Procedures for the Expedited Approval Process for Academic Proposals

Purpose

To establish an expedited process by which routine and low-risk academic proposals may be approved.

Organisational scope

Academic proposals recommending changes to papers and/or programmes of the type for which Senate would receive advice from the Board of Undergraduate Studies or the Board of Graduate Studies.

Definitions

Academic proposal

A proposal to amend, introduce, or delete a paper or programme normally being included in the types of changes for which Senate would receive advice from the Board of Undergraduate Studies or the Board of Graduate Studies, as outlined in the Terms of Reference for those Boards.

Standard approval process

Consideration of academic proposals by the relevant Division, including the Divisional Academic Board and any preceding subcommittees indicated by that Board; by the Board of Undergraduate Studies or the Board of Graduate Studies; by the Senate; and, if applicable, by the Council and by the Committee on University Academic Programmes ( CUAP ).

Executive approval

Approval by the Convener of a committee, or their nominee, on behalf of that committee.

Expedited approval process

The approval process for routine and low-risk academic proposals.

Routine and low-risk

An academic proposal that recommends a common type of change to a paper or programme that is not likely to significantly disadvantage a student or group of students nor to negatively impact on the reputation of the University.

Academic Divisions

The Division of Commerce, the Division of Health Sciences, the Division of Humanities, and the Division of Sciences.

BUGS

The Board of Undergraduate Studies.

BoGS

The Board of Graduate Studies.

Pre-BUGS/BoGS Admin Group

A group of administrators comprising representatives from Academic Committees and Services, Student Experience, and the Information Systems Support Group with relevant knowledge and expertise who review academic proposals for administrative, technical, and quality issues prior to consideration by BUGS or BoGS .

Proposer

Person proposing the change to the Academic paper and/or programme.

Content

1. Expedited Approval Process: Delegations

   1. For the purpose of bringing the expedited approval process into effect:
      1. the Associate Dean(s) (Academic) for the academic Division(s) in which the academic proposal originates or which is significantly impacted by the academic proposal shall exercise their authority – as nominee of the relevant Pro-Vice-Chancellor – to grant executive approval to academic proposals within the scope of the expedited approval process on behalf of the relevant Divisional Academic Board, and
      2. the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic) shall exercise their authority to grant executive approval to academic proposals within the scope of the expedited approval process on behalf of BUGS and/or BoGS , and on behalf of the Senate – as the nominee of the Vice-Chancellor
   2. The establishment of the expedited approval process shall not limit the ability of Conveners of relevant committees – or their nominees – to grant executive approval to academic proposals in appropriate circumstances beyond the scope of the expedited approval process as they see fit.

2. Criteria

   The expedited approval process may be used for academic proposals recommending changes to papers and/or programmes which do not involve any one or more of the following:

   1. the introduction of any new paper or programme,
   2. amendments to an existing paper constituting a change of 25% or more to the content of the paper,
   3. the deletion of any programme,
   4. the renaming of any programme,
   5. the amendment of admission criteria for any programme,
   6. substantial changes to the structure of a programme, such as changes to the duration or points value or extensive changes to the papers comprising the programme,
   7. significant resourcing or financial implications,
   8. any changes not covered above requiring submission or reporting of an academic proposal to the Committee on University Academic Programmes ( CUAP ).

3. Nominating proposals

   1. When a proposer submits an academic proposal to an academic Division for consideration, the embedded Specialist from Academic Committees and Services may nominate the academic proposal for the expedited approval process if the Specialist judges the academic proposal to satisfy the criteria above (see clause 2 above) and to be of a routine and low-risk nature.
   2. In determining whether an academic proposal is routine and low-risk, the Specialist should consider:
      1. whether the academic proposal recommends a common type of change to a paper or programme, and
      2. whether the academic proposal is likely to significantly disadvantage a student or group of students, and
      3. whether the academic proposal carries any risk of negatively impacting the reputation of the University.
   3. When a proposal is submitted to more than one academic Division or will have a significant impact on more than one academic Division, the embedded Specialists in the relevant Divisions should consult with each other and arrive at a consensus if the academic proposal is to be nominated for the expedited approval process.

4. Review and outcome

   1. The Associate Dean (Academic) for the relevant Division – after considering any feedback or consultation, which they may seek at their own discretion – may:
      1. recommend approval for the nominated academic proposal as submitted, or
      2. recommend approval for the nominated academic proposal subject to minor revisions and/or further consultation with relevant parties, or
      3. refer the nominated academic proposal for consideration through the standard approval process.
   2. When a nominated academic proposal is submitted to or has a significant impact on more than one academic Division, each of the Associate Deans (Academic) for the relevant Divisions should consult with each other and arrive at a consensus if the nominated academic proposal is to be recommended for approval (see sub-clause 4(a)(i)) or recommended for approval subject to conditions (see sub-clause 4(a)(ii)).
   3. The embedded Specialist should provide a summary of any nominated academic proposals recommended for approval or for approval subject to conditions to the Secretary to BUGS and/or to BoGS , who shall notify the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic) of these recommendations.
   4. The Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic) shall consider the recommendations described in clause 4(c) – requesting documents for the nominated proposals at their own discretion – and may:
      1. approve any nominated proposal as recommended, or
      2. approve any nominated proposal subject to minor revisions and/or further consultation with relevant parties, or
      3. refer any nominated proposal for consideration through the standard approval process, commencing with BUGS and/or BoGS as appropriate.
   5. In the case of academic proposals approved or recommended for approval subject to minor revisions and/or further consultation in accordance with clause 4(a)(ii) or clause 4(d)(ii), the Academic Committees and Services Office shall confirm when the requirements for approval or recommendation have been met, in consultation with the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic) or relevant Associate Dean(s) (Academic) as appropriate.

5. Implementation and noting

   1. Once an academic proposal has been approved or has met the set conditions of approval for the expediated approval process, the Academic Committees and Services Office shall:
      1. inform the proposer, and
      2. provide a copy of the academic proposal and any required revisions to relevant staff in Student Experience and the Information Systems Support Group so that the changes recommended in the academic proposal may be put into effect, and
      3. provide a summary of the approved change to be noted by the relevant Divisional Academic Board(s); BUGS and/or BoGS ; and Senate.
   2. Relevant staff in Academic Committees and Services, Student Experience, or the Information Systems Support Group – who would normally be members of the Pre- BUGS / BoGS Admin Group – may incorporate minor revisions to the approved change – in consultation with the proposer or other parties as appropriate – prior to or shortly following implementation for the purpose of ensuring that the approved change is consistent and compatible with normal University administrative processes and systems.
   3. Any member of a relevant committee notified of a change approved under the expedited approval process (see sub-clause 5(a)(iii)) may request further information regarding the approved change, including the proposal documents associated with the change, via the Secretary for the committee of which they are a member.

   6.Rescinding approval

   In extraordinary circumstances where the implementation of an approved change notified to a relevant committee (see sub-clause 5(c)(ii)) appears likely to significantly disadvantage a student or group of students or to have a significant negative impact on the reputation of the University, that committee may rescind approval for the change in question and refer the academic proposal recommending that change for consideration through the standard approval process. In such cases, the Secretary for the relevant committee should notify the proposer, relevant staff in Student Experience and the Information Systems Support Group, the Associate Dean(s) (Academic) who recommended approval for the change, and the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic) as soon as possible to advise of this outcome and halt or reverse implementation of the change in question.

Related policies, procedures and forms

• Resources and proposal templates for academic approval and quality assurance processes
• Board of Undergraduate Studies (BUGS) Terms of Reference
• Board of Graduate Studies (BoGS) Terms of Reference

Contact for further information

If you have any queries regarding the content of this policy or need further clarification, contact:

Specialist, Academic Committees and Services
Email academic.committees@otago.ac.nz