQ auspices (Self Review pg 36) is commended. Some review participants asked if there was a way in which the quality and staging of local surveys developed without reference to CHEQ might be coordinated across Monash to avoid duplication and the possibility of ‘oversurveying’; 7. CHEQ’s use of benchmarking in key development areas. One example is the benchmarking being undertaken with the University of Sydney on the teaching-research nexus, an area now attracting significant attention in AUQA audits and identified in Still Learning (pgs 24-5). Other examples include the process benchmarking being undertaken with La Trobe, RMIT and the University of Melbourne, the SLA project with UK institutions and an MEQ project with the University of Queensland and the University of Sydney. Further development of this work is identified in the Self Review Report and is endorsed by the Review Panel; 8. The initiation of the ‘mapping Monash’ project and the development and delivery of a Service Level Agreement System to support strategic cost management. This development is distinctive, has attracted significant external interest (CHEQ Self Report pg 44) and is well in advance of most universities. The fact that this complex and challenging initiative has been taken up and was consistently supported during the panel interviews confirms this as significant achievement for CHEQ, as noted on pg 31 of the Self-Review Report; 9. The initiation and implementation of quality networks in both the academic and support areas of Monash was generally endorsed as a successful CHEQ initiative by the members of those networks interviewed by the panel; 10. The development of the CHEQ Quality Advisers Team which provides custom-tailored assistance to those involved in key quality activities across the university. The hard work and the quality of assistance of these advisers were providing was highlighted by many of the users of their services who met with the Review Panel; 11. The systematic focus on quality development at all Monash sites, in particular ensuring that there are equivalent quality management systems in place at the university’s two overseas campuses in South Africa and Malaysia. This positions Monash particularly well for the Offshore QA component of its forthcoming AUQA audit; 12. The positive promotion of Monash at the local, national and international level through the CHEQ Director’s participation as chair of AUQA audit panels, his membership of the original development team for the Australian Universities Quality Forum, staff presentations of papers at key local and international conferences, their participation in higher education quality consultancies in countries like South Africa where Monash has campuses; the range and quality of Centre publications and use of the CHEQ website (Self Report pg 20). Evidence of the positive reputation which CHEQ has developed is seen in the number of overseas delegations which want to visit the Centre, its profile in the higher education quality networks of Australia and New Zealand, the number of hits its website is attracting (Self Review pg 21) and the international consultancies it is invited to participate in; 13. The use of the CHEQ website as a resource base and an instrument to deliver online evaluation instruments (Self Review Report, pg 21) 2. Potential areas for development identified in the Self Review Report and endorsed in the review panel’s interviews Many of the key areas for improvement identified in the CHEQ Self Review Report were confirmed during the panel’s meetings with a wide range of people from various parts of Monash University. These include: 1. Actioning the long term aim of assisting the university to ‘develop routine monitoring mechanisms which, when in place, will provide information to inform both planning and review. Some of this relates to evaluation tools (MEQ, Employer Survey, Support Services Survey, Staff Survey) but it goes beyond these to the routine aggregation of specific data into regular and readily usable reports’ (Self Review Report pg 49). In this regard the development of powerplay cubes being used in a number of universities which bring together relevant data bases on student enrolments, progression, graduation, employability, salaries, CEQ scores and CEQuery results may be worth exploring. Investigating ways to link tracking reports into the annual planning and budgeting process was also noted in discussions with CHEQ and with other review participants; 2. The panel was asked to comment on ‘formal vs informal evaluation with respect to CHEQ’s support of senior management’ (Self Review Report, pg 22). The panel endorses the continued use by CHEQ of informal feedback on its services via the various Monash quality networks in which the Centre is involved; and its consistent use of participant feedback on its workshops and satisfaction surveys like those identified in the Self Review Report (pg 48) along with the performance data cited in its annual reports to the Monash executive. The panel does suggest, however, that it may also be useful to use a more comprehensive user feedback survey in which the importance and performance of all its services are rated at the one time, but only biennially. In this regard it is noted that CHEQ has already identified a wide range of KPIs for its services and activities; 3. Pursuing and further refining the Monash Graduate Attributes project (Still Learning pg 21 and CHEQ Self Review, pg 25) was endorsed by a range of those who met with the panel. It may be worth considering studies which seek to identify, by surveying successful early career graduates, key capabilities central to effective performance in a particular profession or discipline. This will help situate and validate the more generic attributes. The results can also be used to ‘backward map’ towards enhancements in the curriculum and assessment of the profession/discipline concerned. In this regard studies of successful early career graduates undertaken by UTS and AUT may be of interest; 4. Assisting the university to focus greater attention on quality management in the research area (Self Review pg 49). This is distinct from the research training area where CHEQ is already active through its coordination of PREQ and PG Research Supervisor Survey Reports; 5. Proceeding to identify the optimum way to ‘close the loop’ on the various quality tracking reports being now produced by the CHEQ evaluations team; 6. The intention to promote further collaboration and cross-fertilisation between the Quality Adviser (Academic Programs) and the Faculty Quality Coordinators Network is endorsed. It was also suggested during the panel’s interviews with members of the FQCN and the parallel Support Services Quality Network that some of the strategies that are already being used to link both networks be further pursued; 7. Further enhancement and use of the CHEQ website in the ways identified in the CHEQ Self Review Report (pg 21), including refinement of its navigation was endorsed. This could include actioning the findings from the SLA Project Evaluation of 2003 and feedback from participants in the SLA project which indicated that material can sometimes be difficult to locate. The Centre’s commitment to rationalising and continuing to enhance the many support materials and guidelines on the website was endorsed. 8. Refining the KPIs used as part of the SLA project and careful monitoring of the next stages of its roll-out have been noted in the CHEQ Self Review (pg 33) and were endorsed by a number of those interviewed. Given the workload involved, focusing on high priority services as nominated by faculties and support services may be a useful way to ensure that the project is cost-effective as is ensuring that it becomes more embedded in the university’s planning and budget cycles (Self Review Report pgs 33-4); 9. Investigating ways of using scanning and/or online systems for national surveys and other surveys in order to optimise the efficiency and speed of reporting the results. It is noted that CHEQ already has digital character readers. As the Self Review Report notes: ‘The challenge ahead is to develop technical systems to support the area and to this end, a strategic initiative project of $103K will be delivered during 2004’. A number of Australian universities are currently investigating the same issue and this opens up the possibility of further process benchmarking; 10. CHEQ’s continued participation in the qualitative analysis of student comments and benchmarking of results made possible through the development of CEQuery (Self Report pg 43) is endorsed. It is noted that, subsequent to the Review visit, Monash has agreed to join a group of Australian universities in a HEIP proposal to further develop the use of these data for quality assurance purposes; 11. Continuing to promote the work of CHEQ nationally and internationally, including development of articles which document its most significant achievements in relevant journals in conjunction with the strategies outlined on pgs 43-44 of the Self Review Document; 12. Continued refinement of the internal communications strategies in CHEQ is encouraged to further develop use of the operational plan which identifies key areas of action, timelines, responsibilities and outcomes. The regular fortnightly staff and quality advisor meetings and its annual planning 2-3 day retreat are commended and their continued refinement is endorsed. 3. Additional areas for further investigation Additional areas for further investigation which emerged during the panel’s meetings with key stakeholders include: 1. Promoting the many achievements of CHEQ both internally and externally. For example, a number of the people who met with the panel suggested that, in order to (re) promote the work of CHEQ, it might be appropriate to update as appropriate and redistribute the CHEQ Information & Services pamphlet; 2. Investigating the development of common survey instruments (or items) with other universities which have a similar mission and profile with a view to supporting benchmarking for improvement, along the lines being currently pursued by the ATN; 3. Assisting Monash to ensure that students are informed about what is being done to address the key improvement messages in their feedback and that these messages are addressed promptly and wisely at the local level. The panel is aware that work in this area is already underway, including plans to hold a CHEQ workshop for faculties and support service staff after the MEQ results have been considered by the Senior Management Committee; 4. Tracking the changing workloads and ensuring that the profile of staff meets the emerging needs of CHEQ and that the Centre’s accommodation and infrastructure align with these changes; 5. Reviewing the staff development strategy for CHEQ outlined in the Self Review Report (pg 44) to ensure that this focuses on key, agreed gaps in expertise identified by staff, as well as supporting the implementation of new areas of operation and the refinement of existing processes; 6. Developing quality management for the university’s Community Engagement activities; 7. Exploring ways of ensuring effective representation of the broader student view in the review process. For example, it was suggested that student representation on review committees would be more effective if that person had demonstrably canvassed a broad range of fellow student views prior to participation; 8. Identifying additional ways of working with the separate, but co-located University Planning and Research Unit; 9. As CHEQ develops, a number of review participants noted that it will be important for the university to monitor and, when necessary, to adjust the profile of the Centre’s roles. One example of this is deciding how an anticipated scale up of work in the area of quality management for research will be managed and coordinated with the Office of the DVC (Research). It should be noted that there was no way for the panel to test how widely held or supported these suggested areas for improvement were across Monash. A helpful next step might be to test if a wider sample of stakeholders agree or disagree with them. Conclusion There is close alignment between what the Vice-Chancellor has identified as important for the forward planning of CHEQ, what participants in the review have emphasised and CHEQ’s core aims and the outcomes of its own Self Review. Ensuring that this agenda is given focus in the coming years will be important. As CHEQ moves to assist Monash University in its final preparations for its AUQA audit, its workload is likely to intensify. This is because it will, at the same time, need to sustain and build on its many achievements to date and address the agreed improvement priorities emerging from the CHEQ Self Review and this Review. Achieving multiple pay-offs from its many activities will, therefore, become increasingly paramount. The introduction of a targeted survey by CHEQ seeking feedback from its clients will provide additional formal feedback on its performance and can be used to test the veracity of the conclusions drawn from the current review. Efforts to externally benchmark CHEQ’s various services, such as the benchmarking for improvement projects with LaTrobe, RMIT and the University of Melbourne; the SLA project with UK institutions; and the MEQ project with the Universities of Sydney and Queensland, will also pay dividends. In this way CHEQ can demonstrate how it is possible to embed the process of continuous quality monitoring and improvement into the operations of a University unit. Ensuring consistent and comparable quality across all Monash campuses, local and international, and all faculties and courses, is also seen as an ongoing challenge with which CHEQ will be engaged as it scales up its work across the university in the coming years. The panel is of the view that an effective CHEQ is a key ingredient in positioning Monash successfully in the increasingly challenging quality-focused operating environment the university now faces. This environment requires the university simultaneously to seek new sources of income, become financially self-reliant, ensure consistency of quality, manage risk, deal successfully with increased competition, cope with increasing scrutiny and ensure that its AUQA audit is successful. The Centre has emerged from this Review as a widely supported and core component in ensuring that Monash is ‘Still Learning’. As Leading the Way: Monash 2020 concludes: ‘Most critically, success will depend upon an uncompromising commitment to Monash’s institutional autonomy and to quality, measured by international standards and assurance processes’ (pg 10). Attachments Attachment A – Terms of Reference for the Review of CHEQ Attachment B – Schedule of Interviews and Consultations Attachment C – List of questions and major areas of focus provided to interviewees ATTACHMENT A Terms of Reference and Review Panel Provided to the Review Panel by CHEQ Terms of Reference The review sponsor is the Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Professor Stephen Parker, who approves all aspects of the review (eg terms of reference, composition of panel etc). As CHEQ is both an academic and support centre, the terms of reference for the review consist of relevant aspects from the terms of reference for academic reviews (AR) and support service reviews (SSR), as follows. * Organisation /quality assurance etc (AR/SSR) * Infrastructure (AR/SSR) * Core services (SSR) * Research/Development (AR/SSR) * Professional Engagement (AR/SSR) In more detail the terms of reference are as follows. Organisation/ quality assurance - appropriateness and effectiveness of organisational structure and leadership - leadership in developing and maintaining the standing and reputation of the centre - alignment with university strategic directions - quality assurance and improvement processes - communication activities Infrastructure - staffing profile and skills in relation to objectives and plans - induction, mentoring, staff development, performance management - provision and utilisation of appropriate accommodation, equipment and information technology Core Services - identification of stakeholders and objectives to meet stakeholders’ needs - appropriateness of core services to meet needs - plans for new services or improvements to existing services - processes to identify, consider and take appropriate action with regard to problems raised by customers and other stakeholders - customer relationship and service management processes - benchmarking performance and processes with like services Research and Development - range, scope and output of research and research training activity - alignment of research with the core business of the centre - academic freedom with regard to research - support for research Professional Engagement Guidelines for Composition of the Review Panel Composition of the review panel for the most part follows the composition of both academic and support service review panels. Both central and faculty based services are represented (as per support service reviews) but a student or recent graduate and an industry/employer (in addition to an external) have not been considered as relevant for this review. ATTACHMENT B Schedule of Interviews and Consultations for CHEQ Review Thursday 6 May 9.00 am – 10.00 am Meeting with Director of CHEQ Professor Graham Webb Thursday 6 May 10.00 am – 11.00 am Meeting with CHEQ Quality Advisers Ms Melany Blackwell, Quality Adviser & Project Manager (Service Level Agreements) Ms Jill Dixon, Quality Adviser (Support Services) Dr Chenicheri (Sid) Nair, Quality Adviser (Research & Evaluations) Dr Jennifer Weir, Quality Adviser (Academic Programmes) Thursday 6 May 11.30 am – 12.30 pm Meeting with CHEQ Evaluations team Dr Chenicheri (Sid) Nair, Quality Adviser (Research & Evaluations) Ms Vera Velickovic, Evaluations Manager Ms Jane Rasmussen, Evaluations Administrator Ms Sophia Soediro, Evaluations Assistant Ms Robyn Mason, Evaluations Administrator works part time and was unable to attend this meeting. Thursday 6 May 12.30 pm – 2.15 pm Lunch Guest List Associate Professor John Hurst, Associate Dean (Teaching), Faculty of Information Technology Associate Professor Michael Page, Associate Dean (Teaching), Faculty of Science Ms Lyn McGie, Manager, Quality Document Management Services, Faculty of Information Technology Ms Marie Pernat, Senior Librarian, Planning & Projects, Library Administration Dr Debbie Corrigan, Associate Dean Teaching, Faculty of Education Professor Max King, Director, Research Graduate School and Deputy Dean, Faculty of Business and Economics Thursday 6 May 2.00 pm – 2.15 pm Meeting with Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic) Professor Alan Lindsay Thursday 6 May 2.15 pm – 3.00 pm Meeting with CHEQ administrative staff Ms Tara Coppa, Executive Officer Ms Iliana Findikakis, Administrative Officer Thursday 6 May 3.00 pm – 3.30 pm Meeting with the Vice-Chancellor Professor Richard Larkins, Vice-Chancellor and President Thursday 6 May 3.30 pm – 4.15 pm Meeting with representatives from the Faculty Quality Coordinators Network (FQCN) Ms Lorraine Bennett, Manager, Academic Services, Faculty of Education Associate Professor John Hurst, Associate Dean (Teaching), Faculty of Information Technology Associate Professor Michael Page, Associate Dean (Teaching), Faculty of Science Dr Len Webster, Director, Educational Development & Flexible Learning, Faculty of Law Invited, but unable to attend were: * Associate Professor Alan Farley, Associate Dean Undergraduate Teaching & Director of Quality Management, Faculty of Business & Economics * Mr David Secomb, Faculty Academic Manager, Faculty of Engineering Thursday 6 May 4.15 pm – 5.00 pm Meeting with representatives from the Support Services Coordinators Network (SSCN) Mr Tony Calder, Director, Secretariat & Executive Services Ms Diana Cousens, Executive Officer to Directorate, Centre for Learning & Teach Support Ms Julie Klok, Manager, Quality & Customer service, Faculty of Business and Economics Ms Lyn McGie, Manager, Quality Document Management Services, Faculty of Information Technology Invited, but unable to attend were: * Mr Don Gregg, General Manager, Monash International Pty Ltd * Ms Marina Tseng, Resources Manager, Directorate, Marketing & Public Affairs * Ms Jenny Vero, Planning Adviser, University Planning & Research * Ms Shirley Lee, Manager, Risk Management & Planning, Audit & Risk Management Friday 7 May 9.00 am – 9.45 am Meeting with review leaders Mr Robin Coventry, Director, Counselling, Community Services, Student & Staff Services Division Ms Di James, Special Adviser to the DVC (Academic & Planning), ITS Flexible Learning & Teaching Program, Application Services, Information Technology Services Ms Marie Pernat, Senior Librarian, Planning & Projects, Library Administration Invited, but unable to attend were: * Dr Yvonne Hodgson, Teaching Coordinator, School of Biomedical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing & Health Sciences * Ms Mary O’Shea, Executive Officer, Faculty of Business & Economics * Mr Glyn de Williams, Visual Arts Studio Coordinator, Department of Fine Arts, Faculty of Art & Design * Mr Jeff Jarvis, Coordinator, Graduate Tourism Studies Program, Australian, School of Political & Social Inquiry, Faculty of Arts * Professor Tony Dingle, Head, Department of Economics, Faculty of Business & Economics * Mr Michael Vincent, Director, Flexible Learning Programs, Department of Accounting & Finance, Faculty of Business & Economics * Ms Jo Calmer, Manager, Resources & Planning, Services & Systems, Student & Staff Services Division Friday 7 May 9.45 am – 10.25 am Meeting with faculty and support services representatives regarding evaluation services Mr Nathan Bailey, Manager, ITS Flexible Learning & Teaching Program, Application Services, Information Technology Services Associate Professor Karen Bensley, Associate Dean, Teaching & Learning, Faculty of Art & Design Ms Glenda Key, Faculty Academic Manager, Faculty of Science Ms Diane O’Neill, Faculty of Law Mr Vlad Prpich, Director, Halls of Residence, Monash Residential Ms Juliana Chan, Assistant Director, Policy & Quality Assurance, Monash University Malaysia (by teleconference). Invited, but unable to attend were: * Professor Max King, Deputy Dean, Faculty of Business & Economics and Director, Monash Research Graduate School * Ms Caitlin Moody, Communication Officer, Prospective Students Office, Marketing & Public Affairs * Dr Heinz Kreutz, Associate Dean, Academic Programs, Faculty of Arts Friday 7 May 10.25 am – 10.50 am Executive Officer, Monash Postgraduate Association Ms Jenny Reeder Friday 7 May 10.50 am – 11.15 am Director of CHEQ Professor Graham Webb Friday 7 May 11.15 am – 11.45 am Meeting with support services and faculty representatives involved in the SLA project Adam Dent, IT & Client Services Manager, Animal Services Chris Flynn, Associate Director, Business & Client Services, Facilities & services Division Marianne Gemperle, Manager, Research Office, Faculty of Arts Roger Newham, Manager, Business Administration & Protocol, Marketing & Public Affairs Vikki Stern, Administrative Officer, Faculty of Art & Design Invited, but unable to attend were: * Ms Janet Gaffey, Manager, Research Grants & Ethics Branch * Mr Steve Pollard, Divisional Resources Manager, Strategy Group, Student & Staff Services Division * Bronwyn Shields, Faculty Manager, Faculty of Arts Friday 7 May 11.45 am – 12.30 pm Faculty Quality Management Representatives Associate Professor Tony Luff, Associate Dean (Teaching), Faculty of Medicine Nursing and Health Sciences Dr Leonard Webster, Director, Educational Development & Flexible Learning, Faculty of Law Friday 7 May 2.00 – 2.30 pm Deputy Vice-Chancellor Professor Stephen Parker Friday 7 May 4.00 pm Feedback session with the Deputy Vice-Chancellor and the Director of CHEQ Professor Stephen Parker Professor Graham Webb ATTACHMENT C General Question Areas, Prompts & Targeted Questions for Interviews & Consultations Panel members: Geoff Scott (Chair), Sue Gleeson, John Levine, Colin Chapman, Ken Milne. Secretary to Review: Janice Newham. Submissions to: jnewham@optusnet.com.au 1. What has been your experience with CHEQ? * Your major area(s) of involvement with CHEQ? * What other services are you aware of but have not used? * Relationships staff – responsiveness; accessibility; competence * Which CHEQ resources have you used – of these which have been most/least helpful? (Guidelines for Support Services Review, Academic Review, Course Review, the CHEQ Website) * What indicators do you use to judge the quality of what CHEQ does? * How is CHEQ performing against these indicators? 2. Fitness for purpose of CHEQ activities * Is CHEQ focusing on what will most help Monash secure its future? * How appropriate are its current areas of activity and support? Is the balance of activities and work the right one? i. Preparing Monash for AUQA audit ii. Support for review design, delivery and follow-up iii. Its tracking, reporting and improvement services iv. Promoting the quality agenda within and beyond Monash, including carrying out and promoting its research on the area * What should be added, dropped, changed or highlighted in its portfolio of activities? * How comprehensive is the application of these activities across the University? Is its coverage even across campuses both onshore and offshore (for Snr Mgt) * Is the staff profile, structure, location in the decision-making of the University appropriate? 3. Tracking and improvement services of CHEQ * What kind of data do you need CHEQ to provide you to assist quality management in your area? * How are qualitative data used? * Is there assistance from CHEQ to interpret the data and to act promptly and wisely on the key improvement messages that emerge? * With whom does CHEQ benchmark its own work and that of the University? * How are students and other beneficiaries of these tracking systems informed about what is being done to act on their feedback? * Is the balance between tapping satisfaction and determining impact right? * Is the coverage of these tracking systems comprehensive * How is the tendency to over-survey students being managed * In what ways does/could CHEQ help you identify improvement solutions * Do you see CHEQ being in line with the strategic directions of the University? 4. Terms * What in your view is the Monash definition of ‘quality’; what is your view of the way the concept is described in the document ‘Quality at Monash: Values & Principles’ * What, for you, is the acid test to demonstrate ‘quality’? * Does a productive ‘culture of quality’ exist in your area? What leads you to say this? 5. Overall – generic questions * What from your experience with CHEQ are i. The best aspects of its current work – what has been its most productive impact on your work over the past two years ii. The aspects of its work most needing improvement iii. Important activities it might undertake but as present are missing * To what extent do you believe CHEQ ‘practices what it preaches’ – i.e. models a productive and responsive approach to quality management at Monash? * If there is one word or phrase that would sum up your experience with CHEQ what would it be? * In your view is CHEQ proving to be good value for the money expended on it? Targeted Questions 1. Director CHEQ: * Are you happy with the organisational structure moving forward? * Has any benchmarking of services been done with similar units in other institutions? * What impact have you had in the area of research and community engagement? * How are priorities for improvement established when there are more options than time to address them? * What is CHEQ’s role in ensuring staff and students are clear on the key objectives of the University? * How are audit, risk management, planning, review and continuous improvement linked? * Are you happy with the balance between casual and permanent staff in CHEQ? * What are the opportunities for generating income in CHEQ? * Schedule of reviews is formalised and on website; how do you deal with any non compliance? * What, from your perspective, are the key issues which Monash faces in Quality Management over the next 5 years and what advice would you give to address these? * How should the university ensure equivalence of quality across campuses including internationally (teaching, learning, assessment, research performance, and engagement)? 2. CHEQ staff * Are you satisfied with your involvement with and how planning takes place in the Unit? * Are you satisfied with the feedback from senior management in relation to your achievements and contribution to the Unit? 3. Faculty & Support Service Quality Coordinators * How do your two networks work together * What has been the major achievement to benefit students/clients which has come out of your work with CHEQ over the past two years? 4. Review Leaders * How effective is the current approach to review at Monash * In what ways have the recommendations of your review been implemented * How embedded is ongoing review in your area? * What is the ideal form of support CHEQ can provide to the Review process? 5. Faculty Representatives and Quality Management Group Representatives * What contact have you had with the Quality coordinators in your area * In what ways have the QA projects you have been involved in had a positive impact on the quality student learning and their experience of Monash? * In what ways are students informed of the actions being taken to address key improvement themes in their feedback 6. SLA Coordinators * How do you know the work you have been involved in has been successful * How might this process best be improved? 7. DVC * What should be the interface between Planning and CHEQ, especially in relation to bringing together strategic intelligence? * What should the interface between Audit & Risk management and CHEQ be? * Who currently brings together strategic intelligence, the latest policy developments etc to assist forward planning across the University? * What, from your perspective, are the key issues which Monash faces in Quality Management over the next 5 years and what advice would you give to address these? * How should the university go about ensuring equivalence of quality across campuses including internationally (teaching, learning, assessment, research performance, engagement)?