TQI: Periodic Review
Title of report
Warwick Business School
Date of report
19 November 2003
JACS codes
Departments
(optional)
Instructions
The information above if for your reference only, and is not used in any way by the TQI system.
Please complete the following template, typing your text into the box beneath each heading, as indicated.
Please only type into the spaces provided, using simple text formatting such as bold & italic. A list of supported
formatting can be found at the end of this template.
Objectives of review
To assure the University of the quality of provision
To encourage the development and enhancement of postgraduate provision
Conduct of review
The membership of the Review Group was as follows:
Biological Sciences (Chair)
Representative, SHSS
Representative, PAIS
External input was provided by a Professor from the Department of Management and
Organisation, University of Stirling, who attended the review.
The Review Group considered material submitted by the Warwick Business School,
including:
Self-Evaluation Document, including course specifications.
Examples of SSLC reports and Annual Reports.
External Examiners’ Reports.
Handbooks provided to students.
Examples of publicity materials.
The Review Group held a meeting on 19 November 2003 with student representatives,
including five PhD students and four students from the taught courses.
The Review Group then met with staff representatives including relevant course directors and
administrative staff, the Associate Dean, Academic Policy, the Associate Dean, MBA and the
Academic Director of the Doctoral Programme.
Last updated: 30/05/16
Page 1 of 8
TQI: Periodic Review
Evidence base
The Review Group considered External Examiners’ reports, reports from professional
accrediting bodies (Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business {AACSB},
European Quality Improvement System {EQUIS} and AMBA). The Review Group also
considered the 1994 HEFCE Quality Assessment Report. The Review Group also saw
SSLC reports and Annual Review Reports. The Review Group discussed provision with
current students. The Review Group also had access to statistical data on the destinations
of graduates of the courses under review. The Review Group looked at issues raised in
these different reports and how the School had responded both to comments made by the
student body and recommendations in external examiners’ reports.
External peer contributors to process
External input was provided by a Professor from the Department of Management and
Organisation, University of Stirling, who was sent all materials and participated in all review
meetings. They are a Professor of Management and Director of the Stirling MBA. Who has
also previously served as an external examiner for the School and therefore had a good
knowledge of the environment and provision under review.
Overview of the main characteristics of the programmes covered by the review
The Review Group was particularly impressed by the specialist Master’s courses offered by
the School (MSc in Management Science and Operational Research, MA in Industrial
Relations and Personnel Management, MA in European Industrial Relations, MA in
Organisation Studies), concluding that these were high quality and rigorous courses and
leaders in provision in the UK.
The Master in Public Administration is an innovative new course and the first external
examiners’ reports are positive. The Review Group concluded that the MBA was also a high
quality and demanding course. The most recent AMBA report was very positive.
The Doctoral Programme is a well-organised and high quality programme. The Review
Group was pleased to note in particular the improvement in four-year submission rates. The
School’s monitoring procedures are rigorous.
The four-year BA in English Language, Translation and Cultural Studies organised in
conjunction with Beijing Foreign Studies University and the Centre for Translation
Conclusion on innovation and good practice
and Comparative Cultural Studies
The Review Group would perhaps have expected to see more examples of innovation.
Nevertheless, there are a number of clear examples of good practice and innovation which
are listed below.
The Review Group was particularly impressed with the Foundation Programme on the MA
Industrial Relations and Personnel Management and the MA European Industrial Relations.
This offered a particularly good induction to the course, which was clearly appreciated by
students.
The Review Group noted the recent on-line developments, particularly for the distancelearning MBA.
The MPA is clearly an innovative multi-disciplinary programme that has achieved early
recognition by the Cabinet Office and a number of local authorities, which are supporting
employees who are following the course.
Last updated: 30/05/16
Page 2 of 8
TQI: Periodic Review
The School’s development of short executive courses is to be welcomed. These are
innovative courses, tailored to meet the needs of specific groups of students and to offer high
quality vocational provision.
(i)
P Students following MA courses are encouraged to consider possible
dissertation topics from an early stage. Possible topics are discussed
the Research Methods module, and throughout modules in
Conclusions on qualityduring
and standards
terms onethat
andthe
two
possible
issues arewere
flagged
up.delivered
and students
are
The Review Group concluded
course
specifications
being
and that
strongly
encouraged
to relate
work done
in modules
to theirPolicy
own
students were achieving
the intended
learning
outcomes.
The School’s
Academic
professional
(especially
thethe
post-experience
students).
All
Committee has a good
overview experience,
of quality matters
within
School, seeing
all external
students
taughtThe
qualitative
techniques.the Those
examiners’ reports and
annualare
reviews.
Review research
Group encourages
School on
to
research
are its
shown
SPSS and may receive extra tuition
consider how best to share
goodprogrammes
practice across
provision.
in it if needed. In term three, there is a programme of distinguished
guest speakers who are invited to talk about their own research.
The
was pleased
note and
thatvalid
the inPhD
and ofEdD
students’
Conclusions on(ii)
whether
thePanel
programme(s)
remainto
current
the light
developing
knowledge in the discipline,
practice
in its
application
in teaching
Research
Circle
is very
active and developments
that the students
have setand
up a web
learning
forum too. The EdD group have formed their own spin-off of the
The Review Group concluded
that
the courses
were up-to-date
and
in year
someresearch
cases atmethods
the
Research
Circle.
EdD students
found the
first
leading edge of developments
in the relevant
disciplines.
acknowledged
by the
course useful
and PhD
studentsAsvalued
being able
toSchool,
audit the
the MBA curriculum may
benefitmethods
from some
re-invigoration.
research
training
course on the EdD.
(iii)
Students’ expectations of the courses are met if not exceeded.
In terms of developments
in teaching
andfound
learning,
the Review
Group was
by the
Masters
students
the teaching
excellent
and impressed
liked the structure
on-line developments within
School.
of the the
course.
They noted that the course was both challenging and
supportive and was delivered by enthusiastic staff. They were very
The Review Group concluded
was generally
of very
quality.on assignments
pleased that
withteaching
the exhaustive
feedback
theyhigh
received
and felt that the assignments prepared them well for the Dissertation.
They indicated that feedback on the trial assignment was received
promptly but this was not always true of other assignments although
Forward-looking recommendations
for actions
to remedy
anytoidentified
shortcomings,
and for
they understood
that this
was due
blind marking
procedures
and
further enhancement ofstaff
quality
and
standards
illness. All students understood clearly the penalties for late
Professional externalsubmission
review reports
on theResearch
School (Association
to Advance
Collegiate
of work.
students felt
that having
more contact
Schools of Business time
{AACSB},
Quality
Improvement
{EQUIS}
AMBA)
with European
staff at the
beginning
of the System
programme
wasand
helpful
in
have all been extremely
positive.
building up group ethos and developing confidence.
Given the complex organisational structure and size of the School when compared to other
departments at Warwick, the Review Group was impressed by the School’s quality
management systems. The co-ordinating role played by the School’s Academic Policy
Committee is clearly important here.
It is evident that students hold the School and the courses in high regard. This was
particularly true of the taught postgraduate provision. The Review Group commends in
particular the specialist Masters courses offered by the School, a suite of innovative and
rigorous courses. The Review Group was pleased to note the continuing high quality of the
MBA courses offered by the School and progress made with the convergence of the
different variants of the MBA. The MBA curriculum would however benefit from a review.
With regard to the Doctoral Programme, the Review Group concluded that this was a wellorganised and high quality programme. The Review Group was pleased to note in particular
the improvement in four-year submission rates. The School’s monitoring procedures are
rigorous.
The Review Group concluded that the School offered high-quality and well managed
provision at postgraduate level, as demonstrated by student feedback, student employment
destinations and external evidence from external examiners’ reports and professional
bodies.
Last updated: 30/05/16
Page 3 of 8
TQI: Periodic Review
A summary of the Review Group’s recommendations follows. These recommendations are
intended to assist the School in the enhancement of its provision by identifying issues for
consideration.
The first group of recommendations are considered to be of greater importance and urgency.
1.
The School will wish to consider the advisability of the following:
a. Monitoring procedures for external examining across taught postgraduate provision
with the aim of improving the co-ordination of communication with external
examiners, noting that the Review Group expected the School to respond in full to
the examiners’ recommendations on these issues.
b. Establishing as a matter of priority Staff Student Liaison Committees on the part-time
taught courses offered by the School, noting that it may be most appropriate to do
this through use of an on-line forum.
c. Ensuring that procedures for project placements are brought into line with the
University’s Guidelines on Placement Learning.
d. Completing the standardisation of examination conventions for the MBA courses.
e. Reviewing the MBA curriculum.
f.
Considering different levels of progression and achievement across the MBA
courses.
g. Implementation of the results of the review of the MSc Management Sciences and
Operational Research with the aim of addressing the current problem of “overassessment”.
h. Discussing supervisory practices with student representatives through the Doctoral
Programme Committee; in particular the clarification of the expected frequency of
supervision meetings and improving consistency of adherence to the School’s Code
of Practice.
i.
Considering how best to meet the needs of individual students on the Doctoral
Programme in terms of more detailed research methodology training, including taking
a more proactive role in encouraging students to attend appropriate taught Masters
modules.
2.
The School will wish to consider the desirability of the following:
a.
Considering how best to share good practice across the postgraduate courses in the
School.
b. Reviewing induction arrangements on the MBA courses.
Last updated: 30/05/16
Page 4 of 8
TQI: Periodic Review
c. Considering early assessment and feedback for students on the full-time MBA,
particularly the possible introduction of a piece of formative work and feedback on
examination performance.
d. Discussing with student representatives procedures for the allocation of desk space
to students on the Doctoral Programme.
e. Considering how best to improve the integration of students on the Doctoral
Programme within the School’s research community.
f.
Considering provision in academic writing, publishing work and careers advice for
students towards the end of the PhD, noting that students should be directed to
generic provision within the School and the University as well as seeking advice from
supervisors.
Actions taken by the institution in response to the review
1.
a.
The issue of improving the co-ordination of communication with External Examiners
has been discussed extensively at several recent meetings of the Academic Policy
Committee. Discussion has focussed on the following areas:
Enhancement of guidance for Named Internal Examiners (NIEs) to ensure
consistency in the information provided to External Examiners and resultant action
undertaken by External Examiners.
The need to clarify the role and responsibilities of the Named Internal Examiner (NIE)
when communicating with External Examiners.
Standardisation of the School’s policies on script moderation and sample selection.
A booklet is attached that sets out the Business School’s newly approved procedures
in relation to the points outlined above. The new procedures were approved by the
Academic Policy Committee at its meeting on the 12th March 2004 and the School is
now in the process of informing all of its academic staff and external examiners of
these new procedures.
The Committee, however, reaffirmed its policy that it will retain the system whereby
the responsibility for liaison with External Examiners over moderation of marks and
other academic matters remains the responsibility of the Subject Group. This is
because the Business School is necessarily multi-disciplinary and we believe that
matters dealing with academic issues should be dealt with directly by the discipline
specialists involved. We believe that given the tight time constraints this is the
quickest method of responding effectively to the External Examiners. However, it has
been agreed that this contact with the External Examiners should be co-ordinated on
a Group basis by the Head of Group or nominee, supported by the Group Office. All
staff have recently been informed of this change in policy and that the support in this
area must be strengthened. We expect that this should resolve some of the issues of
complexity that have occurred in the last few years.
Administrative matters such as arrangements for Boards of Examiners and annual
briefing materials continue to be organised centrally by the Assistant Manager,
Academic Services and Chair of the relevant Board of Examiners. It was also agreed
that the more detailed schedules, already provided to internal examiners, should be
Last updated: 30/05/16
Page 5 of 8
TQI: Periodic Review
provided to External Examiners annually to strengthen communication with our
External Examiners. The schedule provides information on the following:
Dates of Boards of Examiners meetings.
Dates for receiving exam papers for approval and deadline for return.
Expected dates for receiving scripts and deadline for return.
Dates for receiving and returning dissertations.
The schedules for the UG Programmes, the MBA programme and the MSOR
programme are also contained within the attached booklet.
b.
The MBA programme already runs Staff Student Liaison Committees on ALL parttime variants of the MBA, with the exception of Distance Learning MBA. The offcampus nature of the Distance Learning programme prohibits the running of an SSLC
in the normal manner. However, as stated in both the report and to the review panel,
during the compulsory September Seminar a general Q&A session is scheduled for all
Distance Learning students. This, in effect, provides a formal means of discussing
programme issues with the students.
Provision for online SSLCs is, in fact, already available to undergraduate SSLCs and
could easily be rolled out to postgraduate courses. However, provision would need to
be made for a Chair to moderate these discussions in order to ensure that libellous
material directed at individual faculty is avoided. It is worth noting that informally
my.wbs already performs this function for the MBA by providing discussions at the
programme and MBA level - many such postings focus on programme 'issues' just as
would take place with an online SSLC. The only difference is that these discussions
are not formally minuted.
With regard to the establishment of a Staff Student Liaison Committee for the MPA
programme, the School can confirm that a formal SSLC is now up and running and
working well
c.
The University’s Guidelines on Placement Learning have been discussed fully at the
School’s Academic Policy Committee and have been circulated to all Programme
Offices.
d.
Convergence of the MBA conventions is nearing completion. The DLMBA is the only
unconverged programme but new conventions have now been drawn up and will be
discussed at a meeting to be held on May 19th 2004. The School is optimistic about
achieving a set of fully converged conventions by the end of this current academic
year.
e.
A complete review of the MBA curriculum is in progress and should be complete by
June 2004. This is being headed up by Bob Johnston in
his role as Academic
Director. This is a comprehensive review incorporating the views of all stakeholders
including Teaching Groups, MBA Support Staff, Corporate Sponsors/Graduate
Employers, Alumni, and current students.. Implementation of the Review's
recommendations is planned for 2005.
f.
The comment in the report regarding the weaker performance of the Andersen cohort
was surprising, as overall the group performed very well; were reckoned by staff to be
the best performing group on all intakes (see marks profile); with one external
examiner (Burton 2000) commenting that “there is a high standard across the range
of MBAs, the Andersen cohort being particularly impressive.” The slower completion
of dissertations by the Andersen cohorts is directly attributable to their employment
Last updated: 30/05/16
Page 6 of 8
TQI: Periodic Review
disruption, following the demise of the company. Where dissertations have been
completed, their marks tend to be well above average, with a good number of
distinctions.
The standards on the DL MBA remain the same as for the other variants of the MBA
with the same marking criteria being used and the pass mark being the same at 50%.
The only differences reflect the issues arising from the predominant use of
examination for assessment. These examinations fall in an intensive one week period
(where illness or other extenuating circumstances may have a significant impact on a
student’s performance). For this reason, it is reflected in the Examination Conventions
that students are permitted to resit any failed examination – this also allows for the
fact that many of the students are returning to education after a long break and are,
initially, out of practice at sitting examinations. The distinction criteria for the module
element of the DL MBA is lower than the other variants of the DL MBA, the rationale
for this being that it is more difficult to achieve the requisite number of distinction level
marks when assessed by examination. However, this policy is currently under review
and it is likely that the distinction level will be changed to 67% to bring it into line with
other variants of the MBA. The distinction level criteria for the dissertation element is
common across all MBA variants at 70%.
With regard to progression rates, comprehensive support provided by the DL MBA
programme team and
the personal tutor network combined with obligatory
attendance at an annual 8-day “September Seminar” and augmented use of internet
communications have helped to keep wastage rates to a minimum. However, the
School recognises that the ‘dropout’ rate is high when compared with the FT MBA or
Executive MBA and will continue to review the level of support offered to DL MBA
students.
g.
The Course Team have now completed the review of the MSc in Management
Sciences and Operational Research and submitted a revised course structure to the
School’s Academic Policy Committee earlier in the year, which was approved. The
redesign of the course addresses the issue of “over-assessment” raised by the
External Examiners in that it reduces the number of modules that a student is
expected to take from 13 to 10. In addition, the redesign addresses the concern of
insufficient time for students to undertake their summer projects and provides scope
for students to resit examinations during the same year of study, which was not
previously possible.
The Course Team are now awaiting University approval of the redesigned course
before launching the revamped programme in October 2004.
h.
These issues are continually being monitored and discussed but the Doctoral
Programme Committee will give them further special attention.
i.
These matters are already in hand and may be in place for the October 2005 intake if
not the 2004 cohort.
2
a.
b.
The School recommends that the University considers amending the Annual Course
Review Report form to incorporate a good practice section. This would provide not
only the School, but also the University, with a mechanism for detecting good
practice, which could then be disseminated within the School and University as
appropriate.
This point is noted and will be reviewed by the MBA programme team to see if any
Last updated: 30/05/16
Page 7 of 8
TQI: Periodic Review
c.
d.
e.
f.
further enhancement to their induction arrangements re feasible.
The Review Report recommends considering ways of "giving generic feedback to the
cohort" for exams. On the FT MBA generic examiners' comments about the
performance of the group as a whole, broken down by question, are provided. In
addition, specific feedback to FT students with failed marks is given where resits are
required by the Board of Examiners. For the DL MBA, some, but not all, examiners
provide general feedback comments about the exams which are posted on my.wbs.
All DLMBA examiners are required to produce a written exam report but this is not
intended for external, student use. However, where individual students request
feedback from the Programme office, these examiners' reports are used to create
feedback more appropriate for student consumption.
Discussions already take place with student representatives regarding the procedures
for allocating desk space to Doctoral Programme students but will be done more
extensively in the future.
The Doctoral Programme Committee will revisit this issue.
The School already provides advice on publishing work and, in liaison with the
Warwick Writing Programme, courses on academic writing. The Doctoral Programme
Committee will consider ways to improve careers advice to PhD students. However,
the Doctoral Programme’s current standing as the No.1 PhD programme in the world
is partly based on the number of Warwick Business School PhDs working as
academics in the top 50 world Business Schools, confirming that successful career
progression is a feature of the Warwick programme.
Last updated: 30/05/16
Page 8 of 8