Overview
Most quality systems require programs to be reviewed on a cycle — ESG 2015 Standard 1.9, for example, expects institutions to monitor and periodically review their programs, and many national agencies and US institutions require five- to seven-year program reviews. The review asks whether the program still meets its objectives and student and societal needs, and whether internal quality processes are working.
We can support either a program review (focused on one program's curriculum, outcomes, students, staff and resources) or a quality audit (focused on whether your QA processes — approval, monitoring, feedback, assessment, complaints — operate as documented across units). Both combine quantitative data with document analysis and interviews.
Our findings distinguish commendations, recommendations and urgent issues, and every recommendation is specific enough to assign an owner. The institution decides what to adopt. Where you need an external academic peer in the discipline, we can help you define the role and integrate their input into the review.
Who it’s for and the problems it solves
This is for you if you are…
- Universities running their cyclical program review and needing an external review component
- QA offices wanting an internal audit before an institutional review by a national agency
- Deans concerned about a program's enrollment, progression or graduate outcomes
- Colleges and training centers needing an independent check before re-licensing
- Ministries or funders commissioning reviews of programs they support
Common problems we help with
- Program reviews produce long reports that nobody acts on
- Enrollment or completion rates are falling and causes are unclear
- QA policies look complete on paper but staff do not follow them
- Internal reviewers are too close to the program to be candid
- Recommendations from the last review were never tracked
What’s included — and what isn’t
Included
- Review terms of reference agreed with you: scope, questions, standards, panel and timeline
- Data analysis: enrollment, progression, retention, completion, grade distributions, graduate outcomes and survey results, with trends and comparisons
- Curriculum and assessment review: alignment, currency, workload, assessment balance and moderation
- Document review: program specification, annual monitoring reports, committee minutes, external examiner or advisory board reports
- Stakeholder interviews or focus groups with leadership, faculty, students, graduates and employers
- Quality audit trail testing: sampling processes (for example a course approval or a complaint) to see whether they follow policy
- Benchmarking against comparable programs using public information
- Review report with commendations, recommendations and priorities
- Action planning workshop and a follow-up tracker
Not included
- Making closure, staffing or budget decisions — we provide evidence and options, leadership decides
- Acting as a formal external reviewer on behalf of an accreditor or agency
- Performance evaluation of individual staff members
What you receive
- Terms of reference
- Scope, review questions, criteria, schedule and roles, approved before the review begins.
- Data profile
- Charts and tables of key indicators over several years with short interpretive notes and data caveats.
- Review report
- Findings organized by review question, with commendations, prioritized recommendations and supporting evidence.
- Audit findings log
- For quality audits: each process tested, the sample, conformity or non-conformity and suggested corrective action.
- Action plan tracker
- A spreadsheet or dashboard that tracks each recommendation's owner, deadline and status through the next review cycle.
How it works
Terms of reference
We agree scope, questions and standards with the commissioning office and nominate the review team composition.
Desk review and data
We analyze documents and data and prepare an issues list for the review visit.
Review visit
Interviews and focus groups, on-site or online, over one to three days depending on scope.
Report
We draft the report; the program team checks factual accuracy before the final version is issued.
Action planning
A workshop turns recommendations into a costed, owned action plan; optional follow-up review after six or twelve months.
Review and audit methods
- Criteria-based review
- Findings judged against your institutional criteria, national standards or ESG 2015 Part 1 expectations such as program design, student-centered learning and ongoing monitoring.
- Trend and cohort analysis
- Tracking entry cohorts through progression and completion rather than relying on single-year snapshots.
- Audit trails
- Following a real case through a process to test whether documented procedures work in practice.
- Stakeholder triangulation
- Comparing what data, documents and different groups say, and reporting where they disagree.
- Prioritization matrix
- Recommendations rated by impact and effort so leadership can sequence action.
Program review or quality audit?
A program review asks 'Is this program good and getting better?' A quality audit asks 'Do our quality processes work as we say they do?' Many institutions need both, but combining them in one visit can overload staff. We help you choose based on your next external review and your current concerns.
- Falling outcomes or curriculum concerns → program review
- Upcoming institutional review by an agency → quality audit
- New QA policy recently introduced → audit of implementation
Recommendations that get implemented
We limit reports to a manageable number of priority recommendations, each tied to evidence and phrased as an action. Minor observations go in an annex. The action-planning workshop assigns owners before the report is filed, and the tracker gives the next review cycle a starting point.
What the work can look like
Illustrative example — fictional data
Illustrative excerpt: prioritized recommendation
A fictional review of a master's program in public administration with declining completion. Figures are invented.
Finding
Two-year completion fell from 78% to 61% over four cohorts. Interviews and progression data show most delays occur at the dissertation stage; supervision loads vary from 2 to 14 students per supervisor.
Recommendation (high priority)
Introduce a supervision allocation cap and a dissertation proposal milestone at the end of semester two, monitored by the program committee.
Commendation
Employer interviews consistently praised graduates' policy-writing skills, which reflects the program's authentic assessment design.
Illustrative example with invented data; real findings depend on your program's evidence.
What you’ll need to provide
- Your program review policy or audit framework and any required template
- Institutional data for the program over recent years
- Program documents, previous review reports and follow-up records
- Access to faculty, students, graduates and employers for interviews
- A liaison to schedule meetings and answer factual queries
You don’t need everything ready to ask for a quote — tell us what you have and we’ll say what’s missing.
What affects price and turnaround
Price depends on
- Number of programs or units in scope
- Review visit length and whether it is on-site or online
- Depth of data analysis and availability of clean institutional data
- Inclusion of discipline-specific external peers
- Follow-up review after implementation
Turnaround depends on
- Availability of data and documents at the start
- Scheduling interviews around the academic calendar and exam periods
Every project is quoted individually. How we price our work.
Questions people ask before starting
Are you independent from the program?
Yes; that is the point of the external component. We report to the office that commissions the review, and the program team checks only factual accuracy, not conclusions.
Can a review be done online?
Yes. Interviews and focus groups work well online if they are scheduled carefully. Some elements, such as seeing facilities, may need photos, video or a short site visit.
Will the review be shared with our accreditor?
That is your decision. Many institutions include periodic review reports and action plans as evidence of internal quality assurance in accreditation documentation.
How do you protect interviewees?
Interview notes are confidential to the review team, comments are reported without attribution and groups are kept large enough that individuals are not identifiable. We agree these rules in the terms of reference.
What if the review suggests closing the program?
We do not make that recommendation lightly or in isolation. We present evidence and options, including restructuring, merging or re-targeting, with their implications. The decision belongs to the institution's leadership and governance.