|
|
|
Guidelines for Support Services Review
Purpose
The purpose of support services review is to assure
the quality of university services and to utilise learning from this
essentially developmental process in order to effect improvement.
Guiding Principles for Review
The guiding principles for review fit within the
values and principles outlined in Quality at Monash: Values and Principles.
In that document, seven key areas of values and principles are identified
including:
- creating the agenda in terms of fitness for
purpose;
- recognition that quality is the professional
responsibility of each individual and work group;
- the best way to effect quality assurance and
accountability is through continuous quality improvement based on
collaboration and the development of a learning organisation;
- a commitment to develop policy so as to assure
comparable treatment in all areas of the university, while leaving room
for different areas to develop implementation for their particular
contexts;
- the value of an open, thoughtful and complementary
approach to quality informed by international research and scholarship;
- a planned and systematic approach to quality
including ensuring that the results of monitoring and evaluation are fed
back in order to effect improvement;
- recognition that external points of reference
provide valuable perspectives for further reflection and action.
In addition to the values and principles outlined in
Quality at Monash, some of the most important guiding principles for review
are as follows.
The strategic directions of the university are of
central importance for all reviews.
Benchmarking leading to improvement is strongly
encouraged, as is input from stakeholders.
Support services reviews consider the effectiveness of
policies, planning, processes and procedures, particularly as they are
demonstrated through outcomes. Reviews
encourage a focus on outcomes.
Scope of Review
Support services provide essential infrastructure,
processes, policies and services for staff and students and enable faculties
to conduct the core business of the university.
Support services reviews therefore include: organisational structure,
management, quality assurance and improvement; human and physical resources,
including IT; core services; professional and community activities.
Reporting on progress towards key objectives may be
structured by using the four balanced scorecard perspectives of:
- customer service,
the extent to which customer
service is delivered and customer satisfaction is achieved;
- financial performance, the extent to which value
for money is delivered to the university;
- internal processes, the efficiency and
effectiveness of internal processes and procedures;
- learning and growth,
knowledge, skills, creativity and innovation within the area,
contributing to future growth and change.
Unit of Review
Deputy Vice-Chancellors with responsibility for
support services within their portfolios have the responsibility for
scheduling periodic reviews. The ‘unit’ for review may be a whole
division/centre, a unit/section or any combination of these.
Review Cycle
Each area of the university’s operations is normally
reviewed every 5 years although a shorter cycle is discretionary.
Information obtained from routine and more frequent performance feedback and
monitoring mechanisms (such as customer or client satisfaction surveys or
balanced scorecard reports) provides input to reviews.
Review Schedule
Each division/centre or unit publicises the schedule
of support services reviews on its web-site.
This information is also linked to (and therefore accessible from)
the Centre for Higher Education Quality (CHEQ) review website.
The review schedule includes all reviews planned during the 5 year
review cycle.
Support
Quality assurance and improvement is a core
responsibility for each support service and budgeting for review is
therefore part of the normal planning and budgeting process. Assistance in
briefing staff who will be involved in reviews is available from CHEQ.
Secretarial assistance for review panels may be negotiated through
CHEQ on a cost-recovery basis.
Terms of Reference
Terms of reference ensure consistency of review across
the institution. They also
ensure that reviews meet the requirements of, and are aligned with,
university strategic planning and policy documents. Divisions/centres or
units may also include other areas or issues not covered in the standard
terms of reference. The standard
terms of reference cover the areas of:
- organisational structure, management, quality
assurance and improvement;
- human and physical resources including IT;
- core services;
- professional and community activities.
A full list of the standard terms of reference is
included in Appendix I.
Self-Review
Self-review is the first phase of the review process.
It presents an opportunity for the division/centre or unit to
consider its directions, progress, achievements and strengths, as well as
areas for development and improvement and the means of achieving these.
A team is appointed to lead the self-review and
produce a self-review document. The
self-review document forms the basis for the review that will follow.
The self-review document is normally 5,000 - 7,000 words (with up to
20 additional pages of appendices) and is structured to reflect the terms of
reference. It may be appropriate
for smaller units to develop shorter reports.
The fundamental purpose of the self-review document is
to provide a summary of the outcomes of the self-review process; to identify
areas where the unit is performing well and areas where opportunities for
improvement have been identified. As the benefits of undertaking this
process should outweigh the costs (time, resources and effort), the unit
should ensure that the costs are not excessive and that the benefits are
realised.
A ‘helicopter view’ should be taken, which gives
an overview of all relevant aspects of the unit according to the terms of
reference, and which allows for closer scrutiny of particular areas where
needed. The size of the self-review document should be sufficient to reflect
this helicopter view.
Appendix II outlines information, data and supporting
documentation that is normally regarded as useful for the self-review
document.
Review Panel
Review panels are selected by the director or
equivalent, in consultation with the head of unit when a sub unit is being
reviewed. Review panel membership is approved by the relevant DV-C.
Selection of panel members is based on experience and expertise with
regard to the terms of reference. Panels
normally include the following:
- two senior level counterparts from relevant areas
and external to Monash University (an international perspective is
encouraged);
- a senior Monash support services representative,
external to the unit and usually external to the division/centre;
- a senior member of the academic staff or
representative of Academic Board
- a member of an appropriate industry group,
professional association or society;
- a senior student or recent graduate for a service
that has direct impact on students, or a member of university staff for
a staff-related service.
- The secretary to the committee may be an internal
nominee or an external appointment.
- The director nominates the chair of the review
panel and other members of the panel as appropriate.
Review Process
The review process includes panel members receiving
the self-review document, asking for further documentation if necessary and
then convening for the review visit. During
the visit the panel will meet with interested parties, tour facilities,
receive submissions and requests for interviews, and at the end of the
visit, present preliminary findings. A
typical calendar of events is presented as Appendix III and assignment of
responsibilities in Appendix IV.
As part of the review process, the panel may arrange
interviews with key stakeholders (for example members of the academic and
student community). These would normally be planned in consultation with the
director, and arranged by the panel secretary.
It should be kept in mind, however, that the purpose of these
interviews is to verify statements made in the self review document. It
would be expected that the unit itself has processes for obtaining and
acting on stakeholder feedback, and these should form part of the self
review report.
Review Report
The chair of the review panel working closely with the
secretary drafts the review report, which the director receives normally
within two months of the review visit.
The review report is usually between 5,000 –7,000
words (again depending on the size of the unit being reviewed) with up to 10
pages of appendices. There is an
executive summary of no more than 3 pages.
Major headings normally follow the terms of reference and self-review
document, with one or two paragraphs for each finding.
A copy of the review report is also lodged with CHEQ (for training,
development and best practice purposes). The usual format for the report is
shown in Appendix V.
Post Review Implementation
On receiving the review report, the director, in
consultation with the head of unit (if appropriate) and in consultation with
the relevant DV-C:
- develops an implementation plan (and if necessary
modifies the Operational Plan) to prioritise recommendations, assign
responsibility for action, assess resource implications and provide a
time scale for implementation (see Appendix VI);
- reports major issues or findings to the DV-C;
- reports major issues or findings to relevant
university and faculty committees;
- has ongoing consultation with the relevant head of
unit, concerning progress of the implementation plan;
- reports to the relevant DV-C on the status of
reviews and progress on major issues, normally within the context of the
annual performance review, or through the balanced scorecard reporting
framework.
Appendix I
Standard Terms of Reference for Support Services
Reviews
Support services reviews consider outcomes together
with the effectiveness of processes and procedures in all key areas,
including the following:
Organisational structure, management, quality
assurance and improvement
- appropriateness and effectiveness of organisational
structure and leadership
- leadership in developing and maintaining the
standing and reputation of the unit
- implementation of previous review findings
Effectiveness of processes and procedures for:
- alignment of objectives with university strategic
directions and planning documents, including: Leading the Way; Support
Services Directions; Learning and Teaching Plan; Research and Research
Training Management Plan; Global Development Framework and Plan
- alignment of objectives with university policies
at: http://www.adm.monash.edu.au/unisec/pol/pollinks.html,
the Academic Policy Bank and, if appropriate, with national policies
- measurement, monitoring and management of progress
towards key objectives and use of performance indicators, including
balanced scorecard framework if used
- systematic quality assurance and improvement
processes including planning, monitoring, reviewing and using feedback
for improvement in all areas
- financial management including alignment of
planning, budgeting and funding
- regulatory, compliance and risk management
processes
- use of communication activities and materials
Human and Physical Resources including IT
- staffing profile and skills in relation to
objectives and plans
- processes to ensure future employee capability,
including induction and mentoring of new staff, staff training and
development, performance management systems
- provision and utilisation of appropriate
accommodation and equipment
- provision and utilisation of appropriate
information technology
Core Services
Processes for ensuring current and future service
delivery in all core services. These could include:
- identification of key stakeholders (including
internal and external customers) and objectives to meet stakeholders’
needs
- core services to meet customer 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
Professional and Community Activities
Processes and procedures to monitor, maintain and
develop contributions to the university community and the local,
professional, national or international community, where appropriate, for
example:
- assistance to and relationships with individuals
and groups within the university other than key stakeholders of the unit
- professional and community access to expertise and
resources
- links with professional associations, public and
private sectors, the local community
- participation in local, national and international
professional societies and activities
- public awareness of the contribution to society
made by the unit
Appendix II
Information, Data and Support Documentation
In developing the self-review document, the following
information and data are normally required:
- mission statement
- operational plan
- unit plan (if appropriate)
- organisational structure or chart
- services list or catalogue
- service level agreements
- projects and project register
- performance indicators, stakeholder consultation,
survey results (as available)
- balanced scorecard reports, if used
- brochures, information resources relating to the
service(s) concerned
- budget data including income sources, reserves and
financial viability of operations
- space, equipment, IT and other resources
- customer - student and or staff
- data, including usage rates, patterns and satisfaction
- staffing profile (including age, level, gender,
skills, qualifications and workload)
- staff training and development activities
The review panel will also require copies of the
following support documentation:
- Leading the Way
- Support Services Directions
- Global Development Framework and Plan
- Quality at Monash: Values and Principles
- Guidelines for Support Services Review
- Annual Reports (since the last review) where
appropriate
- Relevant university policies
Appendix III
Typical Calendar of Events
Reviews may be scheduled at any time during the year.
However, where relevant, teaching (but non-examination) times may be
preferred in order to ensure student input. In the following example, a
hypothetical review visit has been scheduled for September. The review visit
includes document reviews and staff and client interviews, to obtain a
balanced view of the unit.
Initiation and self-review
|
| Early May
|
Self-review team is convened |
|
Review panel members are confirmed |
| May-June
|
Self-review document is assembled |
| End of June |
Self-review document is sent to
review panel members |
| End
of July |
Review
panel requests additional information, if required |
Review panel visit
|
| Early September |
Review panel visit commences |
Day 0
|
| 5.30 pm |
Initial panel meeting |
| 8.00 pm |
Dinner |
Day 1
|
| 08.30-09.00 am |
Meeting with director |
| 09.00-09.30 am |
Meeting with unit head(s) |
| 09.30-11.00 am |
Meeting with a group of
student or staff clients of the service or other stakeholders
(including special interests such as disabilities, international etc) |
| 11.00-11.30 am |
Review documents and
progress |
| 11.30-12.00 pm |
Tour of facilities |
| 12.00-01.30 pm |
Lunch with a staff group |
| 01.30-03.00 pm |
Meetings with a group of
staff from representative functional groups |
| 03.00-03.30 pm |
Review of previous
sessions |
| 03.30-05.00 pm |
Meeting with
convenors/members of important projects |
| 05.00-07.30 pm |
Review of day, plan for
next day |
Day 2
|
|
| 08.30-10.00 am |
Meetings with staff
groups |
| 10.00-11.00 am |
Meetings with special
project teams, e.g. technology, quality |
| 11.00-11.30 am |
Review documents and
progress |
| 11.30-12.30 pm |
Meeting with a group of
administrative, technical and support staff |
| 12.30-02.00 pm |
Lunch with staff from
associated units |
| 02.00-04.00 pm |
Preparation of
preliminary findings and draft report |
| 04.00-05.00 pm |
Presentation of
preliminary findings |
| 05.00-06.00 pm |
Close of review |
Post-Review
|
| Late October |
Review Report received
by director or equivalent |
| Early November |
Director consults with
unit manager(s) and DV-C on implementation plan.
Director reports major issues/findings to relevant managers,
university and faculty committees |
| ongoing |
Director consults with
unit manager(s) on progress of implementation plan |
| ongoing
|
DV-C
consults with director on status of reviews and progress on major
issues |
Appendix IV
Areas of Responsibility
Typical areas of responsibility concerning the conduct
of support services reviews are as follows.
Director
- consult with head of unit on composition of
self-review team
- consult with head of unit on review panel
membership and gain approval of relevant DV-C
- receive review report
- consult with head of unit and DV-C on an
implementation plan
- report major issues or findings to DV-C
- report major issues or findings to relevant
university and faculty committees
- send copy of report to CHEQ (for training and
development)
- consult with head of unit and DV-C on progress of
implementation plan
- report to DV-C on major findings, issues,
implementation progress
Head of Unit
- consult with director on membership of self-review
team
- consult with director on membership of review panel
- consult with director on implementation plan
- consult with director on implementation progress
Chair of Review Panel
- consult with director on augmenting review panel if
necessary
- following receipt of the self-review document,
coordinate requests for extra information from panel members
- consult with division/centre or unit on review
panel visit program
- facilitate and lead the review panel visit
- coordinate drafting of the review report
- ensure receipt of review report by director within
two months of panel visit
Review Panel Members
- participate fully in the review process and assist
the chair wherever possible
- following receipt of the self-review document,
request additional information, if necessary
- assist in drafting the review report
Review Panel Secretary
- publicise the review
- call for submissions
- take notes during review panel visit meetings
- organise support for the review panel
- play a central role in drafting the review report
Deputy Vice-Chancellors
- determine and publicise schedule of reviews
- approve review panel membership
- consult with director/manager on development and
progress of implementation plan
- establish patterns and trends in review reports
- determine implications, findings and lessons of
university-wide importance
- bring general issues and concerns to the attention
of university committees and bodies
Vice-Chancellor
- monitor progress made on general issues and
concerns identified by DV-Cs
Appendix V
Typical Review Report Format
The following is the typical format for a review
report.
| Title Page |
Name of
Division/Centre/Unit |
|
Monash University |
|
Date of review panel
visit |
|
Date of report |
| Table of Contents |
|
| Executive Summary |
Summary of key findings |
|
Summary of key
recommendations |
| Introduction |
Background to review and
unit |
| Organisational structure,
management, quality assurance
and improvement
|
Findings,
recommendations |
| Human and Physical
Resources including IT |
Findings,
recommendations |
| Core Services |
Findings,
recommendations |
| Professional and Community activities |
Findings,
recommendations |
| Appendices |
Including:
list of review panel members, list
of written submissions, visit program |
Appendix VI
Typical Format for Implementation Plan
The following is the typical format for an
Implementation Plan.
| Recommendation |
Priority
1=High 2=Medium
3=Low
|
Agreed
Action |
Responsibility
(person or group) |
Resource
Implications |
Time
Scale |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Download this document as a (Word
document, 72KB) (pdf, 169KB)
|
