professional accreditation guidelines

Edith Cowan University

Strategic and Governance Services Centre

Professional Accreditation

Guidelines

Version 2018

Plan

DoReview

Curriculum

Quality Improvement

Cycle

Improve

Plan

DoReview

Improve

Professional

Accreditation

Cycle

Professional Accreditation Guidelines vJuly 2021 ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION A: OVERVIEW .................................................................................................... 4

Guiding Principles ............................................................................................................. 4 Purpose and Context ........................................................................................................ 4 Professional Accreditation Process ................................................................................... 4 Definitions ......................................................................................................................... 5

SECTION B: PROFESSIONAL ACCREDITATION PROCESS AT ECU ........................... 6

Roles and Responsibilities ................................................................................................ 6 Indicative Timeframes ....................................................................................................... 9

SECTION C: PLANNING .................................................................................................. 13

Plan for Success ..............................................................................................................13 PLAN ................................................................................................................................13 Selecting a Professional Body .........................................................................................15

SECTION D: IMPLEMENTATION ..................................................................................... 16

Deployment ......................................................................................................................16 DO....................................................................................................................................16 Good Practice in Professional Accreditation ....................................................................16

SECTION E: REVIEW AND IMPROVEMENT ................................................................... 19

Analysis and Continuous Quality Improvement ................................................................19 REVIEW AND IMPROVE .................................................................................................19

SECTION F ....................................................................................................................... 21

References .......................................................................................................................21 Glossary of Terms and Acronyms ....................................................................................21

DOCUMENT HISTORY ..................................................................................................... 22

Document Revisions ........................................................................................................22

SECTION G: APPENDICES ............................................................................................. 23

Appendix 1: Professional Accreditation Planning Template .............................................23 Appendix 2: Part 1 - Professional Accreditation Analysis Tool (Planning and Implementation) ...............................................................................................................25 Appendix 2: Part 2 - Professional Accreditation Analysis Tool (Review and Improvement) .........................................................................................................................................26

Professional Accreditation Guidelines vJuly 2021 iii

This page has been left blank intentionally.

Professional Accreditation Guidelines – vJuly 2021 4

SECTION A: OVERVIEW

This document is a resource designed to assist staff with their Professional Accreditation1activities, and provide general guidelines for schools. It should be read in conjunction with the ECU Excellence Framework.

Guiding Principles

Professional Accreditation of a course is:

• Mandatory where:

o students must graduate from an accredited course in order to be eligible to apply for registration

to practice;

o students must graduate from an accredited course in order to be eligible to sit examinations

which lead to registration

• Strongly recommended where students, graduates and the University would derive positive outcomes

from Professional Accreditation.

• Optional in all other cases but strongly encouraged where possible2.

Purpose and Context

Professional Accreditation is undertaken in order to provide students, graduates, employers and other stakeholders with a measure of assurance that the course of study undertaken by students equips them with the requisite knowledge, skills and attributes for their field. As such, it is a “powerful tool of quality assurance” (Patil & Codner, 2007, p. 639). However, achieving accredited status will also, necessarily, involve elements of quality improvement where gaps or opportunities for improvement are identified during the process. “In addition to quality assurance, the stated aim of the Professional Accreditation process includes continuous improvement of the quality of professional education and training to respond to evolving community need and professional practice.” (Walters, 2008, p. 3)

Professional Accreditation processes also provide the opportunity for critical evaluation of the quality, suitability, relevance and improvement of courses. In doing so, staff are challenged to not only ensure that a course meets minimum standards but also to engage in continuous quality improvement for the ongoing enhancement of the course.

Other mechanisms which will complement Professional Accreditation are:

• Annual Course and Unit Reviews;

• Internal course accreditation through Academic Board;

• Consultative Committees;

• Moderation of Unit Outcomes;

• Third Party Partnership reviews; and

• Benchmarking.

Professional Accreditation Process

Professional Accreditation is a critical activity. In order to ensure the best possible outcomes for students and graduates, it must be well planned and executed. The process will involve input from a number of key staff (see Section B Roles and Responsibilities). From a workload perspective, it is critical to build the Professional Accreditation process into business as usual – this will reduce the burden on staff during initial Professional Accreditation and the subsequent quality improvement phase leading up to the next Professional Accreditation cycle.

It is difficult to articulate a definitive process for Professional Accreditation as professional or industry accreditation bodies and agencies often have their own, quite different approaches3. Also, the process for a new course Professional Accreditation will probably be different from the professional reaccreditation of an

1 Professional Accreditation should not be confused with curriculum accreditation. All curriculum at ECU must undergo a formal approval and accreditation process.

Details of the approval process can be found in the Curriculum Approval, Amendment and Accreditation Policy. 2 Some courses do not have an accreditation agency or professional body 3 While detailed processes may vary from profession to profession, a set of agreed standards for Professional Accreditation processes has been published by

Professions Australia.

http://www.professions.com.au/


existing course. A generalised process sequence to be followed for Professional Accreditation is outlined in Sections C-E.

Definitions

The term “professional accreditation” is used in a number of different contexts and senses (Harman & Meek, 2000). For the purposes of this document the definition falls into one of two categories:

• Professional Accreditation: The formal

accreditation of a course by, or on behalf

of, a professional body, based on an

assessment of the course that includes

the attainment of profession-specific

competence and/or practice by graduates.

Typically, in the professions, professional

accreditation of courses precedes

professional registration of successful graduates, in that accreditation is an

endorsement that a program produces graduates who can meet registration

standards and may begin professional practice. In some cases, the word

“accreditation” may not be used by the professional or industry body or agency.

“Approval” is the most common alternative nomenclature.

• Other External Recognition: a process whereby a course is recognised by a professional or industry

body or other agency. The rigour of this process may range from that described above for accreditation

through a continuous spectrum of thoroughness, to the simple submission of an application to be

recognised. Graduates of such courses do not require formal registration in order to be employed or

practice in their field. While the term “accreditation” may be applied to such a process, in general, the

most commonly used terms are “approval”, “certification”, “recognition”, “endorsement” and “affiliation”.

Given the definitions above, Professional Accreditation may be one of four types:

1. professional recognition of a course from which students must graduate in order to apply for registration

to practice in their field;

2. professional recognition of a course which does not lead directly to registration, but is required for the

student to be eligible to sit examinations or other assessments which lead to registration;

3. recognition of a course which is considered by employers to be required for them to consider employing

graduates; and

4. recognition of a course which indicates that the course is judged to be of value by a professional body,

but which is not required for employment.

The formal accreditation of a course by, or on behalf of, a professional body, based on an assessment of the course that includes the attainment of profession-specific competence and/or practice by graduates.


SECTION B: PROFESSIONAL ACCREDITATION PROCESS AT ECU

Roles and Responsibilities

Role Responsibilities

DVC(RF)

Endorses final Professional Accreditation material and responses to the Professional Body.

Regularly provides reports on all Professional Accreditation matters to the VC and Academic Board.

Provides bi-annual reports as a Standing Item to Academic Board.

Provides executive oversight of all* communications regarding all professional accreditations and is copied into all external correspondence with the Professional Body. This includes reviewing/ endorsing all communications with professional bodies before they are transmitted.

As part of site visit planning, prospective panel members including chairs, are canvassed with the DVC(RF) via email, prior to any confirmation of same with accrediting bodies.

Provides executive Quality Assurance (QA) review/ endorsement of recommended action plans to Executive Deans.

In the advent of national disasters, e.g. pandemics, the DVC(RF) is to be forwarded all communications from professional bodies, national boards and AHPRA, that may impact on our accreditation processes, including curtailed clinical placements and rescheduled site visits. As is ECU’s usual process, the DVC(RF) is to review all communication from ECU to professional bodies and boards before transmission.

*Excluding communication that is related solely to travel arrangements for panel member site visits.



Executive Dean Endorses final draft of Professional Accreditation documentation and sends to the DVC(RF) for review/ endorsement.

Endorses any School-level response to a Professional Accreditation report and sends to the DVC(RF) for review/ endorsement.

Endorses approaches/action plans and sends to the DVC(RF) for review/ endorsement.

Associate Dean (Teaching and learning)

(ADTL)

As a delegate of the Executive Dean, assumes full responsibility for the oversight, quality assurance and leadership role throughout the Professional Accreditation cycle [unless an alternative arrangement has been agreed by the Executive Dean and the DVC(RF).

Notifies stakeholders when Professional Accreditation process is initiated.

Provides QA review of initial draft of Professional Accreditation documentation.

Endorses final draft of Professional Accreditation documentation and sends to the Executive Dean.

Canvasses prospective panel members including chairs, with the DVC(RF) via email, prior to any confirmation of same with accrediting bodies.

Endorses responses to Professional Accreditation reports and sends to the Executive Dean.

Endorses approaches/action plans and sends to the Executive Dean.

Submits final Professional Accreditation material and responses to reports to Professional Body following endorsement from the DVC(RF).

Communicates with Professional Body (everyday communications except for notification of intent, submission of final accreditation documentation and critical incident management – see Indicative Timeframes) and copies the DVC(RF) and Executive Dean into all communications with Professional Bodies.

Academic Quality and Standards (AQS)

Notifies Schools of upcoming Professional Re-accreditations and associated activities.

Provides QA feedback on documentation and approaches/action plans, and copies in DVC(RF).

Manages recommendation follow up via ECURTS.

Manages CAPS Professional Accreditation data.



Associate Dean

(Discipline)

[AD(D)]

Communicates with Professional Body (routine and administrative matters only) and copies in DVC(RF) and Executive Dean.

Plans Professional Accreditation process with ADTL.

Coordinates and contributes to preparation of:

• Initial and final drafts of documentation;

• Response to Professional Accreditation report; and

• Approaches/action plans to address recommendations.

Coordinates and contributes to implementation of approaches/action plans.

Team Member(s) Contributes to preparation of:

• Initial and final drafts of Professional Accreditation documentation;

• response to Professional Accreditation report; and

• approaches/action plans to address recommendations.

Contributes to implementation of approaches/action plans.

School Administrative Support

Maintains records (HPRM).

Arranges and coordinates site visit.

Professional Body Provides Professional Accreditation requirements/criteria.

Evaluates Professional Accreditation documentation submitted.

Carries out site visit.

Prepares and provides Professional Accreditation report(s).


Indicative Timeframes

Stage Stage Detail

Length of time before application/submission key

milestone (Indicative time to be

allocated for each task)

Responsibility

Planning (refer to the planning questions listed on pp. 12-14)

1. Upcoming Professional Accreditation notification

AQS notifies Executive Dean/ADTL of upcoming Professional Reaccreditation using data in CAPS.

Schools may already be in the process of Professional Reaccreditation, and do not need to wait for AQS to notify them to commence planning.

Notification provided 12 months prior to accreditation end date (not applicable for new Professional Accreditations)

AQS

2. Undertake analysis of Professional Body’s requirements

ADTL initiates meeting with DVC(RF), ED, AQS, AD(D) to discuss requirements, as per the relevant Professional Body’s manual/guidelines

26 weeks before key milestone

(time allocation: 1 week)

DVC(RF), ED, ADTL/AD(D) and AQS

3. Professional Accreditation process initiated

ADTL drafts letter notifying the Professional Body of ECU’s intent4 to (re)accredit a course. Draft is sent to Executive Dean for endorsement and forwarding to DVC(RF) for approval to submit. AQS is copied in on final letter to Professional Body.


(time allocation: 1-2 weeks)

ADTL

4. Key Milestone

Internal Planning5

ADTL in liaison with AD(D). Copy of plan to DVC(RF), ED and AQS.

23 weeks before application is due to be submitted

(time allocation: 4 weeks)

ADTL and ED

Implementation (refer to the good practices listed on pp. 15-17)

5. Develop application/submission AD(D) project manages the production of the application/submission as per plan.



AD(D) / Team

6. Quality Assurance Application/submission documentation is checked for presentation quality, continuity/flow, logic, completeness, etc. Feedback provided to AD(D) and copied to ADTL.



AD(D), ADTL and AQS

7. Revise application/submission Revisions made to application/submission based on feedback from ADTL and AQS.



AD(D)

4 Letter will follow a template provided by AQS and will include reference to key contacts, including that the ADTL will be the contact for the Professional Body during the process 5 This planning should include, but not be limited to: responsibilities and timelines for production of application/submission; data sourcing, analysis and presentation; record keeping processes that

comply with ECU requirements; site visit details including ECU participants in Panel meetings and logistics; etc. See Appendix 1 for a suggested planning template. This plan should be in writing and form part of the records related to the Professional Accreditation process.


Stage Stage Detail




Responsibility

8. Key Milestone

Endorse application/submission

Final application/submission sent to ADTL for endorsement; ADTL forwards to Executive Dean for endorsement; Executive Dean forwards to DVC(RF) for endorsement.

0 weeks


ADTL, Executive Dean,

DVC(RF)

9. Submit application/submission ADTL submits documentation to Professional Body6. ADTL

10. Review submission Professional Body reviews the application/submission against applicable criteria/standards.

Variable† Professional Body

11. Site visit Site visit carried out by Professional Body as per agreed plan. 1 week Professional Body, ECU staff

12. Prepare draft report Professional Body prepares a draft report and sends to University. Variable† Professional Body

13. Prepare response to report7 ADTL reviews the draft report provided by the Professional Body. A response is prepared which may include but not be limited to: any errors of fact, additional information or clarification requested, action plan, etc. ADTL works with DVC(E) to develop specific responses to report.



ADTL

14. Quality Assurance Response is checked for presentation quality, continuity/flow, logic, completeness, etc. Feedback provided to ADTL



ADTL, AQS

15. Revise response Revisions made to response based on feedback from ADTL and AQS



AD(D)

16. Key Milestone

Endorse response

Final application/submission sent to ADTL for endorsement; ADTL forwards to Executive Dean for endorsement; Executive Dean forwards to DVC(RF) for endorsement.

0 weeks


ADTL, ED,

DVC(RF)

17. Submit response ADTL submits response to Professional Body. ADTL

18. Prepare final report Professional Body prepares a final report and sends to University. Variable† Professional Body

6 The initial letter signalling intent, and the final submission, go from ECU under the ADTL signature. Also, all Professional Body communications between initial and final submission must copy in

AQS, DVC(RF); e.g. any updates, responses of any type 7 NB: the response may require the inclusion of an action plan to address any recommendation or conditions placed on the Professional Accreditation † Will depend on Professional Body


Stage Stage Detail




Responsibility

Total ~35 weeks + time with Professional Body

Review (refer to the review and improvement questions on pp. 18-19)

19. Analyse recommendations If not already done in step 12, the recommendations are analysed and summary report compiled by ADTL in concert with AD(D) for Executive Dean and DVC(RF).

Time allocation: 1 month ADTL, AD(D)

Improvement (refer to the review and improvement questions on pp. 18-19)

20. Develop action plan An action plan is developed based on the analysis above. Time allocation: 1 month ADTL, AD(D)

21. Quality Assurance Action plan is checked for logic, completeness, timeframes, responsibilities, etc. Feedback provided to ADTL.

Time allocation: 2 weeks AQS, ADTL

22. Revise action plan Revisions made to action based on feedback from ADTL and AQS.

Time allocation: 1 week AD(D)

23. Endorse action plan Final action plan sent to ADTL for endorsement; ADTL forwards to Executive Dean for endorsement; Executive Dean forwards to

DVC(RF) for endorsement.

DVC(RF) provides copy to SDVC and DVC(E).

Time allocation: 1 week ADTL, ED,

DVC(RF)

24. Enter action plan into ECURTS Action plan is entered into ECURTS in order to monitor progress and timeliness.

Time allocation: 1 week AQS

25. Implement action plan Actions outlined in plan are implemented according to agreed timeframes.

Time allocation: 1-12 months‡ AD(D)

26. Management of critical incidents8 At any time during the above process, if issues/problems arise, the DVC(RF) is notified immediately. The DVC(RF) in turn, will notify the SDVC, VC and General Counsel and enact critical incident management. Thus, all communications with the Professional Body would be with SDVC/ DVC(RF) until the matter is resolved. SDVC/DVC(RF) will work with DVC(E) as required.

SDVC/DVC(RF)

8 For example, non-compliance with Professional Body requirements, or any indication of potential problems.


Stage Stage Detail




Responsibility

Ongoing continuous quality improvement and reaccreditation

27. Course quality improvement Ongoing quality improvement may include, but not be limited to: annual course reviews, updates reports to Professional Body, mid-cycle report to Professional Body, course improvements implemented as a result of industry consultation9, etc.

4 years§ ADTL, AD(D)

9 NB: most Professional Bodies require prior notice of any changes to Professional Accredited courses. Changes to Professional Accredited courses should not be undertaken without first

consulting with the Professional Body. ‡ May depend on timeframes set by Professional Body § Will depend on length of Professional Accreditation


SECTION C: PLANNING

Plan for Success

Professional Accreditation is undertaken as part of the overarching ECU Excellence Framework (the Framework). The Framework promotes the use of the Plan / Do / Review / Improve (PDRI) quality improvement cycle in accreditation. Take time to thoroughly plan your Professional Accreditation activity, conduct the activity in a professional manner, review the process, and make improvements to areas of the course where gaps or opportunities for improvement have been identified.

Professional Accreditation activities will be guided by the requirements of the professional or industry Body or agency (see Selecting a Professional Body below). These requirements are often quite specific and rarely open to negotiation. It is imperative, therefore, that these requirements (often called “criteria”) are addressed fully and appropriately.

PLAN

Before starting any Professional Accreditation activity, staff should refer to Appendix 2: Part 1 to ensure that all aspects of the ECU Excellence Framework are being addressed during the planning stage. If satisfactory answers to all the “PLAN” questions can be jotted down in each of the framework segments then all of the important categories have been taken into consideration.

At the commencement of the process, as detailed in (SECTION B: PROFESSIONAL ACCREDITATION PROCESS AT ECU the roles and responsibilities as well as the indicative timeframes should be clear to all involved in the Professional Accreditation activity to ensure that tasks are undertaken in a timely manner by the appropriate staff. These should be set out in detail through the development of a plan for the entire Professional Accreditation process using the Planning Template (Appendix 1).

When planning a Professional Accreditation activity, you should consider the following:

Professional Accreditation Process Course Improvement Cycle

Alignment with Strategic Priorities

o What do you want to achieve from the

Professional Accreditation activity? What is

the objective/purpose?

o Does the Professional Accreditation activity

align with the School strategic objectives (in

the operational plan)?

o Is there another Professional Accreditation

activity being conducted within the University

that is similar? Can you speak with the staff

involved and gain some advantage from their

experience? Try to utilise resources that

have already been developed.

o Are the relevant senior leaders involved from

the outset (see Section B)

o How does the Professional Accreditation

process inform planning for the course?

o Does planning for course quality

improvement align with the School strategic

objectives (in the operational plan) and/or

input from the course consultative

committee?

PlanImprove

DoReview



Team

o Do you need to form a Professional

Accreditation team? If so, nominate a team

leader. In general, this will be the course

coordinator but may be delegated to another

staff member.

o Nominate a contact person. This person will:

• manage all routine communications with

the Professional Body/Agency

• report regularly to all relevant internal

and external stakeholders; and

• keep senior leaders appraised of

progress and any potential issues, in a

timely way.

o Who forms the team involved in course

quality improvement? How is the team

involved in the process?

Professional Accreditation Plan (see Appendices 1 for planning template)

o What tasks and activities need to be

undertaken?

o What resources will be required (time,

money, assistance, administrative support)?

o What costs will be incurred?

o What are the deadlines? Have key dates

been diarised?

o Who will take responsibility for

tasks/activities?

o Is there merit in obtaining any external and

independent scrutiny of submissions from the

outset?

o Who will meet with the Panel as per ECU’s

plans? (Note the visiting Professional Body

panel does not determine who they meet with

when visiting ECU – ECU nominates senior

leaders to ensure required coverage of

strategic matters).

Knowledge Management

o What information, data and documentation

needs to be collected?

o How will this stored and managed? Who will

take responsibility for this?

o Is the process map that clearly indicates

when senior leaders are involved being used

by the staff responsible for the day to day

tasks/activities?

o What information, data and documentation

needs to be collected as evidence of ongoing

course quality improvement?

o How will this stored and managed? Who will

take responsibility for this?



Communication

o Who are the stakeholders in this process? A

typical list would include the Professional

Body (possibly via contact person), students,

graduates, school staff, quality manager,

senior university leaders, consultative

committee members, etc.

o When and how will you communicate with

stakeholders?

o All communication with the Professional

Body should take place via the nominated

contact person.

o How is course quality improvement

communicated to relevant stakeholders (unit

coordinators, offshore partners, Executive

Dean, Associate Dean (T&L), etc.)?

o When and how will you communicate with

stakeholders?

Quality Assurance

o Time should be built into the Professional

Accreditation schedule to allow for a

thorough QA process of all documentation to

take place.

o What QA processes are in place to ensure

ongoing course quality improvement

Selecting a Professional Body

The selection of a Professional Body is often not open to choice. In fields where graduates must be registered to practice, there is generally only a single state-based or national body which accredits all courses in a particular discipline. However, where external recognition is being sought for a course where graduates do not need to secure registration in order to practice in their field, there may be a number of bodies or agencies from which to choose. In these cases it is important that a process of due diligence is carried out to determine:

• The integrity of the Professional Body or agency;

• The standing of the body within the discipline;

• The public perception of the Professional Body;

• The likelihood of being able to engage in a long-

term relationship with the Professional Body;

and

• The potential risks involved in aligning with any

particular Professional Body

...where external recognition is being sought for a course.....there may be a number of agencies from which to choose. In these cases it is important that a process of due diligence is carried out...


SECTION D: IMPLEMENTATION

Deployment

Implementing the Professional Accreditation plan will require a great deal of coordination and collaborative effort. The preparation of Professional Accreditation documentation, in particular, may involve many staff. Good oversight of the project, active leadership and clear communications with all stakeholders are essential components of a well-executed Professional Accreditation project. While good planning at the outset should ensure a smooth activity, plans may need to be modified as the process progresses but should not hinder a well thought out approach.

DO

Before implementing any Professional Accreditation activity, staff should refer to the checklist in Appendix 2: Part 1 to ensure that all aspects of the ECU Excellence Framework are being addressed. If satisfactory answers to the all “DO” questions can be jotted down in each of the framework segments then all of the important categories have been taken into consideration.

Good Practice in Professional Accreditation

Experience of past Professional Accreditation activities has identified a number of good practices that will ensure a positive outcome:

Accreditation Process Course Improvement Cycle

Oversight of Processes

o The Executive Dean takes full responsibility

for the oversight, quality assurance and

leadership role throughout the Professional

Accreditation cycle.

o There should be school and central oversight

of Professional Accreditation processes.

Essentially this means that:

• Information regarding the ongoing status

of the Professional Accreditation is

available to all relevant stakeholders;

• Quality assurance of documentation

(submissions and supporting evidence)

takes place within the school before

being independently reviewed centrally;

• In addition to the school staff responsible

for Professional Accreditation, the

Manager, Academic Quality and

Standards is also notified to the

accrediting Professional Body as the

University’s point of contact;

• Deadlines for key milestones in the

process are clearly identified and

communicated to ensure the deadlines

are not missed.

o While unit coordinators are responsible for

the continuous quality improvement of their

units, the course coordinator should take a

“big picture” view of all course components

and how they are contributing to a quality

learning experience for students and

achieving student and graduate outcomes.

PlanImprove

DoReview


Accreditation Process Course Improvement Cycle o The preparation of Professional Accreditation

submissions should be assigned to staff with

Professional Accreditation experience or,

where this is not possible, identifying suitable

mentors for them.

o Lines of communication within the school and

between the school and other relevant

internal stakeholders should be established

early in the process and maintained

throughout. Opportunities for consultation

amongst relevant staff should be exploited.

• All communication with the Professional

Body should take place via the

nominated contact person.

o Responsibility for high-level decision-making

should be delegated appropriately.

Quality Assurance

o The quality of documentation and

submissions and the smooth running of site

visits are important factors in Professional

Accreditation.

• All documentation should be

independently checked for fitness for

purpose and quality before being

submitted to a Professional Body.

• Site visit arrangements should be

independently checked to ensure all

critical aspects have been taken into

account.

o Senior leaders should be kept informed of

progress and involved at key stages of the

Professional Accreditation process especially

at the point of documentation submission

o While there are key milestones in the course

improvement process (such as annual unit

and course reviews), quality assurance is an

ongoing, cyclical process which can be

informed by data or events at any time. Unit

and course coordinators play a critical role in

ensuring these are incorporated into the QA

process

Support

o Provide adequate administrative support (for

preparing submissions and evidence, and in

organising site visits);

o Take account of the substantial workloads

involved in Professional Accreditation

processes and allocate workloads

appropriately; and

o Service Centres can provide invaluable

support, particularly in sourcing required data.

Include them at an early stage.


Accreditation Process Course Improvement Cycle

Maintenance of Records

o Records related to Professional Accreditation

submissions, including correspondence,

should be stored in the Hewlett Packard

Enterprise Records Management (HPRM)

and never on stand-alone PCs. The

Academic Quality and Standards Team

should be granted access to the relevant

folder(s).

o An appropriate document versioning system

should be employed and documents never

duplicated for editing by multiple staff. There

should be agreed protocols for naming,

storing and sharing information, making it

easy to quickly locate information.

o Records related to course quality

improvement should be stored in HPRM or in

CAPS as appropriate

Communication

o Students must be kept informed of the

Professional Accreditation status of their

course (even when the process is in

progress). Information regarding the

Professional Accreditation status of courses

must be entered into CAPS to ensure that it is

made available to students (via the Future

Students website, and the Course

Handbook), both at the commencement of

their course and as they progress through the

course.


SECTION E: REVIEW AND IMPROVEMENT

Analysis and Continuous Quality Improvement

As previously noted, Professional Accreditation is one component of the continuous quality improvement process for courses at ECU. While securing Professional Accreditation for a course is a significant achievement, this simply means that the course meets minimum standards (quality assurance). It is important that momentum is maintained after the final Professional Body report is received as there are nearly always recommendations from the Professional Body that need to be analysed and followed up. A robust Professional Accreditation process should identify areas where the course could be improved. These opportunities for improvement represent significant data that can be fed back into the continuous improvement cycle.

REVIEW AND IMPROVE

Before evaluating any Professional Accreditation activity and identifying any opportunities for improvement that have resulted from a Professional Accreditation activity, staff should use Appendix 2: Part 2 to ensure that all aspects of the ECU Excellence Framework are being addressed during the review and improvement stages of the accreditation process. If satisfactory answers to the all “REVIEW” and “IMPROVE” questions can be jotted down in each of the framework segments, then all the important categories have been taken into consideration.

When evaluating a Professional Accreditation activity, you should consider the follow:


Outcomes

o Have the intended outcomes of the process

been achieved? If not, what are the gaps?

o How might the gaps be addressed?

o Based on available unit and course data, are

student and graduate outcomes being

achieved?

Opportunities for Improvement

o What went well? What were the successes?

Did the Professional Accreditation activity

go to plan? If not, what aspects could be

improved?

o Did any particular areas present any

problems during the Professional

Accreditation? For example,

communication, human resources and task

management, knowledge and data

management, quality assurance of

submissions, site visit logistics, etc.

o How will the lessons learned be recorded

and communicated?

o What opportunities for improvement exist at

both the unit and course level?

PlanImprove

DoReview



Recommendations

o What actions10 are required to address the

recommendations made in the final

Professional Accreditation report?

o What challenges will be encountered in

implementing the recommendations? What

aspects of these recommendations will be

easy to implement?

o What approaches should be used to

address the recommendations?

o Are there any outstanding requirements for

final Professional Accreditation such as

surveying the first graduated cohort? How

will these requirements be planned for and

managed?

o Are there any regular reporting

requirements?

o Did other opportunities for course

improvement become apparent during the

Professional Accreditation process?

Knowledge Management

o Was information, data and documentation

managed effectively?

o Are there any opportunities for improvement

in the area of knowledge management?

Communication

o Was the communication strategy employed

during the Professional Accreditation

process effective? If not how could it be

improved?

o Are unit and course changes/improvements

being communicated to students and

stakeholders?

10 Recommendations and agreed actions will be entered into the ECU Recommendations Tracking System (ECURTS) by AQS and

followed up on a regular basis. Quarterly reports will be made on progress against recommendations to the Quality, Audit and Risk Committee (QARC)


SECTION F

References

Harman, G., & Meek, V. L. (2000). Repositioning Quality Assurance and Accreditation in Australian Higher Education. Retrieved from http://asiapacific-odl2.oum.edu.my/C09/F409.pdf Patil, A., & Codner, G. (2007). Accreditation of engineering education: review, observations and proposal for global accreditation. European Journal of Engineering Education, 32(6), 13.

Tertiary Education Standards and Quality Agency (TEQSA). (2015). Higher Education Standards Framework (Threshold Standards) 2015 Provider Registration Standards. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.

Walters, T. (2008). Standards for Professional Accreditation Processes. 7. Retrieved from http://www.professions.com.au/Files/Standards_for_Professional_Accreditation_Processes.pdf

Glossary of Terms and Acronyms

Term/Acronym Meaning

ADTL Associate Dean (Teaching and Learning)

AD(D) Associate Dean (Discipline)

AQS Academic Quality and Standards

ED Executive Dean of School

SDVC Senior Deputy Vice-Chancellor

DVC(RF) Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Regional Futures)

DVC(E) Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Education)

ECU Edith Cowan University

ECURTS ECU Recommendations Tracking System

Framework ECU Excellence Framework

HPRM Hewlett Packard Enterprise Records Management

PDRI Plan, Do, Review, Improve

QA Quality Assurance

QARC Quality, Audit and Risk Committee

TEQSA Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency

http://asiapacific-odl2.oum.edu.my/C09/F409.pdf

http://www.professions.com.au/Files/Standards_for_Professional_Accreditation_Processes.pdf


DOCUMENT HISTORY

Document Revisions

Author(s) Release

Date Reason for Changes Version # Approval

Jenna Ardagh Mark Thompson

8/3/2013 Draft version for internal consultation.

2013.0.1 N/A

Mark Thompson 4/4/2013 Revisions based on consultation feedback

2013.0.2 N/A

Mark Thompson 17/4/2013 Minor formatting changes 2013.0.3 Arshad Omari

Mark Thompson 22/4/2013 Feedback from RASC 2013.0.4 N/A

Mark Thompson 3/5/2013 Inclusion of indicative timeframes appendix

2013.0.5 Cobie Rudd

Mark Thompson 6/5/2013

Inclusion of updated indicative timeframes appendix and realignment of flowchart and in-text references

2013.0.6 Cobie Rudd Arshad Omari

Mark Thompson 9/5/2013 Final version for implementation

2013.1 Arshad Omari

Mark Thompson 6/6/2013 Changes to indicative timeframes table and process map

2013.2

Jane McCaffrey 1/2/2016 Roles and responsibilities changed to reflect Academic Organisation Redesign

2016 Arshad Omari

Jenna Ardagh 08/08/2017 Revisions 2017 N/A

Jane McCaffrey 20/04/2018 Statement regarding communication to DVC(RF)

2018 Cobie Rudd

Cobie Rudd 27/04/2018 Changes to processes, title of guidelines

2018 Cobie Rudd Arshad Omari

Jane McCaffrey 22/05/2018 Re-organisation of the content.

June 2018 Cobie Rudd Arshad Omari

Cobie Rudd 01/10/2018 Addition of Executive Dean to the Planning process

October 2018 Cobie Rudd

Riki Stevens 13/03/2020 Change of AQS Unit title March 2020 Cobie Rudd

Riki Stevens 04/06/2020 Update of Planning Template (Appendix 1)

June 2020 Cobie Rudd

Sue Stenmark 08/07/2021 Change of DVC(RF) title July 2021 Cobie Rudd

Professional Accreditation Guidelines vJuly 2021 23

SECTION G: APPENDICES

Appendix 1: Professional Accreditation Planning Template11

School

Curriculum being (re)accredited

Executive Dean of School

ADTL

AD(D)

Discipline Team Leader

Team members

Administrative Support

HPRM Reference12

Key Dates

Milestone Deadline

ADTL sends completed planning template to DVC(RF) and confirms dates for QA

Confirm Site Visit Panel members (canvass with DVC(RF) prior to confirmation)

School drafts submission

ADD/ADTL reviews draft

Incorporate ADD/ADTL feedback

Send draft submission to Academic Quality and Standards (AQS) for review

Incorporate feedback from AQS

ADD, ADTL and Executive Dean review and endorse prior to DVC(RF) review

Send draft submission to DVC(RF) for review

DVC(RF) returns feedback

Incorporate feedback from DVC(RF)

Send final draft of submission to DVC(RF) for endorsement and submission

11 An MS Word version of this template is available for download from the AQS webpages. 12 If HPRM is not available within the school, AQS can set up a folder on behalf of the school. In either case, AQS must be granted access to the folder.

Planning Guide

This template should be used in conjunction with the Professional Accreditation Guidelines during the initial planning phase of a Professional Accreditation activity. All stakeholders who will contribute to the Professional Accreditation activity should be involved in the planning to ensure that nothing is overlooked.

The template should be tailored to suit the particular context of the course/curriculum and the requirements of the Professional Body. This may be informed by the planning questions in the Professional Accreditation Guidelines (Section C Planning, pp. 12-14), and the Professional Accreditation Analysis Tool (Appendix 2 - Part 1).

The completed Planning Template must be forwarded to the DVC(RF) by the ADTL and copied to the Executive Dean and AQS.

The plan should be stored in the Hewlett Packard Enterprise Records Management System (HPRM) and updated regularly to reflect new information or changes.

Professional Accreditation Guidelines vJuly 2021 24

Key Dates

Milestone Deadline

Send final submission to Accrediting Body

Panel request for additional information (no later than x weeks prior to site visit)

Site Visit (possibly 3 days TBC)

Draft report from Professional Body

Response to Professional Body

Final report from Professional Body

Update report to Professional Body

Mid-cycle report

Data required to complete Professional Accreditation application/submission13

Data/Information Required Source Responsibility Deadline

ECU context information

Survey data

Service centre data

(e.g. Library, IT, etc.)

Edit or Add/Delete rows as needed

Action Plan

Task/Activity Action Detail Responsibility Deadline

Add/Delete rows as needed

Issues to be resolved

Issue Strategy Responsibility Date

Logged Resolved

Add/Delete rows as needed

13 Data requirements should be determined as early in the process as possible so that stakeholders who will be providing the data, such as service centres, are given as much notice as possible.

Professional Accreditation Guidelines vJuly 2021

Appendix 2: Part 1 - Professional Accreditation Analysis Tool (Planning and Implementation)

PLAN

How does the accreditation align with ECU’s vision, purpose, objectives, values and culture?

Is accreditation of this course supported at the executive level?

What academic governance will guide this accreditation activity?

How will leaders be involved in supporting, guiding, developing, implementing and promoting the accreditation process?

How will accountabilities and responsibilities be determined and monitored?

How will creativity and innovation be promoted and encouraged?

How will sustainability, social responsibility, legal & ethical behaviour, equalopportunity and a quality culture be fostered through this init iative?

DO

How are leaders being involved?

Are responsibilit ies being monitored?

Is creativity and innovation being incorporated?

PLAN

How will data, information and knowledge related to this accreditation be collected, analysed, managed and used effectively? Are systems or staff in place to achieve this?

How will data, information and results be communicated or reported? To whom?

DO

Has baseline or historical data been collected?

Are the activities associated with the accreditation process being documented?

PLAN

What measures will be used to determine the success of this accreditation?

What are the targets for these measures?DO

Are measures being tracked during implementation?

PLAN

What are the overarching strategic objectives that will guide this accreditation activity?

What inf luence will the external environment have on the accreditat ion? (If any, fill in the outer ring segment of the appropriate category) How will this inf luence be used or managed to advantage?

How will people, including stakeholders, be involved in the accreditation process?

What are the risks associated with this accreditation? How will these be managed?

How will any regulatory compliance requirements be managed?

DO

Is alignment with strategic objectives being maintained?

Are external factors being managed appropriately?

Are stakeholders being involved appropriately in the accreditation process?

Are risk treatments being implemented?

PLAN

Who are the stakeholders in this accreditation project? What are theirneeds and expectations?

How will the relationship with stakeholders be managed andenhanced?

How will stakeholder feedback be collected and acted upon?

Who may be unintentionally affected by this initiative? How will this be managed or mitigated?

DO

Are stakeholder needs and expectations being monitored?

Is stakeholder feedback being collected?

Are unintentional impacts being managed satisfactorily?

PLAN

What are the human resource implications of this accreditation process?

How will it affect the quality of the work environment? How will this be managed?

What development/training will staff need prior to, during or after the accreditation?

How will this accreditation support staff in their work? What long term benefits will this initiative have for staff?

How will communication with staff take place?DO

Are staff involved appropriately during implementation?

Is training being deployed effectively?

Are benefits to staff being monitored?

Is the initiative being communicated to staff effectively during implementation?

PLAN

How will this accreditation add value for stakeholders? How will stakeholder requirements be translated into processes/products/services?

How will good practice and innovations be incorporated into processes/products/services?

How will cross-functional and end-to-end processes be managed?

DO

Are stakeholder benefits being monitored?

Is good practice, creativity and innovation being incorporated into processes/products/services?

Are processes that cross between functions/inits being managed satisfactorily? Are processes effective and efficient?

InstructionsThis tool should be used when planning and implementing (re)accreditation initiatives.

PLAN• For each of the 7 categories, answer the PLAN questions and jot down shorthand responses (dot points) in the appropriate

segment. Any points that interact with the external environment should be written in the green band on the circle edge .• Incorporate the answers or considerations into the final planning document or product (e.g. accreditation action plan, etc.).

Any questions without adequate answers require further investigation.DO• During the implementation phase, monitor all the components in the plan to ensure that nothing is left out or overlooked.• Check the answers to the additional (DO) questions. Any questions without adequate answers require further

attention.

* This analysis tool applies to both accreditation and recognition projects or activities. However, the term “accreditation” is used throughout to refer to both

Measurement,

Analysis and Knowledge

Management

Results and Sustainable

Performance

Leadership

Strategy and

PlanningWorkforce

Focus

Processes,

Products and

Services

Student and

Stakeholder Focus

ECU Excellence

Framework

Planning and Implementation

PlanImprove

DoReview

External Environment


Developing and using ethical leadership concepts, business processes and management systems; developing a University culture consistent with its values; and supporting its communities and the environment.

Leadership

Analysing student and other stakeholder requirements; using this knowledge; managing relationships; and delivering increased value to students and stakeholders.

Student and Stakeholder Focus

Strategy andPlanning

Results andSustainable Performance

WorkforceFocus

Monitoring and demonstrating the University’s performance;

developing clear and appropriate measures against the University’s

goals and stakeholder requirements.

Establishing systems to set the University’s strategic directions (aligned with ECU’s vision , purpose and values) and developing and executing plans to achieve those strategic outcomes.

Acknowledging that people are essential and are to be valued and how the University creates a great place to work. Developing appropriate policies, systems, processes and tools to ensure that people are engaged and make meaningful contributions to University improvement, goals and success.

Measurement, Analysis andKnowledge Management

Processes, ProductsAnd Services

Effectively using information and knowledge to achieve the University's goals and developing efficient and effective processes to acquire, analyse, apply and manage the University's information and knowledge.

Developing processes, products and services that provide value to stakeholders; encouraging innovation and improvement that result in effectiveness and efficiency which improve the quality of the University’s outcomes.

Plan

DoReview

Improve

Professional

Accreditation

Professional Accreditation Guidelines vJuly 2021

Appendix 2: Part 2 - Professional Accreditation Analysis Tool (Review and Improvement)

InstructionsThis tool should be used when reviewing and improving an accreditation project.

REVIEW• For each of the 7 categories, answer the REVIEW questions and jot down shorthand responses (dot points) in the

appropriate segment. Any points that interact with the external environment should be written in the green band on the circle edge.

• Use these responses to inform the improvement phase. Any questions without adequate answers require further investigation.

IMPROVE• Use the responses from the REVIEW phase together with the additional IMPROVE questions to identify gaps or

opportunities for improvement. Any questions without adequate answers require further attention.

* This analysis tool applies to both accreditation and recognition projects or activities. However, the term “accreditation” is used throughout to refer to both

Measurement,

Analysis and Knowledge

Management

Results and Sustainable

Performance

Leadership

Strategy and

PlanningWorkforce

Focus

Processes,

Products and

Services

Student and

Stakeholder Focus

ECU Excellence

Framework

Review and Improvement

REVIEW

Have the outcomes of this accreditation contributed positively to ECU’s objectives and culture?IMPROVE

Are there any “lessons learned” that can inform the improvement of this accreditation processas well as the planning and implementation of future/similar initiatives?

Who will take ongoing ownership and responsibility for this init iat ive?

What opportunities for improvement exist?

How can these opportunit ies be used to advantage?

REVIEW

Was data, information and knowledge collected, used and disseminated appropriately to relevant stakeholders?

IMPROVE

What did the information you collected tell you about the effectiveness of the initiative?

What gaps were identified in the systems for managing and using data, information and knowledge?



REVIEW

Have measure targets been achieved?

How has the continuing relevance of this accreditation to stakeholders been measured and assessed?

IMPROVE

What aspects or issues should be considered to sustain this accreditation and achieve better results in the future?

REVIEW

Has the accreditation initiative contributed to the achievement of strategic objectives? How do you know?

How effective has the risk management plan been?

Have all relevant regulatory requirements been met? Has performance exceeded these minimum expectations?

IMPROVE

What gaps in the planning process have been identified? How can these gaps be addressed in the future?


How can these opportunit ies be leveraged to advantage?

REVIEW

Have stakeholder needs and expectations been met? How do you know?IMPROVE

What gaps in meeting stakeholder needs and expectations were identified? How can these gaps be addressed in the future?



REVIEW

Were human resource issues managed appropriately? What problems emerged? What were the successes?

IMPROVE

What are the opportunities for improvement in the Workforce Focus category?


REVIEW

How have students/stakeholders benefited from this accreditation?

How have appropriate improvement methodologies been used to reduce complexity and identify improvements?

How have benchmarking, comparisons, networks and alliances been used to evaluate the accreditation project?

IMPROVE

Where processes/products/services have fallen short of stakeholder expectations, what opportunities for improvement exist?

How can effectiveness and efficiency be improved?


PlanImprove

DoReview



Developing and using ethical leadership concepts, business processes and management systems; developing a University culture consistent with its values; and supporting its communities and the environment.

Leadership

Analysing student and other stakeholder requirements; using this knowledge; managing relationships; and delivering increased value to students and stakeholders.

Student and Stakeholder Focus

Strategy andPlanning

Results andSustainable Performance

WorkforceFocus

Monitoring and demonstrating the University’s performance;

developing clear and appropriate measures against the University’s

goals and stakeholder requirements.

Establishing systems to set the University’s strategic directions (aligned with ECU’s vision , purpose and values) and developing and executing plans to achieve those strategic outcomes.

Acknowledging that people are essential and are to be valued and how the University creates a great place to work. Developing appropriate policies, systems, processes and tools to ensure that people are engaged and make meaningful contributions to University improvement, goals and success.

Measurement, Analysis andKnowledge Management

Processes, ProductsAnd Services

Effectively using information and knowledge to achieve the University's goals and developing efficient and effective processes to acquire, analyse, apply and manage the University's information and knowledge.

Developing processes, products and services that provide value to stakeholders; encouraging innovation and improvement that result in effectiveness and efficiency which improve the quality of the University’s outcomes.

Plan

DoReview

Improve

Professional

Accreditation

professional accreditation guidelines

Documents