Responding to Validation conditions and recommendations

In the case of conditions which must be met before delivery commences, the department must make a formal response evidencing how specific conditions have been met.  This response is formally reported to the Faculty Board.   

Information about how recommendations have been addressed should be included in the next annual monitoring, unless the Dean of Faculty or Faculty Board requires a response before then. 

Departments should include information about action taken in response to conditions and recommendations in the subsequent annual monitoring report and where the conditions and/or recommendations require ongoing action then they should be included in the annual monitoring action plan (see annual monitoring process). .

Not all conditions or recommendations arising from Validation may be within the power of the department to action.  For these University level recommendations departments should follow the following procedure:

University level conditions arising from validation events

Resource based issues arising as a result of validation events should be discussed by the Faculty Board/Dean in the light of advice from the relevant PVC.  If a proposing department is considered to have inadequate resources, the department should bid for resources prior to the validation report going to the Faculty Board so that the Board can be informed about the outcome of the bid and make a decision about whether the condition has been adequately addressed.  In the event that a bid for resources is not successful the department should specify to the Board how it intends to address the issue(s) raised by the validation condition.

Any other University level issues arising from conditions should be raised with the PVC in advance of the Faculty Board at which the validation report is being considered.  The outcome of this discussion should be appended to the validation report.

University level recommendations arising from validation

The department should raise University level issues with the PVC and include the outcome of these discussions in the next annual monitoring report.

The PVC will refer matters for discussion to the Faculty Steering Group and decision by USG as appropriate and inform the department and Academic Standards and Partnerships Office of the outcome.

Responding to Periodic Review recommendations

Departments are required to provide information about action taken in response to Periodic Review via the annual monitoring process.

In the first year after a review the department should provide a comprehensive update on action taken to address any issues and/or disseminate good practice.  In following years an update on ongoing action should be provided. 

Not all recommendations arising from Periodic Review are within the power of the department to action.  For these University level recommendations departments should follow the following procedure:

University level recommendations arising from Periodic Review

The department should raise University level issues with the PVC and include the outcome of these discussions in the next annual monitoring report.  Where an issue is referred to another department, office or to a Committee the departments should receive written replies from the relevant offices/committees for inclusion in annual monitoring reports. Resource based recommendations may also be cited as evidence in annual planning statements when highlighting a need for additional resources.

The PVC will refer matters for discussion to the Faculty Steering Group and decision by USG as appropriate and inform the department and Academic Standards and Partnerships Office of the outcome.  The outcome will be reported to the Faculty Board.