pdf - Swinburne University of Technology

Swinburne University of Technology Cycle 2 AUQA audit portfolio Page 19
In designing the new framework, the intention was to continue to improve the integration of
planning and quality management (as per Commendation 2 in the University’s cycle 1 audit
report), principally through:
w a stronger focus on stakeholder needs, expectations and outcomes
w greater consistency in setting quantitative annual targets and three-year outcome
measures aligned to the outcomes sought in Swinburne in 2015
w a clearer statement of actions and accountabilities
w more effective alignment between high-level strategic plans, unit plans and individual
performance plans
w increased consultation in planning
w a reduction in the number of plans, to avoid between-plan inconsistencies and to
reduce bureaucracy
Performance reporting
Annual performance reports are prepared by relevant managers against the targets identified
in the plans, with Strategic Planning & Quality preparing a consolidated report against the
University Plan. Reports against all Level 1 plans go to Executive Group for consideration and
approval. As well, a separate report is prepared for Executive Group each year (by Strategic
Planning & Quality) against the three-year outcome measures by which progress towards the
University’s strategic goals is monitored.
Other internal and external performance reports are produced on a regular basis by Strategic
Planning & Quality. These include data, including time series data and comparative data
for other universities, for different performance measures according to the target audience
and purpose. In addition to the statutory reporting required by Commonwealth and State
Government departments, these reports include:
w reports to the University Council and its committees
w reports to Academic Board (Section 3.3)
w reports to senior management
w program level reports for faculties, with data for such things as demand, load, attrition,
progression, student satisfaction, and graduate satisfaction, employment and further study
w reports at program and unit level based on student survey data (Section 3. 6)
w reports to support benchmarking (Section 3.7) and unit reviews (Section 3.8).
These reports are considered within appropriate forums, and there are pathways for followup
action. For example, faculties must prepare, report (to the Academic Board’s Academic
Programs Quality Committee) and implement improvement plans for all units falling in the
‘bottom 10%’ of units, in each broad field of education, for each cycle of the Student Feedback
on Units Survey (Section 3.6). However, in some cases the content of performance reports
needs to change to match Swinburne in 2015 goals and targets, and in others there is a need
to mandate a structured response.
Priorities for action
5. Review policy and procedure in
relation to program level reporting,
to broaden the range of performance
measures reported and to clarify
requirements in terms of follow-up
action (Section 4.2).
6. Review the content and format of
other regular performance reports to
ensure alignment with Swinburne in
2015, and to support the University’s
approach to performance planning
and development (Section 3.9).
7. Build capacity for data-handling
within the University, to improve
evidence-based decision-making.