Quality - Governing and Institutional Operating Policy
Responsible officer: Vice-Chancellor
Designated officer: Pro Vice-Chancellor (International and Quality)
Approval authority: Council
Approval: C07/82, 28 August 2007
Last amended: C08/41, 17 June 2008
Effective starting date: 29 August 2007
Policies replaced by this policy: Quality Policy (C06/42)
Policy number: G2
Related policies:
Due date for next review: 28 August 2012
Part A: Preliminary
1. Purpose of policy
The following policy is intended to enunciate the principles, core features and requirements for quality assurance and improvement at the University of the Sunshine Coast.
2. Application of policy
This policy applies to all staff, students and agents of the University.
3. Definitions
In this policy the following definitions apply:
Cost centre manager means the most senior officer or member of staff responsible for the management of a faculty or a management or support service or administrative area or sub-section of which that is specifically identified for allocation of funding within the University's budget framework.
Organisational unit means a faculty or a management or support service or administrative area or sub-section of which that is specifically identified for allocation of funding within the University's budget framework.
Back to top
Part B: Policy
4. Accountabilities and responsibilities
4.1 The University Council is accountable to the Queensland State Government and the Australian Government for the University’s quality assurance and improvement.
4.2 The Vice-Chancellor will be accountable to Council for quality assurance and improvement across the whole of the University.
4.3 The Deputy Vice-Chancellor will be responsible, and accountable to the Vice-Chancellor, for quality assurance and improvement in the specific areas of learning and teaching, research and research training, and academic support.
4.4 The Pro Vice-Chancellor (International and Quality) will be responsible, and accountable to the Vice-Chancellor, for guiding the overall development and implementation of the University’s quality system and preparations for externally mandated quality audits.
4.5 Cost centre managers, depending on their lines of reporting, will be responsible, and accountable to the Vice-Chancellor or the Deputy Vice-Chancellor or the Pro Vice-Chancellor, for implementation of the quality system within the organisational unit/s or any University-wide functional areas that they may lead.
4.6 Each employee of the University community, through any supervisor, will be responsible, and accountable to the relevant cost centre manager, for implementing the quality system as it pertains to the employee’s work and organisational unit or area of operation.
4.7 Students and other members of the University community will have a responsibility to contribute to quality assurance and improvement at the University.
Back to top
5. The meaning of quality assurance and improvement at the University
5.1 Quality assurance means the processes by which the University assures itself, and demonstrates to the wider community, that it is achieving its purposes and goals and meeting the standards it sets for itself.
5.2 Quality improvement means the processes by which the University:
(a) identifies the areas and ways in which it is not fully achieving its purposes and goals or meeting its own standards as well as it could, and, in consequence
(b) plans and acts for betterment.
6. Quality system
6.1 The University will adopt a systematic approach to quality assurance and improvement (quality system) in order to enable the University to:
(a) fulfil its functions as given in the University of Sunshine Coast Act 1998
(b) meet its other legal and mandatory obligations
(c) realise its Mission, Strategic Plan and subsidiary plans
(d) give effect to its policies, and
(e) continually assess, assure and improve the quality of its performance and attainments
6.2 The quality system will operate as a cyclical process of quality assurance and improvement, represented by the following figure, and elaborated on later in this policy.
6.3 The quality system will embody the principles or features described in items 6.4 to 6.14 following.
Figure: Plan, Implement, Review, Improve (PIRI) Quality Cycle
Plan: Formulation of policy and the plans for giving effect to policy
Implement: Implementation of policy and plans
Review: Systematic evaluation of performance against policy and plans using valid evidence
Improve: Deliberate action aimed at improved performance.
Back to top
6.4 Quality culture
6.4.1 Because the creation and maintenance of a culture of quality is fundamental to the effectiveness of the University’s quality system there will be on-going whole of University education about quality assurance and improvement and the quality system, with particular attention being given to new students and staff.
6.4.2 Because all members of the University community have a stake and role in quality assurance and improvement at the University, there will be consultative and other processes that facilitate members’ contribution to University developments, including the development of policy and plans.
6.5 Governance, management and decision-making
6.5.1 Robust and accountable University governance, management and decision-making (including the clear identification of accountabilities and responsibilities) will form the foundation of the University’s quality system.
6.5.2 Underlying the effectiveness of the quality system is the need for University management to ensure that all members of the University community are part of the quality culture and are made aware of:
(a) all elements of the quality system
(b) those aspects of University operations including structures, policies, procedures, plans and practices that affect, guide or direct their activity as part of the quality culture, and
(c) where the related accountabilities and responsibilities lie
6.6 Use of feedback
6.6.1 As part of the means for judging or assessing the quality of the University’s services or performance and for identifying needed improvements, regular and frequent feedback on University services and activities will be systematically sought and obtained from all stakeholder groups, including but not restricted to:
- students (as a whole or particular groups)
- staff (as a whole or particular groups)
- graduates
- participants and partners in the University’s regional engagement and internationalisation undertakings
- employers of graduates
- workplaces that have student placements
- external members of University bodies
6.6.2 Feedback will be subject to systematic analysis not only to assist in evaluating the quality of, and satisfaction with, University services but in order to identify and implement improvements and, potentially, contribute to a reduction in levels of dissatisfaction, complaint or grievance.
6.6.3 In order to demonstrate and build confidence in the robustness of the University’s quality system, feedback will be given to stakeholder groups concerning the use made of their feedback and other inputs in contributing to changes and improvements made within or by the University.
6.7 Appeal, grievance and complaint processes
6.7.1 Appeal, grievance and complaint investigation and resolution processes will be key elements of the University’s quality system that assist in assuring consistency and equity in the application of rules, policies, procedures and standards whilst respecting individual appellants’ and complainants’ right to privacy.
6.7.2 Members of the University community and others who may be affected by University decisions or actions will be advised of the existence of any related appeal, grievance or complaint provisions, the means to access appropriate and relevant information, and the contact details for seeking advice concerning the provisions.
6.7.3 The general subject matter of appeals or grievances or complaints will be used as a guide to identifying areas where improvements may be needed in University performance.
6.8 Policies and quality assurance and improvement
6.8.1 Policies enunciate the purposes and principles that guide and shape activity by or within the University; therefore, the consistent and comprehensive development, implementation, monitoring and reporting on implementation and review of policy and associated procedures will be fundamental to quality assurance and improvement at the University.
Back to top
6.9 Standards, benchmarks, performance targets and performance indicators
6.9.1 The University will not only need to be capable of assessing whether and how well it is realising its own purposes and goals, the primary one being the University Mission, but it will be incumbent on it to demonstrate and evidence the quality of its activities and outcomes relative to the broader national and international higher education environment within which it operates and competes. For these reasons, the University will develop and specify standards, benchmarks, performance targets, performance indicators and baseline data that it will use to identify and describe its level of performance in all main areas of University activity.
6.9.2 For the purposes of this policy:
(a) standards will be graduated or fixed sets of requirements or criteria that need to be met, or features or attributes that need to be demonstrated, for the purpose of indicating a level of achievement or attainment or performance. These may be internally devised or internally mandated or externally devised or externally mandated for specific activities or spheres of operation
(b) benchmarks will be standards or other reference points that can be used for comparing and assessing relative performance and achievement, usually among or between institutions or over time. The benchmarks may be expressed quantitatively or qualitatively. Benchmarks will usually be identified as, or part of, a particular dataset (eg Higher Education Research Data Collection 2007, Smith University taught load data 2006, average national progression rates 2000-2006, APS best practice counselling identifiers 2005, all DEST ESOS audit reports 2003-2006). Benchmarking will be the process of comparing and assessing relative performance through use of benchmarks
(c) performance indicators will be data or outcomes or measures or devices to be used for demonstrating the degree or extent of success in achievement of a University purpose or meeting a goal or objective or in implementing an action or strategy to achieve a University goal or objective. For quality assurance and improvement purposes, preference will be given to the selection and use of performance indicators that facilitate benchmarking
(d) performance targets will be associated with performance indicators and identify specific outcomes or levels of performance that are expected or sought within a particular timeframe in order to assure or improve the University’s performance, and
(e) baseline data will be specifications of outcomes or achievements in a given period (eg year, semester) with which future outcomes or achievements will be compared in order to identify rates or patterns of improvement, stasis or decline over subsequent periods.
6.9.3 Performance indicators, performance targets, benchmarks and baseline datasets will be identified and incorporated within the University’s Strategic Plan and functional plans.
6.9.4 Performance indicators and performance targets will be identified and incorporated within operational plans and, where appropriate, associated benchmarks and baseline datasets will also be identified and incorporated in those plans.
6.9.5 As far as is feasible and practicable, benchmarking will involve external reference points, include both national and international benchmarks, and identify both national and international organisations or datasets with which the benchmarking will occur.
6.10 University planning and quality assurance and improvement
6.10.1 Pursuit of the University’s Mission and complete and consistent implementation of policy will rely on comprehensive and integrated planning to achieve the desired ends and, for that reason, planning will be essential to the University’s quality system.
6.10.2 University planning will be designed to ensure that University activities are fit for their purpose, inform or are informed by the University's budget framework and that planned goals and activities are shaped by, and consistent with, policy.
6.11 Monitoring and reporting on the implementation of policy, procedure and plans
6.11.1 Systematic monitoring and reporting on the implementation of policy, associated procedures and plans will be a major means by which the University will assure that its own purposes and internal standards are being met and that there is equitable and consistent application of policy and procedure across all areas of University activity, for that reason, monitoring and reporting will be essential to the University’s quality system.
6.11.2 Monitoring of implementation may lead to revision, amendment or adjustment of a policy, procedure or a plan from time to time (ongoing review) and such action will complement, but will not substitute for, major evaluative reviews within the quality system (refer to the following section).
Back to top
6.12 Evaluative reviews
6.12.1 Evaluative reviews will be essential components of the University’s quality system. These will be systematised and evidence-based formal reviews of the quality, standards and effectiveness of University performance in a specified area or range of areas, usually initiated from within the University. They will be the major means by which the University will assess its own performance in a summative form, demonstrate accountability, and identify needed or desirable improvements. The purpose of these evaluative reviews will be to:
(a) critically evaluate University performance and attainments, including against policy, planned goals, objectives, strategies and actions, performance indicators, benchmarks, targets, baseline data, timelines and feedback
(b) identify strengths and weaknesses in performance and attainment, and
(c) identify areas where improvements or changes are needed or desirable
6.12.2 The scope and nature of an evaluative review will be largely determined by the subject of the review; and, for that reason, some reviews may be readily organised and undertaken while others may be complex and, therefore, more time-consuming.
6.12.3 The nature, purpose and requirements for evaluative reviews of policy will be described in the University’s governing policy on policies.
6.12.4 Other evaluative reviews at the University will:
(a) be requirements specified within a policy or associated procedure or a plan or required by decision of Council or the Academic Board or University management, or required by an external body
(b) be systematically planned for and, usually, scheduled in advance
(c) have a written brief or set of terms of reference, approved by the review-initiating authority or its delegate, that must:
- identify the purpose and scope of the review
- identify the person/s who, or composition of the body that, will conduct the review (this should usually comprise more than one individual and, depending on the type of review, include persons, or at least one person, external to the University)
- identify to whom the reviewer/s will report
- include a requirement for a written review report to be produced, including recommendations where appropriate
- include a timeline for conduct of the review and presentation of the review report
(d) within the constraints of the review brief, enable the reviewer/s to receive, or be able to access, all University records and data relevant to the review, including records of performance against policy, procedure and plans (including, for example, against performance indicators, targets, benchmarks, timelines)
(e) within the constraints of the review brief, enable the reviewers to consult with/interview, or call for submissions from, any member of the University community or any external stakeholder or other interested party
(f) result in a written review report, or a summary of the review’s findings and recommendations, that, usually, will be made available to the University community and other interested stakeholders, and
(g) involve follow-up action to ensure that the review findings are used in planning for any needed or desirable improvements as part of the current or the next planning cycle
6.12.5 The evaluative reviews conducted under this policy will be different in purpose and scope from other forms and types of activity which also have review elements, including:
- accreditation and re-accreditation of programs, noting that formal reviews of programs will be used to inform decisions concerning re-accreditation of programs
- individual staff members’ performance planning and review
- self-review processes, eg Council self-review
- monitoring the implementation of policy, procedures and plans
- minor revisions or amendments to policy, procedures and plans
- compliance or other audits initiated by external authorities (except where such audits require the University to undertake an evaluative review as part of the audit process).
6.12.6 As far as is practicable, evaluative reviews will not be so narrowly focused as to concentrate on one aspect or element of the University in isolation, but will be designed and scheduled to facilitate review of closely interrelated or interdependent elements.
6.12.7 Evaluative reviews will be required for each of the following, and, usually, will be conducted within the timeframe specified:
(a) overall governance, management and organisational structures of the University – at least every seven years
(b) the University Council and its standing committees, including the Academic Board – at least five-yearly
(c) other standing Boards and committees (including their sub-committees and reference groups) or other collegial bodies, the terms of reference of which include decision-making powers that have University-wide applicability or that are governed by University-wide rules, policy or procedures – at least five-yearly, or sooner if specified in the body’s brief or terms of reference
(d) standing Boards and committees or other collegial bodies the terms of reference of which include responsibility for provision of advice on matters that have University-wide applicability – as specified in each body’s brief or terms of reference
(e) organisational units, including performance over time in relation to relevant operational plans or relevant goals within such plans – at least every seven years if not included in a review of the type identified in (a) above
(f) policies and, where appropriate, any related procedures – at least five-yearly
(g) the Strategic Plan and functional plans – at least five yearly
(h) award programs and courses offered as part of the University’s curriculum – as required by governing or institutional operating policy pertaining to program reviews and course evaluation, and
(i) University services, functions or activities that span more than one organisational unit and that are not incorporated within any other type of evaluative review – at least every 10 years.
6.12.8 Particular types of evaluative reviews may be mandated within specific policies which may also include any requirements for those reviews.
6.12.9 Plans with University-wide applicability may also be subject to a minor evaluative review mid-way through the life of the plan.
6.12.10 For quality assurance and improvement purposes, while evaluative reviews of specified areas of University activity are or may be mandated, all aspects of the University’s activities should be subject to formal evaluative review at least once every 10 years.
6.12.11 Expenses associated with evaluative reviews required by a policy or plan with University-wide applicability or required by Council, the Academic Board, the Vice-Chancellor, the Deputy Vice-Chancellor or the Pro Vice-Chancellor will be taken into account in framing University budgets.
6.13 Continuous planning and implementation of improvements
6.13.1 The quality system will encompass the need for regular and frequent discussion and analysis of findings from feedback, monitoring reports, ongoing review, any minor reviews or self-reviews and formal evaluative reviews in order to identify any desirable or necessary improvements in University operations or performance.
6.13.2 Depending on the scope of their implications and ramifications, proposed improvements should be formally documented and included within current plans, subject to any required approval processes, or be scheduled for consideration within the next planning cycle.
6.13.3 Following the approval and encapsulation of improvements within plans, their implementation will be subject to monitoring in order to gauge whether the improvements are having the intended effect.
6.14 Record-keeping and management
6.14.1 Implementation and effectiveness of the quality system will rely on evidence of the University’s performance against its policies, standards, goals, plans, targets and similar; and, for that reason, thorough documentation, record-keeping and records management will be critical to the quality system.
6.14.2 Effective systems will be in place for the making, keeping and management of records on all aspects of University activity, including the creation and maintenance of quality-specific databases for recording University performance against plans that have University-wide applicability, the related performance indicators, benchmarks, targets and timelines, as well as summary details of all evaluative reviews and quality or compliance-related audits.
6.14.3 Policies, procedures and plans should identify any associated record-keeping requirements in order to ensure the effectiveness of the quality system.
Back to top