DUBLIN CITY UNIVERSITY

Quality Assurance/Quality Improvement

Quality Review Process -

Background and Guidelines

2012

Quality Promotion Office

Dublin City University

October 2012

Website: http://www.dcu.ie/qpu/

List of Acronyms

CHIU	Conference of Heads of Irish Universities
DCU	Dublin City University
DCUBS	DCU Business School
EOLAS	Educational Organisational Legislative Advisory Services
OESA	Office for External & Strategic Affairs
EUA	European University Association
GA	Governing Authority
HEA	Higher Education Authority (An tÚdarás)
IUA	The Irish Universities Association
IUAQC	Irish Universities Association Quality Committee
IUQB	Irish Universities Quality Board
IUQSC	Inter-University Quality Steering Committee
NCSR	National Centre for Sensor Research
OVPLI	Office of the Vice President for Learning Innovation
OVPR	Office of the Vice President for Research
PGR	Peer Group Report
PRG	Peer Review Group
QA	Quality Assurance
QI	Quality Improvement
QPC	Quality Promotion Committee
QPO	Quality Promotion Office
QuIP	Quality Improvement Plan
SAR	Self Assessment Report
SS&D	Student Support & Development

Contents:

Introduction	4

Background to the QA/QI framework in Irish Universities	5

History of QA/QI at DCU	7

Summary of the Quality Review Process	10

Self-Assessment	12

Review	14

Response - Follow Up – Implementation – Quality Improvement	17

Appendices:

Appendix 1	Extracts from Universities Act (1997)	20

Appendix 2	The Quality Promotion Committee – Terms of Reference	23

Appendix 3	The Quality Promotion Committee – Structure & Membership 2012	25

Appendix 4	Schedule of Reviews of Academic and Research Areas (2001-2012)	26

Appendix 5	Schedule of Reviews of Service / Support Offices (2002-2012)	27

Appendix 6	Schedule of Thematic Reviews 2007-2009	28

Appendix 7	Organisation and Reporting Structure of Quality at DCU	29

Appendix 8	Peer Review Groups - Composition and Nomination Procedures	30

Appendix 9	Recommended Composition of an Academic Quality Review	31
Co-ordinating Committee

Appendix 10	Summary of deadlines associated with the preparation for a Quality	32 Review visit.

Appendix 11	Typical Outline of Timetable for a Review Visit	33

1. Introduction

In this document, the background to the Quality Assurance/Quality Improvement process at DCU is outlined. The procedures that have been developed for self-assessment, peer review and follow-up in the various academic and support/service offices in the University are also explained. Throughout this documentation the term “Area” will assume to apply to a School, a Faculty, a Research Centre or a Service/Support Office. For ease of use the guidelines should be applied to thematic reviews analogously.

The objective of the quality review process is to develop a culture of quality throughout all aspects of the University. The framework derives from the spirit of Quality Assurance and Quality Improvement enshrined in the Universities Act (1997), which is the legislative basis for quality throughout the Irish University sector (see Appendix 1).

Many different approaches to evaluation and assessment of quality in higher education have been established and developed throughout Europe, North America and Australasia. At one end of the spectrum is the external monitoring and auditing by Government agencies. At the other end of the spectrum is a system which is characterised by autonomy and quality improvement. The latter has been adopted in Ireland through the Universities Act (1997) and is increasingly promoted in Europe, as exemplified in the approach to the Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area (2005). This emphasises the process of self-assessment and self-regulation by the Universities, with a focus on quality improvement following the review of the self-assessment by a team of assessors external to the university and to the Area. According to the EUA Review of Quality Assurance in Irish Universities in 2004-2005 the system now in place strikes “the right tone and combination of public interest, accountability, and university autonomy”.

There is general agreement that the implementation of a quality process based on the framework above should consist of the following steps:

The area should prepare a self-assessment report detailing its work. The report should be reflective, analytical and self-critical.

A review group studies the self-assessment report and validates it during a site visit to the area. The review group submits a report that emphasises recommendations for improvement.

The University analyses the reports with a view to a realistic implementation of the suggested improvements.

In order to derive maximum benefit from the system, the University is anxious that the approach to self-assessment and review should be simple, flexible and easy to implement. It is the wish of the Quality Promotion Office to make the process as simple and understandable as possible. We very much welcome any comments or constructive criticisms on the process and methodology with a view to implementing any improvements that are suggested.

2. Background to the Quality Assurance/Quality Improvement framework in Irish Universities

2.1 Background

The current approaches to quality improvement and quality assurance are effectively a development of those that have served higher education well for many years. Approached from this perspective, QI/QA sits well with the nature of higher education, motivated as it is by quality and improvement.

The Irish Universities Association (IUA), formerly Conference of Heads of Irish Universities (CHIU), was the initial forum through which the university sector in Ireland has responded, in an overall sense, to the challenge of the contemporary quality movement. This challenge may be traced to the Government’s Green paper “Education for a Changing World” (1992), which stated, inter alia, that the “Department (of Education) would ask all third-level institutions to ensure that more systematic procedures for quality are in place within their institutions”. A subsequent white paper (1995) drew upon the intervening debates at the National Education Convention and called for QI/QA guided by recognition of the need for public accountability, but emphasising that quality was the primary responsibility of the individual institutions. CHIU documented its response in the paper “Proposal for a Process of Quality Improvement (QI) and Quality Assurance (QA)” and established an Inter-University Quality Steering Committee (IUQSC) in 1995, renamed as the Irish Universities Association Quality Committee (IUAQC) in 2006. A series of pilot programmes were begun in each institution, ownership of which remained with those directly involved.

The Universities Act (1997) sets out in Section 35 an explicit process for the establishment of procedures aimed at improving the quality of education and related services throughout the university sector. Such legislative and other social and political legislative developments nationally and internationally have changed the context in which the Irish universities operate and signal the desirability of achieving more coherence and greater visibility for the quality systems embraced by the seven universities.

In recent years, the universities have co-operated in developing their quality assurance systems and in representing their approach nationally and internationally as a unique quality model, appropriate to the needs of the Irish Universities. The autonomy of each university to determine its own quality assurance procedures under the Universities Act 1997 encourages an emphasis on quality improvement and facilitates the development of procedures free of the bureaucracy which has been associated with quality assurance systems in some other countries.

The quality framework that has been agreed by the seven universities is the result of close collaboration between the universities, and it reflects the commitment of the IUA to collective action in this important strategic area. Since 1995, each university has established a quality office with responsibility for quality assurance and quality improvement in all areas of the university’s mission. Working with a common set of principles agreed on a sectoral basis, each quality office has devised a quality assurance and improvement framework to promote a high quality student experience and a high standard of service across all university functions.

2.2 The Irish Universities Quality Board

As a collaborative measure, in 2003, the governing authorities of the seven Irish universities established the Irish Universities Quality Board (IUQB). The IUQB was incorporated in February 2006 as a non-profit making company. The 17-member Board of Directors comprises nominees of the Irish universities, nominees of other stakeholders in Irish higher education, and nominees representative of university education in Europe and North America. The Irish Universities Quality Board is convened by an independent Chair who is jointly nominated by the Irish Universities Association and the Higher Education Authority. It is funded by annual subscriptions from the seven Irish universities and by an annual grant from the Higher Education Authority (HEA). The website for the IUQB is www.iuqb.ie.

The IUQB has a particular role in regard to protocols for the conduct of the reviews of the effectiveness of the quality assurance procedures in the universities as required by Section 35(4) of the Universities Act (1997). In 2003, the IUQB and the Higher Education Authority (HEA) agreed to undertake a joint review, which sought to fulfill the statutory obligations of Sections 35(4) and 49(b) of the Universities Act. An international team was appointed in December 2003. A series of preliminary review visits to each university took place in April – June 2004 (April 25-27 to DCU) and Main Visits took place in September – November 2004 (October 3-6 to DCU). A report on the review of quality assurance procedures in the university sector, and reports on the review of the effectiveness of quality assurance procedures in each university were published jointly by the IUQB and the HEA in 2005. All reports are available on the IUQB website.

Each year it is planned that one meeting of the Board takes place with a conference on a major theme related to quality improvement. The following IUQB conferences were held between 2003 & 2008:

Conference Title	Venue	Date
Quality Improvement in Irish Universities	University Cork	7-8 February 2003
Learning in the Europe of Knowledge	National University Galway	6-7 February 2004
Engaging Students: Universities, Communities and the Quality of the Student Experience	National University Maynooth	28-29 January 2005
Advancing Research in Ireland	Dublin City University	5-6 May 2006
Institutional Research: Benefiting the Student Experience and University Performance.	National University Galway	12-13 October 2007
Opportunities and Challenges in Developing 4th-level Education	University College Dublin	14-15 October 2008

To date the IUQB has published guidelines of good practice in the areas of:

Administration of PhD programmes (2005)

Student Support Services (2006)

Institutional Research (2008)

Strategic Planning in Academic Departments (2008)

Organisation of PhD Programmes in Irish Higher Education (2009)

The published National Guidelines of Good Practice is available on the IUQB website.

In late 2012, the IUQB was subsumed, along with three other quality agencies (HETAC, FETAC and NQAI), into a new, national quality organisation, Quality and Qualifications Ireland (QQI). QQI will continue with the on-going work of IUQB as well as that of the other organizations.

3. History of Quality Assurance/Quality Improvement at Dublin City University

3.1 Background

In 1994, DCU undertook a strategic review process leading to the development and adoption of a strategy document called “Strategy 2000”. Submissions and reports were received from all Schools and Areas containing their plans for the 5-year period. Quality was one of the issues considered in the review. DCU established a Quality Assurance and Improvement Steering Committee to explore a number of quality review and assurance models relevant to educational institutions including self-assessment models. In 1999, DCU established an interim Quality Committee that approved Schools for quality review.

3.2 The Quality Promotion Office at Dublin City University

In December 2000, the DCU Executive established a new Quality Committee, subsequently renamed the Quality Promotion Committee (QPC). Terms of reference and the membership of the QPC are detailed in Appendix 2 and 3 respectively. In March 2001, the DCU Executive established the Quality Promotion Unit (QPU), which was subsequently renamed as the Quality Promotion Office (QPO) in April 2011. The QPO is charged with responsibility for the promotion of high quality across the full range of activities of the University. The Executive approved that the QPO would have its own dedicated staffing and budget. On the recommendation of the QPC, the Executive approved the title Director of Quality Promotion for the person heading up the office. In April 2001, DCU appointed Dr. Padraig Walsh as Director of Quality Promotion. In June 2005 Dr. Heinz Lechleiter was appointed to the position. He was seconded from his position as Lecturer in the School of Applied Language and Intercultural Studies from 2005 to 2010. In 2010, Dr. Sarah Ingle was seconded from her role as Lecturer in Entrepreneurship in DCU Business School for a five year appointment from 1 October 2010. In September 2001 a full-time Secretary in the QPO was appointed. This position is currently filled by Ms Fiona Dwyer.

A schedule of reviews for Academic and Research Centres (Appendix 4) and Service and Support Areas (Appendix 5) was agreed for the period 2001-2007, after consultation with the Quality Promotion Committee, Heads of Schools and Offices, the University Executive, Academic Council and Governing Authority. A second cycle of reviews, also including reviews for Faculties and University-wide themes has been agreed for the period 2008-2012 and are indicated in Appendix 4, 5 & 6.

The Quality Promotion Committee operates as a sub-committee, which reports to the University Executive. The organisation and reporting structure of Quality at the university is detailed in Appendix 7.

3.3 Reviews conducted to date

2000-2001

In 2000, DCU Business School (DCUBS), the largest academic entity in the university (accounting for 30% of the undergraduates in the University) undertook a full quality review under the CHIU framework. The Peer Review Group visited the University in October 2000. During 2001, DCUBS undertook significant structural change and prepared a Quality Improvement Plan, which was presented to the University Executive in February 2002. A Summary Review of the Quality Review of DCUBS was presented to the Governing Authority in April 2002.

2001-2002

In April 2002, a Peer Review Group visited the School of Physical Sciences at DCU. This was the first review conducted since the establishment of the Quality Promotion Office in June 2001. The School of Physical Sciences finalised their Quality Improvement Plan in September 2002 and a summary report of the Quality Review was approved for publication by the Governing Authority in November 2002. This summary report and the full Peer Review Group Report and the School’s Quality Improvement Plan were published on the University website in November 2002, in common with the agreed sectoral approach of publishing the outcome of reviews where the review visit took place after January 1, 2002.

2002-2003

In November 2002, a Peer Review Group visited the Office for Innovation and Business Relations. This was the first review of a service Area that has taken place since the establishment of the Quality Promotion Office.

Review visits took place in March-April 2003 to the School of Computing, the School of Communications, the School of Biotechnology and the Registry.

The Peer Review Group reports were published (on the DCU website) in February 2004, following approval by the Governing Authority.

2003-2004

Review visits took place in February-April 2004 for three academic Areas; Fiontar (Programmes through the medium of the Irish Language), the School of Electronic Engineering/Research Institute for Networks and Communications Engineering and the School of Chemical Sciences and for two non-academic Areas; Student Affairs and the Human Resources Office.

The Peer Review Group reports were published (on the DCU website) in February 2005, following approval by the Governing Authority.

2004-2005

Review visits took place in February-April 2005 for three academic Areas, the School of Nursing, the School of Applied Language and Intercultural Studies and the School of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, and for four non-academic Areas, namely the Student Finance Committee, the Office of the Vice-President for Research, the Computer Services Department and the Finance Office.

The Peer Review Group reports were published (on the DCU website) in February 2006, following approval by the Governing Authority.

2005-2006

Review visits took place in February-April 2006 for two academic Areas, the School of Mathematical Sciences and Oscail (the National Distance Education Centre), for one Research Centre (National Centre for Plasma Science and Technology), and for three non-academic Areas, namely Education Services, the EOLAS Advisory Network (comprising of the Disability Office, Freedom of Information Officer, Health and Safety Office, Institutional Research and Analysis Office, Internal Auditor, and the Quality Promotion Office), the Library and the Public Affairs and Media Relations Office.

The Peer Review Group reports were published (on the DCU website) in February 2007, following approval by the Governing Authority.

2006- 2007

Three schools (Law & Government, Health & Human Performance and Education Studies) and one Research Centre (National Institute for Cellular Biotechnology) were reviewed.

Two Administration Areas, the Office of the Vice-President for Learning Innovation/Registrar and the Estates Office were reviewed. The review visits took place during Feb – April 2007.

The Peer Review Group Reports were published (on the DCU Website) in February 2008, following approval by the Governing Authority.

2007-2008

Review visits took place in February – April 2008 for the President’s Office, the Theme Leaders Office, 1st Year Student Experience, a Faculty Review of the Business School and one Research Centre NCSR (National Centre for Sensor Research).

The Peer Review Group Reports were published (on the DCU Website) in February 2009, following approval by the Governing Authority.

2008-2009

Review visits took place in April 2009 of The Faculty of Engineering & Computing including the Schools of Mechanical & Manufacturing Engineering, Electronic Engineering & Computing. A Thematic Quality Review of the Postgraduate Student Experience was also carried out in April 2009.

The Peer Review Group Reports were published (on the DCU Website) in August 2010, following approval by the Governing Authority.

2009-2010

A DCU Institutional Review took place (IRIU) and the associated reports were published on the DCU website following approval by Governing Authority.

2010-2011

A review visit took place in November 2010 in the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, and the associated reports were published on the DCU website following approval by Governing Authority.

2011 - 2012

A review visit took place in September 2011 of the Secretary’s Office, including the offices of: Access and Student Recruitment; Health & Safety; Freedom of Information; Centre of Talented Youth (Ireland); GAA Academy and Sports Academy; as well as follow-up reviews of Information Systems and Services and Estates. In December 2011 a review of the Office of Student Life took place, followed by a review of Oscail (Distance Education) in March 2012 and a review of Student Support & Development in April 2012.

4. Summary of the Quality Review Process

4.1 Self-Assessment

A co-ordinating committee of the area prepares a self-assessment report. The purpose of the report is to provide a succinct, but comprehensive and reflective statement of the school’s activities. Some of the data for the self-assessment report will be collected via questionnaires completed by staff, students and, where applicable, graduates and employers. The final self-assessment report should be circulated to all staff in the area and to the Director of Quality Promotion, who is responsible for distributing it to the Peer Review Group responsible for reviewing the Area.

In common with good international practice and in agreement with sectoral policy, the University does not intend to make the self-assessment report further available. It is our belief, adhering to the spirit of the legislation, that the candour and self-criticism expressed in such private reports will be less likely if the report is made public.

4.2 Peer Review

As the legislation requires, all review groups contain members who are competent to make national and international comparisons on the quality of teaching and research at university level. The Peer Review Group composition will reflect the size, character and structure of the Area or theme under review. As a general rule, the Peer Review Group will have internal and external members. Internal members will be drawn from the Quality Promotion Committee (rapporteurs) and senior members of staff who are not directly involved with the reviewed Area; external members will form the majority of reviewers and will be of sufficient seniority to make well founded observations and recommendations.

The aims of the visit are to clarify and verify details in the self-assessment report, and to allow members of the school, students and other stakeholders to meet with the peer review group. After the site visit, the peer review group will produce a report, which may include recommendations for quality improvement.

The procedures for nomination and selection of members for the Peer Review Groups are detailed in Appendix 8.

4.3 Follow Up

Discussion will take place between the area, the Dean of the Faculty (if appropriate) or the appropriate Vice-President (to whom the Head of the Office reports), the Director of Quality Promotion and, if necessary, with the University Executive with a view to

implementing the recommendations contained in the peer review report

ensuring continual quality improvement

reviewing the self-assessment procedures

The Area will prepare a draft Quality Improvement Plan, in consultation with the Dean of the Faculty (or reporting Vice-President, as appropriate), which will be sent to the Director of Quality Promotion. He/she will convene and chair a ‘follow-up meeting’ which will be attended by the representatives of Senior Management (usually Deputy-President, relevant Vice-President, relevant Line Manager), and Dean (in the case of a Faculty or School Review), representatives of the reviewed area (usually Head and chair of area’s Quality Committee), in the presence of representatives of the original Peer Review Group (usually one external member and the rapporteur). This meeting will formulate an agreed university response, termed the Quality Improvement Plan (QuIP). The QuIP will be signed off by the School/Area, reporting Vice-President (in the case of an office review), Dean of the Faculty (in the case of a School review), the University Executive and the Director of Quality Promotion. Recommendations that need additional funding will be considered by the Budget Committee of the University Executive, having regard to the resources available to the University for quality improvement purposes.

4.4 Value of the Process

Apart from satisfying the statutory requirements (Section 35 of the Universities Act, 1997), the process is valuable for the following reasons:

It presents detailed information about the Area and the collective perception of staff and students of its role in the university, in the international academic community, and in the cultural and economic development of Ireland.

It presents a succinct and comprehensive statement of the Area’s view of its strategic objectives and for a school, of its teaching, learning and research.

It provides a reflective and self-critical analysis of the activities of the Area.

It shows the quality systems and processes which are already in place in the Area and permits an assessment of their effectiveness.

It helps the Area to identify and analyse its strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats, and allows it to suggest appropriate remedies where necessary.

It identifies those weaknesses, if any, in academic, organisational and other matters which are under the control of the Area and which can be remedied by Area-based action.

It identifies shortfalls in resources and provides an externally validated case for increased resource allocation.

It provides a framework within which the Area can continue to work in the future towards quality improvement.

5. Self-Assessment

5.1 Consultation

It is critical for the success of the exercise that all members of the area are kept fully informed about the details of the self-assessment as it progresses, but most importantly at the initial planning stage. Thorough consultation with all staff in the Area is advised. They should be encouraged to study these guidelines, to discuss the detailed operation of the exercise, and to consider its implications for members of the area. All staff may not be equally enthusiastic, but as far as possible a willingness to co-operate should be developed. The more often the self-assessment exercise is discussed among colleagues, the more effective it will be in raising awareness of issues of quality and in encouraging staff and students to develop and sustain a quality culture and a questioning attitude around routine procedures.

5.2 The Quality Review Committee

The area should, at the outset of the process, designate a group to form a committee that will be responsible for co-ordinating and preparing the self-assessment report. The committee must include the Head of the area and at least one other senior member of staff (one of whom should chair the Committee). The committee should be representative of all staff in the area. A suggested committee structure for a laboratory-based school, for example, is given in Appendix 9. In the case of schools, it should include a student, if possible a postgraduate student who is a recent graduate of the school and thus familiar with school procedures, but care should be taken when appointing students to a co-ordinating committee. They should not be expected or allowed to devote a large amount of time to the exercise. The committee must be an operational one and should therefore not be too large (an upper limit of 9 is suggested). In a spirit of fairness, the extra administrative burden involved with being a member of the Quality co-ordinating committee should be reflected in any staff workload allocation model for the Area under review. It is anticipated that one staff member be designated as the Quality Liaison Officer for the review, who would co-ordinate, in particular, the preparation of the self-assessment report. In these circumstances, some limited financial support may be available (on application to the QPO) to cover, for example, the cost of replacement teaching for that staff member partially released from teaching for a semester. Although the preparation for the self-assessment is conducted primarily by the committee, it is very important that all staff in the area are appraised, on a regular basis, of progress with the review. It is suggested therefore, that for the duration of the preparation of the self-assessment report, the Quality Review should feature as an agenda item on, for example, the monthly School or Area staff meeting.

5.3 Role of the Quality Promotion Office

The Quality Promotion Office will assist the co-ordinating committee in interpreting the guidelines and on the methodology of the assessment and the preparation of the report. Before making a detailed plan for the self-assessment, the Area’s quality committee should read the guidelines carefully and discuss them with their colleagues in the Area. The co-ordinating committee should liaise with the QPO and agree dates for formal meetings in order to monitor progress and check the final draft of the self-assessment report. See Appendix 10 for the Summary of deadlines associated with the preparation for a Quality Review visit.

5.4 Timescale

The Area Heads will be briefed on the quality review process at least 12 months in advance of the review visit. The purpose of the early briefing is give the Area sufficient time to prepare nominations for membership of the Peer Review Group, which is selected by the QPO with assistance from the QPC. The self-assessment report is required to be submitted four weeks in advance of the review visit. A summary of the timeline associated with a typical review visit provided in Appendix 11.

5.5 Research for the Self-Assessment Report

It is important to get the views of students, staff, graduates and employers. The Institutional Analysis Officer provides a service to University staff in relation to the provision of statistical information and in the design, development and processing of questionnaires, focus groups and other research methods. The Institutional Research and Analysis Officer works, in collaboration with the QPO, in assisting staff in the development of questionnaires and surveys in relation to the self-assessment Report. Individual areas may have special requirements and these should be discussed at an early stage with the Institutional Analysis Officer.

5.6 Writing the Self-Assessment Report

Templates and detailed notes and guidelines for the self-assessment report are available from the QPO website. While it is recommended that Areas use the template provided, they are free to adjust the format of the SAR to their own circumstances and needs. Any major changes to the templates provided should be discussed with the Director of Quality Promotion before they are made and before the SAR is written. The self-assessment report should contain an analysis of the Area’s activities, as opposed to a mere listing of factual information and of opinions from questionnaires. Strengths should be emphasised, effective Area responses to threats and opportunities should be considered and strategies for improvement should be discussed and formulated. Weaknesses in general will fall into the following categories:

Matters which are completely under the control of the Area itself.

Shortcomings in services, procedures, equipment and resources which are outside the control of the area.

Since the overall goal is Quality Improvement, the formulation of strategies and recommendations for improving the work of the Areas should be highlighted. The subsequent external validation provided by the peer review will become an important element of the follow-up discussion within the university.

The Peer Review Group will base their report on a combination of the information that they gather from both the Self-assessment Report and from interviews and discussions during the site visit.

The Peer Review Group should be presented with a self-assessment report that is comprehensive, quantitative and contains evidential, statistical information. If the self-assessment report is also reflective and self-critical, it is more likely that difficult issues will first have been confronted in advance of, rather than during the site visit.

Following a number of recommendations in peer review group reports and based on the experience gained from preparing a self-assessment report for the European University Association (EUA) review of the effectiveness of quality assurance procedures in DCU and based on the recommendations in the subsequent report, the main self-assessment report should not be more than 30 pages in length. This can, of course, be supplemented by detailed appendices.

6. Review

6.1 Composition of Peer Review Group (PRG)

The Review Group will be chosen by the QPO with assistance from the Quality Promotion Committee. It will include external assessors and DCU staff. The size of the review group and the nomination and selection procedures are detailed in Appendix 8. A summary is given below:

The Peer Review Group will comprise five members:

Two DCU staff: one of whom is a senior academic or administrator in the University (from outside the Area under review) and one of whom is a member of the Quality Promotion Committee (and who will be appointed as rapporteur, well in advance of the visit).

Three external peers: one of whom acts as Chair. One from Ireland in a similar role to the Head of the Area under review, one at the same level from outside Ireland, and one senior person from industry, business or the public-sector.

6.2 Objectives

The objectives of the Peer Review Group will be to:

Clarify and verify details in the self-assessment report

Verify how well the aims and objectives of the Area are fulfilled, having regard to the available resources

Confirm the Area’s strength, weaknesses, opportunities and threats as outlined in the self assessment report

Discuss any perceived strengths, weaknesses not identified in the self-assessment report

Check the suitability of the teaching, learning and research environment (where applicable)

Make recommendations for improvement

6.3 Function

The Peer Review Group will:

Study the self-assessment report

Visit the Area over a period of two and a-half days

Clarify and verify details in the self-assessment report

Review the activities of the Area in the light of the self-assessment report

Prepare a draft report and present the main findings at the end of the visit

Write the peer review report

Two members will assist in finalising the Quality Improvement Plan (QuIP)

6.4 Review Visit to the Area

Planning

The Peer Review Group will visit the Area over a minimum of a two and a-half-day period. This visit is central to the peer review process and must be carefully planned. Close liaison will be required between the area Co-ordinating Committee and the Quality Promotion Office.

It is envisaged that the visit will normally take place during the weeks of the first or second semester so that students can participate. This has important implications for the timing of all other activities. In order to facilitate personal schedules, the membership of the Peer Review Group will normally be decided at least six months in advance and the days for the visit fixed. All contact with the Peer Review Group Members (including arrangements for the stay in Dublin of the External members) will be carried out by the Quality Promotion Office.

Structure

The detailed structure and timetabling of the visit should be organised by the Chair of the Area’s Quality Committee in consultation with the Director of Quality Promotion. The timetable should be agreed four weeks prior to the visit. Students, employers and other users of the Area who will meet the review group will be selected beforehand by a consultation process involving the Director of Quality Promotion and the Area’s Quality Committee. A draft timetable is supplied by the QPO at the start of the visit, which will usually resemble closely the sample timetable detailed in Appendix 11 a for Academic and Support/Service Office review respectively. Days One and Two of the visits usually consists of meetings with the staff and students involved with the Area (and alumni and employers if appropriate), and Day Three involves meeting with the Senior Management of the University and other senior staff.

All staff and students should be informed that the visit is taking place. All staff in the Area should be afforded an opportunity to meet with the members of the PRG in private or in groups, as they wish and as the timetable allows.

A suitable room must be provided (by the Area under review) for the use of the Peer Review Group during the course of the visit.

The Peer Review Group should (as desired and as time permits):

Meet with the area Quality Co-ordinating Committee, the Head of the area, members of the staff not on the Co-ordinating Committee, past and present students (including postgraduates) and where appropriate, users of the area and employers.

Visit lecture rooms, laboratories, offices and such other facilities that contribute to the activities of the area.

Complete the first draft of the report and present its principal findings and recommendations to a meeting of the Area. This exit presentation should be made to all staff in the Area (not just to the members of the Quality Co-ordinating committee). The presentation, by the Chair of the PRG, is merely a summary of the findings during the visit. It is not a discussion forum.

When the visit is over, no member of the Area should be in contact with the review group on matters relating to the self-assessment report, the site visit or the review group report. If contact is made, it should be through the Director of Quality Promotion.

6.5 The Peer Group Report

When the final draft report of the Peer Review Group report has been completed, a copy will be sent to the Director of Quality Promotion. The Director will send a copy to the Head of the Area, who is responsible for circulating a copy to all members of the Area Co-ordinating Committee. This is to afford the committee with an opportunity to indicate any errors of fact or poorly based assumptions in the report.

This feedback should not be confused with the Area response to the PRG Report (termed the Quality Improvement Plan). This feedback should be almost entirely to do with verifiable facts and should take no longer than five working days. Taking any points raised into consideration, the Rapporteur, in consultation with the chair, and the other member of the PRG then produces a Final Report. When feedback from the Area is seriously delayed, the Director of Quality Promotion reserves the right to consider the pre-final draft to be the final report.

A copy of the final report will be sent to the President, and other members of the Senior Management Group. The Head of the Area should circulate a copy of the final Peer Review Group report to all staff in the Area. The report will also be sent to all members of the Quality Promotion Committee prior to discussion of the report at the next QPC Meeting. Following the completion of the annual series of review visits, the Peer Review Group Reports (when finalised) will also be considered by the University Executive.

The University has agreed that the following will be published:

Full text of the Peer Review Group Report

Full text of the agreed Quality Improvement Plan

Full text of the Summary of the Quality Reviews presented to and approved by the Governing Authority

Copies will also be kept on file in the Quality Promotion Office. Each year, the Director of Quality Promotion will collate a summary of (a) the recommendations in the review reports for that year and (b) a one-year update on progress with implementing the recommendations from the previous year’s review. This summary document will be presented to Governing Authority. Under Section 35 of the Universities Act (1997), the Governing Authority is required to publish the outcome of the evaluations conducted by the University under its quality assurance procedures.

7. Response - Follow Up – Implementation – Quality Improvement

Quality improvement must be an integral part of the overall exercise. The decisions on improvement that are made in the follow-up to self-assessment and review will provide a framework within which each Area can continue to work towards the goal of developing and fostering a quality culture within the University.

The manner in which the area and the University receive and act upon recommendations in the PRG Report is a measure for each as to their approach to improving quality. The development of effective procedures to ensure implementation of the important recommendations in review reports is essential. The University is obliged under Section 35(4) of the Universities Act to undertake a regular review process in order to:

Review the effectiveness of the quality assurance procedures

Review the implementation of the findings of quality reviews

Publish the results of such a review

“Institutional Reviews’ will be co-ordinated by the Irish Universities Quality Board (IUQB). In 2004, the first such review (which involved reviews of all seven universities) was commissioned jointly by IUQB and the HEA who employed the services of the European University Association to conduct the reviews. The reports on the reviews of the effectiveness of quality assurance procedures in the individual universities and the report on the review of quality assurance procedures in the Irish university sector were published in 2005.

7.1 Quality Improvement Plan

The existence of an externally validated report should be useful to the area in seeking additional resources. Those recommendations that need additional funding must be considered in the light of university policy, having regard to the resources available to the university at the time.

The Head of the Area, on receipt of the final review group report, will set up an implementation committee which will present the views of the area in all subsequent discussion on follow-up. The implementation committee will be fully representative of all the staff in the Area and must include the Head.

The Implementation Committee will draft a Quality Plan, which is based on the Area’s self-assessment report and on the review group report. The plan should address all of the recommendations in the Peer Review group Report and set out a timeframe for their implementation. The draft plan should be formulated in consultation with the Dean of the Faculty (in the case of an Academic review) or the reporting Vice-President (in the case of a Support / Service Office review). The University is required, under the Universities Act (1997) to implement the recommendations of quality reviews unless, having regard to the resources available or for any other reason, it would be impractical or unreasonable to do so.

The draft Quality Plan will include detailed proposals for implementing the recommendations of the self-assessment and review group reports.

The draft Quality Plan should include:

A list of goals which can realistically be achieved in the following year

A list of longer-term goals to be achieved over three years.

The Area should also bring to the attention of the Director of Quality Promotion any perceived deficiencies in and suggested improvements in the methodology of the QI/QA procedures in DCU.

7.2 University Response

The draft Quality Improvement Plan will be sent to the Director of Quality Promotion who will convene and chair a ‘follow-up meeting’. This will be attended by the representatives of Senior Management (usually Deputy-President, relevant Vice-President, relevant Line Manager), and Dean (in the case of an Academic Review), representatives of the reviewed Area (usually Head and Chair of Area’s Quality Committee), representatives of the original Peer Review Group (usually one external member and the rapporteur). This meeting will formulate an agreed University response, termed the Quality Improvement Plan (QuIP). The QuIP will be signed off by the Area, reporting Vice-President (in the case of an Office review), Dean of the Faculty (in the case of an Academic review), the University Executive and the Director of Quality Promotion. Recommendations that need additional funding will be considered by the Budget Committee of the University Executive, having regard to the resources available to the University for quality improvement purposes.

7.3 Publication of Outcomes of Evaluations

A report will be made to the Governing Authority annually, on the quality reviews that have been carried out in the previous year. For each quality review, the report will include a summary of the report by the peer review group and a summary of the agreed Quality Improvement Plan. In addition, a summary of any common themes and recommendations relating to all the reports for that year will be presented in the summary report.

In accordance with the Universities Act (1997), the Governing Authority shall:

Implement any findings arising out of an evaluation carried out in accordance with the quality review procedures unless, having regard to the resources available to the university or for any other reason, it would, in the opinion of the governing authority, be impractical or unreasonable to do so.

Shall provide for the publication in such form and manner as the governing authority thinks fit of findings arising out of the application of the quality assurance procedures.

7.4 Progress Report

The Area will be asked to prepare a progress report on the implementation of the Quality Improvement Plan, one year after the review visit, which will be considered by the Governing Authority.

Appendix 1

Extracts from Universities Act (1997)

Section 35. Quality Assurance

(1) A governing authority, in consultation with the academic council, shall, as soon as practicable after the governing authority is established under this Act and at such other times as it thinks fit, require the chief officer to establish procedures for quality assurance aimed at improving the quality of education and related services provided by the university.

(2) The procedures shall include—

(a) the evaluation, at regular intervals and in any case not less than once in every 10 years or such longer period as may be determined by the university in agreement with An tÚdarás (the Higher Education Authority), of each department and, where appropriate, faculty of the university and any service provided by the university, by employees of the university in the first instance and by persons, other than employees, who are competent to make national and international comparisons on the quality of teaching and research and the provision of other services at university level, and

(b) Assessment by those, including students, availing of the teaching, research and other services provided by the university, and shall provide for the publication in such form and manner as the governing authority thinks fit of findings arising out of the application of those procedures.

(3) A governing authority shall implement any findings arising out of an evaluation carried out in accordance with procedures established under this section unless, having regard to the resources available to the university or for any other reason, it would, in the opinion of the governing authority, be impractical or unreasonable to do so.

(4) A governing authority shall, from time to time, and in any case at least every 15 years, having regard to the resources available to the university and having consulted with An tÚdarás, arrange for a review of the effectiveness of the procedures provided for by this section and the implementation of the findings arising out of the application of those procedures.

(5) A governing authority, in a report prepared in accordance with section 41, shall publish the results of a review conducted under subsection (4).

Section 12. Objects of University

12. The objects of a university shall include (…) (h) to promote the highest standards in, and quality of, teaching and research.

Section 14. Academic Freedom

14. (1) A university, in performing its functions shall—

(a) have the right and responsibility to preserve and promote the traditional

principles of academic freedom in the conduct of its internal and external

affairs, and

(b) be entitled to regulate its affairs in accordance with its independent ethos

and traditions and the traditional principles of academic freedom, and in doing

so it shall have regard to—….

(ii) the effective and efficient use of resources, and

(iii) its obligations as to public accountability (…)

Section 49. Reviews

49.—An tÚdarás (the Higher Education Authority), in furtherance of its general functions under section 3 of the Higher Education Authority Act, 1971, shall assist the universities in achieving the objectives of Chapters IV, VII and VIII of Part III and may review…

(b) the procedures established in accordance with section 35, ...

and may, following consultation with the universities, publish a report, in such

form and manner as it thinks fit, on the outcome of any such review.

Appendix 2

Terms of Reference for the DCU Quality Promotion Committee

The Quality Promotion Committee is a sub-committee of the Executive.

Membership of the Quality Promotion Committee is drawn from all parts of the University and should represent all Academic Areas in the University. (A detailed overview of the membership of the QPC is contained in Appendix 1).

The University President or his/her designee shall be the Chair of the Quality Promotion Committee.

Members of the Governing Authority shall have the right of attendance at meetings of the Quality Promotion Committee as observers and without a vote.

Six meetings of the Quality Promotion Committee shall take place every academic year.

The term of membership of the Quality Promotion Committee shall be three years; a maximum of two terms per person normally applies.

Academic representation on the Quality Promotion Committee shall include all Faculties and Oscail. Representation from Support / Service offices shall follow a predetermined rota (Appendix 2). Offices can decline membership in the QPC for one term. Constituencies should mandate their representative or representatives.

Colleges of DCU (St Patrick’s Drumcondra, All Hallows and Mater Dei) will be represented by a designated person from each of the Colleges’ QPCs.

A quorum of one half of the membership of the Quality Promotion Committee applies.

A review of the QPC membership shall be conducted in the spring of every year; change-over of QPC members, if applicable, shall take place at the start of the academic year.

The Quality Promotion Committee shall:

promote an ethos of self-evaluation and continuous quality improvement within the university, and seek thereby to enhance the student and staff experience

advise and make recommendations to Senior Management, Executive and Academic Council on policies for quality assurance and improvement, arising from: the University's responsibilities under the Universities Act (1997); from the activities of the Irish Universities Quality Board; subsequently as appropriate from the activities of Qualifications and Qualifications Assurance Ireland (QQAI); and also from the requirements of national agencies such as the Higher Education Authority, that have a remit for quality in higher education

advise Senior Management, Executive and Academic Council on the establishment of a framework of principles, policies, priorities, procedures and good practice for the promotion of outstanding quality in teaching, research and administration across the University

disseminate information throughout the University on best national and international practice on quality related issues

administer funding from the Quality Improvement Fund and advise Executive and Academic Council on funding needs arising from quality assurance mechanisms

review the range of quality assurance mechanisms used at Institutional level, as well as by Faculties, Schools and Support/Service Offices, to provide advice as appropriate, and to ensure the cross-fertilisation of experience with procedures throughout the University

review, and where necessary, propose revisions of these terms of reference from time to time

Minutes of the Quality Promotion Committee shall be circulated to all members of the Executive and published on the Quality Promotion Office website.

Appendix 3

Quality Promotion Committee Membership 2012/2013

2012/2013	REPRESENTATIVE	AFFILIATION
President or President’s Nominee (Chair)	Mr. Jim Dowling	Deputy President
Director of Quality Promotion (Secretary)	Dr. Sarah Ingle	Director of Quality Promotion
DCUBS (Faculty of Business) - 2 Reps	Dr. Ruth Mattimoe Dr. Caroline McMullan	Accounting Group Management Group
Faculty of Engineering &Computing – 2 Reps	Dr Caitriona Lally Dr. Conor Brennan	School of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering School of Electronic Engineering
Faculty of Humanities & Social Sciences – 2 Reps	Dr. Francesco Cavatorta Dr. Brenda Daly	School of Law & Government School of Law & Government
Faculty of Science & Health – 2 Reps	Dr. Davide Susta Dr. Paraic James	School of Health & Human Performance School of Chemical Sciences
Oscail (Distance Learning) – 1 Rep	Dr. Anne Morrissey	Oscail
Faculty Administration Peer Group – (1 Rep)	Ms. Ursula Baxter	Manager of Faculty Administration, DCUBS
Support / Service Office Representatives (5 Reps)	Mr. Billy Kelly Dr. Claire Bohan Mr. Martin Leavy Ms. Phylomena McMorrow Mr. Fergus Donohoe	Dean of Teaching & Learning Director of Student Support & Development HR, Training & Development Manager Director of Registry ISS, Technical Infrastructure Manager
Students’ Union Nominee– (1 Rep)	Neil Patrick Collins	Vice-president (Welfare) DCU Students’ Union
DCU Colleges - (3 Reps)	Dr. Mary Ivers	All Hallows College
Dr. John Murray	Mater Dei Institute of Education
Dr. Daire Keogh	St Patrick's College
Ex Officio – Institutional Analysis Officer – (1 Rep)	Ms. Aisling McKenna	Research & Institutional Analysis Officer
Recording Secretary (in attendance)	Ms. Fiona Dwyer	Quality Promotion Office

Appendix 4

Schedule of Reviews of Academic and Research Areas

2001-2012

Year	Academic Area	Faculty Affiliation
2001-2002	Business School	Business
2001-2002	School of Physical Sciences	Science & Health
2002-2003	School of Biotechnology	Science & Health
School of Computing	Engineering & Computing
School of Communications	Humanities & Social Sciences
2003-2004	School of Chemical Sciences	Science & Health
School of Electronic Engineering/ Research Institute for Networks & Communications Engineering (RINCE)	Engineering & Computing
Fiontar	Humanities & Social Sciences
2004-2005	School of Nursing	Science & Health
School of Mechanical & Manufacturing Engineering	Engineering & Computing
School of Applied Languages & Intercultural Studies (SALIS)	Humanities & Social Sciences
2005-2006	School of Mathematical Sciences	Science & Health
National Distance Education Centre	Distance Education
National Centre for Plasma Science & Technology (NCPST)	Science & Health
2006-2007	School of Health & Human Performance	Science & Health
School of Law & Government	Humanities & Social Sciences
School of Education Studies	Humanities & Social Sciences
National Institute for Cellular Biotechnology	Science & Health
2007-2008	National Centre for Sensor Research	Science & Health
Business School (Faculty)	Business
2008-2009	Faculty of Engineering & Computing School of Computing School of Electronic Engineering School of Mechanical & Manufacturing Engineering	Engineering & Computing
2009-2010	DCU Institutional Review (IRIU)	All Faculties
2010-2011	Faculty of Humanities & Social Sciences	Humanities & Social Sciences
2011-2012	Oscail (Distance Education)	Deputy President
Faculty of Science & Health	Science & Health

Appendix 5

Schedule of Reviews of Service / Support Offices

2002-2012

Year	Service / Support Office	2011 Office Affiliation
2002-2003	Office for Innovation & Business Relations	SS&D
Registry	Deputy President
2003-2004	Student Affairs	OVPLI
Human Resources Office	President
2004-2005	Finance Office	President
Computer Services Department	Secretary
Office of the Vice President for Research	President
Student Finance Committee	Various
2005-2006	Library	Deputy President
Communications & Marketing Office	OESA
EOLAS Group	Various
2006-2007	Buildings Office	Secretary
Office of the Vice-President for Learning Innovation	President
2007-2008	President’s Office	President
Theme Leaders’ Office	President
2010-2011	Secretary’s Office	President
2011–2012	Office of Student Life	Various
Student Support & Development	OVPLI
Registry	Deputy President

Appendix 6

Schedule of Thematic Reviews

2007-2009

Year	Service or Support Areas	2011 Office Affiliation
2007-2008 2008-2009	First Year and Beginners’ Student Experience Post Graduate Students	Cross-Campus Cross-Campus

Appendix 7

Organisation and Reporting Structure of Quality at DCU

The administrative structure to implement Quality Assurance/Quality Improvement at DCU is overseen by the Governing Authority, with the assistance of the Quality Promotion Committee (QPC), a sub-committee of the University Executive.

The QPC is chaired by the President or Deputy-President of the University. The Director of Quality Promotion acts as Secretary to the Quality Promotion Committee.

The Peer Review Reports and Quality Improvement Plans arising from the visits are considered initially by the Quality Promotion Committee, and then by the University Executive. Summary annual reports are presented to Governing Authority and Academic Council. Governing Authority approve the relevant reports for publication on the DCU website.

The 2011 ‘wedge’ diagram below represents how Annual and Periodic Review link into the Internal Quality Review processes of Academic Areas and Support / Service Offices.

Appendix 8

DCU Quality Review Peer Panel

Composition and Nomination Procedures

Panel Member	Affiliation	Academic Review	Support/Service Review	Location	Duties	Nomination & Selection
1	External	Senior person from another Higher Education Institution (normally a Head/Dean/Director responsible for an Academic Area similar to that under review)	Senior person from another Higher Education Institution (normally a Head/Dean/Director responsible for a Support/Service Office similar to that under review)	Ireland	One external panel member is selected as Chair.	Four nominations for each of the external panel members to be provided by the area under review (12 in total). Both genders to be represented in each set of four nominees. Quality Promotion Committee to rank the nominees. Quality Promotion Office to invite participation.
2	External	Senior person from another Higher Education Institution (normally a Head/Dean/Director responsible for an Academic area similar to that under review)	Senior person from another Higher Education Institution (normally a Head/Dean/Director responsible for a Support/Service Office similar to that under review)	Outside Ireland
3	External	Senior person from outside the Higher Education Sector (industry, business, professions or the public service).	Ireland
4	Internal	Senior Academic or Senior Administrator	DCU	Nominated by Quality Promotion Office from a standing panel of Senior Academics / Administrators who have agreed to act as reviewers.
5	Internal	Member of the Quality Promotion Committee	DCU	Appointed as Rapporteur	Nominated by Quality Promotion Office.

Appendix 9

Recommended Composition of an Academic Quality Review

Co-ordinating Committee

The following is the recommended composition of a Quality Co-ordinating Committee for, say, a laboratory-based School, It is important that the Committee be representative of all grades and all categories of staff, wherever possible.

Head of School (who will normally chair the committee)

Other Senior Academic

Quality Liaison Officer (this will usually be an academic staff member who has primary responsibility for the co-ordination of the writing of the Self-Assessment Report)

Person representative of Teaching (usually a chairperson of one of the School’s home primary undergraduate programmes)

Person representative of Research (usually the School’s Research Convener and member of the Research Advisory Panel)

Technical Representative (normally the Senior Technician)

Administrative Representative (usually the School Secretary)

Member of the Post-Doctoral Research Staff

Post-Graduate Student

Each member of the committee should have specific designated tasks allocated to him or her.

The committee should meet every month at the beginning and weekly as the deadline for the self-assessment report nears.

The committee should report back to the remainder of the school staff on a regular basis, usually by having the Quality Review as a standing item on School Meeting agendas for the duration of the review.

Appendix 10

Summary of Suggested Deadlines Associated

with the preparation for a Quality Review Visit that takes place in the 2nd Semester of an Academic year

Meeting with Heads of Areas to be reviewed	February/March of preceding year
Presentation to Area by Director of Quality Promotion if required	September
Selection of Area Quality Committee	June-August
Nominations for external Peer Review Group members to Quality Promotion Office	September
Selection/invitation of internal Peer Review Group members by Quality Promotion Office	October
Preparation for Self Assessment report: Away Day for Staff Surveys & other quantitative research Focus Groups & other qualitative research Drafting of Sections of Self-Assessment Report	October - December
First Draft of Self-Assessment Report complete	January of review visit year
Final Self-Assessment Report to Director of Quality Promotion and to Peer Review Group	January/February/March
Peer Review Group Visit	February/March/April

Note: Although the time span covers a period of one year, the intensive element should only cover the 3 months between October and December.

Appendix 11

Outline Timetable Peer Review Group Visit

QUALITY REVIEW OF: XXXXXXX

DATE: XXXXXX - XXXXXX

Day	Time	Peer Review Group (PRG) Activity/Meeting	Venue	Meeting No.
Day 1 Wed	13.30-14.30	Lunch with Director of Quality Promotion and available PRG members	1838 DCU	Arranged by QPO
14.30-15.00	Briefing by Director of Quality Promotion	A204	Arranged by QPO
15.00-15.45	PRG selects Chair. Discussion of main areas of interest and concern arising from the SAR; principal issues outlined to guide PRG for the visit.	A204	Arranged by QPO
15.45-16.00	Coffee	A204	Arranged by QPO
16.00-17.15	Consideration of SAR with Area Head & members of quality review committee. Short presentation by Area (10 min) followed by discussion of SAR.	A204	Arranged by QPO
17:15-17.55	PRG Private meeting	A204
18.00-19.00	Informal Reception – PRG, Area Head, Members of Quality Review Committee, Director of Quality Promotion	1838 DCU	Arranged by QPO
19.00-20.30	PRG Private dinner	1838 DCU	Arranged by QPO
Day 2 Thurs	08.45– 09.00	PRG Private meeting	TBA
09.00-09.25	Area Head	TBA	1
09.30-10.00	Area Management Team or other Area staff	2
10.00-10.25	Area staff in functional or other groupings, or individually	3A
10.30-11.00	Coffee	TBA
11.00-11.25	Area staff in functional or other groupings, or individually	3B
11.30-11.55	Area staff in functional or other groupings, or individually	TBA	3C
12.00-12.25	Heads or Senior staff in Support / Service Offices working with Area	TBA	4
12.30-12.55	Administrative Staff representatives from Schools, Faculties or Research Centres and / or administrative staff representatives from varying levels within central administration	5
13.00-14:00	Lunch	TBA
14.00-14.40	Tour of Facilities	TBA
14.45–15.25	Representatives from varying levels of academic staff familiar with Area, including Programme Chairs.	TBA	6
15.30-16.25	Representatives of students from various academic programmes. Mix of gender, undergrad, postgrad, access, traditional and others	TBA	7
16:30-16:50	Coffee	TBA
16.50-17.15	Open forum for any member of Area staff	TBA
17.15-17.55	Meetings with external stakeholders (alumni, employers, suppliers, Colleges of DCU, members of Governing Authority depending on relevance to area…)	TBA	8
18.00-18.05	Area Head (update and clarifications if required)	TBA	9
18.05-18.15	PRG private meeting time	TBA
19.30	PRG private dinner	Crowne Plaza Hotel
Day 3 Fri	08.45– 09.00	PRG Private meeting	TBA	Meeting No.
09.00-09.55	DCU Senior Management Group (SMG) (Director of Quality Promotion in attendance)	AG01	10
10.00–10.25	Area Reporting Head (usually member of SMG)	AG01	11
10.30-11.00	Coffee
11.00-13.00	PRG private meeting time	TBA
13.00-14:00	Working Lunch Clarification of outstanding issues for PRG if required	TBA
14.00-16.25	PRG Prepare Exit Presentation (Coffee provided at 16.00)	TBA
16.30-17.00	Exit Presentation – by PRG to Area Head and all members of Area staff (Director of Quality Promotion in attendance)	TBA	12

Meetings with Peer Review Group

Meeting No:	Name(s) Area to include title and names	Position Area to include roles of all staff attending from DCU
1	Area Head
2	Area Management Team
3A	Area staff in functional or other groupings, or individually
3B	Area staff in functional or other groupings, or individually
3C	Area staff in functional or other groupings, or individually
4	Heads of Support/Services Offices
5	Administrative Staff representatives from Schools, Faculties or Research Centres and / or administrative staff representatives from varying levels within central administration
6	Representatives from varying levels of academic staff familiar with Area, including Programme Chairs.
7	Students from various Academic Programmes representing, undergrad and post grad, access, traditional and others. Area to include Programme and Year of each student.
8	Meetings with external stakeholders (alumni, employers, suppliers, Colleges of DCU, members of Governing Authority depending on relevance to area…) Area to include role and organisation for each external stakeholder.
9	Area Head
10	DCU President Deputy President Vice-President Academic Affairs (Registrar) Vice-President Research & Innovation Chief Operating Officer Dean of Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences Dean of DCU Business School Dean of Faculty of Science & Health Dean of Faculty of Engineering & Computing Director of Human Resources Director of Finance Executive Director External and Strategic Affairs
11	Area Reporting Head (usually member of SMG)
12	Exit Presentation by PRG