Student System Project Consolidated Feedback and Responses

Document(s) Reviewed / version #: Instructions for submission: Reviewer Name(s) / Unit Name(s): ADM01 Process Design - Admissions / version 5.0 (draft) Submit your completed Feedback Form no later than COB Wednesday 30/05/2007 by email to ssp-admission@unimelb.edu.au Andrew Hall (AH), Faculty of Music, Catherine Mong (CM) Faculty of Economics & Commerce, Holly Davis (HD) Faculty of Architecture Building and Planning, Rosemary Tyers (RT), Victorian College of the Arts, Peter McGrath (PMG) Director Internal Audit, Kate Dunn (KD), Faculty of Arts, Katherine Ciacia (KC) Student Management Systems, Lorenne Wilks (LW), Faculty of Architecture Building and Planning., John Mitropoulos (JM) School Graduate Studies Admissions, Chris Sheehan (CS) School Graduate Studies Admissions, Mark Falconer (MF) Graduate Law, Kaye Nankervis (KN) Graduate Law (Postgraduate Coursework Programs) 30/05/2007 combined

Review Submit Date:

Please note: Feedback will normally be made accessible via the SSP website (ssp.unimelb.edu.au) along with responses to feedback from the Project Team. No. Document Reference [reviewer to insert document reference, e.g. section no., heading name, page no.] SAMPLE: Section 2, process step ADM01.2.5 Initials of Reviewer [reviewer to insert their initials] SAMPLE: SW Feedback [reviewer to insert their feedback] SAMPLE: This process step description lists the possible types of supporting documentation collected. You have forgotten to include referee reports for RHD applicants on the list. Response to Feedback [reviewer to leave blank SSP to complete]

INSTRUCTI ONS AND SAMPLE

1. Section 4.1 Online Application

AH

Will the process for direct applications be designed to allow for electronic capture of audition application/information? (This is currently collected via paper-based audition application form.) If so, will this detail be easily exportable/accessible, to allow for the internal audition scheduling process?

Thank you for raising this very important point for both VCA and Faculty of Music. We are aware audition information is presently managed outside the existing student system. The new online application will be designed to provide application requirements at a cohort and course level. How this process will work and if it can be used to capture audition information needs to be fully investigated by the Student System Project (SSP) team during the design and implementation of the online application. Please note the above information. We are aware audition Page 1 of 11

VTAC applicants currently submit a paper-based audition application form at the end of September obviously well SSP Feedback Template

SSP Feedback Template No. Document Reference Initials of Reviewer Feedback before their application data hits our systems. Will the uni admissions module be able to provide for an online audition application process? Response to Feedback information is presently managed outside the existing student system and phase 1 (up to June 2008) of the SSP aims to replace the existing functionality of Merlin and SIS, adding value where possible. Investigation of capture of audition information for VTAC students through the online application may need to be deferred to phase 2 of the project, which is the period up to project closure (June 2009). Thank you. We have updated process step ADM01.1.1 to reflect the requirement to include intended subjects and titles (where required). This issue will be addressed further during system design of the online application requirements. Thank you. We apologise for any confusion. If there is not sufficient information to complete an assessment the Application could be marked as incomplete with a reason recorded (e.g. evidence of prior study is not included). The text in step ADM01.2.6 has been updated.

2. Section 6.2 ADM01.1 Application 3. Section 6.3 ADM01.2 Assessment

CM

Can the cohort-specific information be customised to include a proposed list of subjects for BCom (Hons) applications? Assessors need to review and approve subject selection as part of the application process. The assessment stage does not include provisions for situations where the process coordinator or assessor seeks further information from the student before deciding on an outcome. This could be, for example, further detailed information about Math subjects completed. Can this be incorporated? If a conditional offer is made, the application will still need to be assessed for Math before a final decision is recorded. Math assessment is usually undertaken by an academic so it is unlikely the process coordinator will be able to confirm that a conditional offer has been met.

CM

As per the process map the Assessor will make the decision that the applicant can receive a conditional offer. However, the Processor co-ordinator may complete the step of recording the conditional offer as final by placing a final assessment decision indicator against the application so that offer correspondence may be produced. We have also updated the text in step ADM01.4.6 to reflect the necessary check with the Assessor (if required) to ensure offer conditions have been satisfactorily met. How a course will be structured is part of the system design for study packages (courses, majors, subjects) to be completed by the Course, Structure, and Planning team. Please note, it is possible to provide the student with their major alternatives, and / or subject alternatives at time of enrolment which may occur after they have received the necessary course advice. However we will also explore the capturing of a proposed major as part of the system design of the online application. Noted, Thank you. The issue to express selection criteria simply, unambiguously and explicitly was raised in the Strategic Directions papers produced at the start of the project. These papers were signed off by the SSP Steering Group and unresolved items were allocated to various Page 2 of 11

4. Section 6.4 ADM01.3 Expand study package

CM

The proposed application process does not seek information about a students major. For a study package to accurately reflect the course plan, should we be asking students to nominate their major at the time of application?

This is great just a couple of general comments. You note that there is a need to express selection criteria simply, unambiguously and explicitly which I am all in favour of. Are you involved with the committee who approve selection criteria for the new degrees? I dont imagine that ADM01 Process Design Consolidated Feedback_V5-0.doc

5. Section 4.4 Increased Assessment of Applications by Professional Staff

HD

SSP Feedback Template No. Document Reference under delegated authority Initials of Reviewer Feedback professional staff will have a great deal of say in how the selection criteria is expressed. Response to Feedback areas of the University for further action to assist with successful implementation of the new student system. However, it should be noted the SSP is not responsible for setting University policy, although SSP representatives are involved with committee participation where practical. Noted, Thank you.

I think that it is a great initiative to have professional staff more actively involved in the assessment of standard applications. 6. General Comment HD It was discussed previously that there needs to be consistency across the University in terms of ranking applicants from institutions other than the University of Melbourne. Has any progress been made with this issue?

The item In order to achieve transparent and consistent assessment University-wide, it will be necessary that the University provide a clear policy on the ranking type (e.g. GPA, WAM) used in selection for both course and scholarship was raised in the Strategic Directions papers produced at the start of the project. These papers were signed off by the SSP Steering Group and unresolved items were allocated to various areas of the University for further action to assist with successful implementation of the new student system. The SSP is aware this requirement is presently being discussed by the Working Group on Grading Practices and grade point averages. Noted, Thank you. The text in Section 4.4 has been updated accordingly.

7. Section 4.4 Increased Assessment of Applications by Professional Staff under delegated authority 8. Section 4.5 Responding to Conditional Offers

RT

Admission to all VCA courses is by audition or folio and interview, therefore all selection by specialist assessors. Auditions also undertaken interstate.

RT

Conditional offers need to be able to be traced.

Agree. It is important that Reports are able to be produced to track Applications and Offers (inclusive of Conditional Offers). Reporting requirements will be addressed during system design. It is also not possible for students to be admitted to a course until all conditions are satisfied or waived. Thank you. We note the general concern from staff about how document scanning will be managed and whilst this is one of the strategic directions for the University the practicalities need to be worked through and addressed as part of system design. We also appreciate this area requires consultation with the Universitys Legal Services to ascertain our responsibilities in respect to electronic storage of supplied application materials (e.g. privacy, archiving, and document destruction) as outlined in Section Page 3 of 11

9. Section 4.3 Document scanning

RT

Scanning of application supporting documentation has the potential to become a nightmare! Perhaps parameters determining what is appropriate to be retained can be developed.

ADM01 Process Design Consolidated Feedback_V5-0.doc

SSP Feedback Template No. Document Reference Initials of Reviewer RT Feedback Response to Feedback 10. 10 Section 7.0 Tactical Information Requirements VCA always different has completely different selection and admission periods from the rest of the University so these Admission Period Reports cannot be at the same date each year etc. This is unlikely to change with New Generation courses. VCA application and selection process is spread over a period of at least 4 months from initial application through selection testing to offer. Not expected to change with New Generation courses. Please remember that not everything happens on Parkville campus. Will this have additional access security issues? Noted. Applications will be accepted into specific availabilities / study periods that will be determined during system design to suit University business requirements. Reports can be designed to be generated on demand and for a specific availability. The text in Section 7. has been updated accordingly. Noted. The process designs are not time specific and we understand that there will be time variances during the Application and Offer process based on cohort requirements. Noted, Thank you. No - Access for staff to view electronic documentation used in selection will only be available through their allocated security role (e.g. Assessor) for which they will have been trained. Noted, Thank you. The University standard declaration will be revisited as part of the system design stage of the project. Information required in the declaration particularly in respect to collection and storage of electronic information will be confirmed with the Universitys Legal Services to ensure the declaration is compliant with legislation. Thank you for this question. How we manage the combination of hardcopy document storage and electronic storage will need to be addressed as part of the system design stage of the project. It will also be dependant on advice we receive from the Universitys Central Records and Legal Services areas in respect to collection and storage of electronic information. To assist with this process the SSP has referred this item to the Policies and Procedures Working Group for further discussion to see if new policies are required. Thank you. The decision to waive fees needs to be in terms of the documented University policy. We have updated the text in Step ADM01.1.5 to reflect the reference to University policy. The new student systems correspondence functionality presently produces hardcopy correspondence. However, planned enhancements to the technology will see the ability to e-mail an attachment to the applicant. The applicant can also indicate a preferred correspondence method but in many cases the University Page 4 of 11

11 General Comment

RT

12 General Comment 13 Section 4.3 Document scanning. 14 Section 6.2 - base level requirements

RT PMG

PMG

Standard University declaration is there a need for the applicant to give permission for the Uni to check with source providers of support documentation?

15 Section 6.2 ADM01.1.4 Record Application Materials

PMG

Will hard copies be destroyed? Note this is an open issue recorded in section 10.

16 Section 6.2 ADM01.1.5 Record Assessment fee 17 Section 6.2 ADM01.1.7-9 Record, produce and send

PMG

Need for clear guidelines/criteria for waiving fee.

PMG

Is this correspondence to be electronic, paper or both?

ADM01 Process Design Consolidated Feedback_V5-0.doc

SSP Feedback Template No. Document Reference Correspondence Initials of Reviewer Feedback Response to Feedback needs to ensure that Admission correspondence meets legal guidelines (e.g. Offer letters produced in hardcopy). The correspondence methods used are likely to be a combination of both electronic and paper and this will be addressed further during system design. PMG Reference is made to a score. Is there going to be consistent approach to this scoring? The item In order to achieve transparent and consistent assessment University-wide, it will be necessary that the University provide a clear policy on the ranking type (e.g. GPA, WAM) used in selection for both course and scholarship was raised in the Strategic Directions papers produced at the start of the project. These papers were signed off by the SSP Steering Group and unresolved items were allocated to various areas of the University for further action to assist with successful implementation of the new student system. The SSP is aware this requirement is presently being discussed by the Working Group on Grading Practices and grade point averages. Please refer response 18 above.

18 Section 6.3.1 ADM01.2.8 Record final Selection decision

19 Section 6.3.3 ADM01.2A.1 Assess application in accordance with selection criteria and make recommendation 20 Section 6.3.3 ADM01.2A.2-3 Forwarding Application etc. 21 Section 6.3.3 ADM01.2A.9-12 Forwarding Application for further assessment etc. 22 Section 6.4 ADM01.3.1 Expand Study Package 23 Section 6.5 ADM01.4.1 Submit Acceptance

PMG

Reference is made to a score. Is there going to be a consistent approach to this scoring?

PMG

Is this correspondence to be electronic, paper or both?

Please refer response 17 above. Exactly the type of communication method (e.g. electronic) is used to notify Assessors (staff members) that further action is required will be determined during system design. Please refer response 17 & 20 above.

PMG

Is this correspondence to be electronic, paper or both?

PMG

What if any is the significance of the applicant not expanding their study package at this point? formally notify Is this correspondence to be electronic, paper or both?

The study plan needs to be expanded at this point for a applicant to view their subjects, via the student interface, and therefore proceed to enrol in subjects once the student is admitted to the course. Please refer response 17 above. The University needs to ensure that Admission correspondence Page 5 of 11

PMG

ADM01 Process Design Consolidated Feedback_V5-0.doc

SSP Feedback Template No. Document Reference response 24 Section 6.5 ADM01.4 PMG What is required to verify documents submitted before a condition is satisfied? Note this appears to relate to the risk identified in 8. Initials of Reviewer Feedback Response to Feedback meets legal guidelines (e.g. Offer letters produced in hardcopy). The steps required to satisfy an Offer condition or to verify documents (e.g. transcripts), will remain the same as current business process as these requirements happen outside the student system and need to follow policy guidelines. However, the new student system will allow a staff member the ability to record a document as verified, or offer conditions as satisfied (or waived). A student will not be able to enrol in to subjects until all conditions have been satisfied. To assist with the process of storing documents electronically the SSP has referred this item to the Policies and Procedures Working Group for further discussion to see if new policies are required. Section 2. Document scope describes that pre-application activities are outside of the student system project scope. Thank you. The type of information that can be attached should be documents that are targeted for use in assessment. Advanced Standing information is outlined in the process design ADV01 Advanced Standing that is available on the project website. To assist with the process of storing documents electronically the SSP has referred this item to the Policies and Procedures Working Group for further discussion to see if new policies are required. 27 Section 4.5 Responding to Conditional Offers 28 Section 6.2, ADM01.1.1 Submit Application 29 Section 6.2 . base level requirements 30 Section 6.2. base level requirements research higher degrees/coursework KD This is a very welcome change. Noted, Thank you.

25 General comment 26 Section 4.2 Application Activation and 4.3 Document scanning

PMG KD

Where is the initial process described for applicants to enquire/apply for admission? There is no mention of if or what kinds of extra information the applicant will be able to submit electronically- ie. documents that we dont require to be originals or certified copies, such as some of the documents required for advanced standing applications.

KD

Many applicants for undergraduate courses will need to supply both yr 12 results and undergraduate study results. Some CAP applicants will not have yr 12 or equivalent, they will need to record their highest level of study. Is it necessary to provide the date when results will be released if they are not yet available for all types of studies When setting up the online application for SIS some of the faculties required that a referees report to be completed as opposed to supplying just a referees contact details. This report was different for each faculty.

Yes we agree and apologise for any confusion. The example provided was to illustrate how an online application should be able to tailor for specific cohort requirements depending on business requirements and need. Thank you. This point will be considered during the design of the online application. Thank you. The new online application will be designed to provide application requirements at a cohort and course level. Therefore, we anticipate that should a completed referee report be required it may be attached using the online application, or alternatively there should be flexibility to collect the referee information for later use. Page 6 of 11

KC KC

ADM01 Process Design Consolidated Feedback_V5-0.doc

SSP Feedback Template No. Document Reference Initials of Reviewer LW Feedback Response to Feedback

31 Item 8 Risks & Issues (also 4.3 & 10)

Re circulating scanned applications electronically and destroying unsuccessful applications: Applications should be treated as confidential, but with applications circulating among several people, many will print out application materials in order to carry out their phase of the assessment (particularly academic assessors). Therefore, there is a risk that more hard-copies of confidential documents will be made and disposed of inappropriately. What is our obligation/liability to maintain confidentiality of application information? Where will PhD applications be submitted to, SGS or Faculties According to ADMO1.2A applications are submitted online and forwarded to SGS in the first instance so an assessment can be made and then forwarded for academic assessment. Unless a department and or supervisors are recorded I dont think SGS has the expertise in making the assessment in which department an application should be forwarded to. Will the application be forwarded to faculty or to the department?

We note the general concern from staff about how we manage the combination of hardcopy document storage and electronic storage and this will need to be addressed as part of the system design stage of the project. It will also be dependant on advice we receive from the Universitys Central Records and Legal Services areas in respect to collection and storage of electronic information. Whilst this is one of the Universitys strategic directions the practicalities still require further consideration and in this respect the SSP has referred this item to the Policies and Procedures Working Group for further discussion to see if new policies are required. Thank you. We dont believe the document actually specifies where an application will be submitted as which area will accept applications at the time the new system goes live is largely dependant on the outcome of the BCG project. However, the expectation is that when the application is actually submitted, that the applicant would already have had the preliminary discussions with the relevant department / potential supervisor and would include that detail in their application. We have noted in Section 6.1 the requirement to capture the proposed supervisor and department as part of the Application and from this a prompt can be designed to notify staff that an online application has been received and is ready for assessment. Thank you for this feedback. The process design has been completed following discussion with several Research Business experts and the swimming lane actors used such as Administrative Assessor, Process Coordinator etc. are used in place of specific organisational units. Completion of tasks will largely depend on the outcomes of the BCG project and it should be noted that even though one actor is represented by a single 'swim lane' on the maps, it may be multiple actors within a single map that complete the tasks specified. An applicant can be followed up at any stage in the Application process (e.g. at application, before or during assessment) and it is likely the process design will be revisited during the system design stage to ensure it is able to satisfy the Universitys business requirements and agreed Admission strategic directions around improved tracking of applications and improved turnaround times for assessment. Page 7 of 11

32 GENERAL comment

JM

33 GENERAL comment

JM

At application stage SGS would be making an assessment as well as scoring for scholarships with no guarantees that the department/school will be accepting the applicant into the PhD program. So there will be occasions that all this assessment and follow up for any missing information may turn out to be a rejected application. Furthermore applications will have to theoretically be assessed a second time after the academic assessment has been made so the decision can be reviewed by SGS (ADM01.2A11). At this stage the application will have to be assessed again especially as the majority of the assessment of a PhD application requires academic input/assessment. In the flow chart (assessment RHD applicants ADM01.2A) there is no provision for any follow up with either the applicant or department. It is at this stage after academic assessment where the majority of the follow up will be required. So in essence this will slow down the application approval as it is theoretically double handled by SGS once at the beginning and then at the end. Ideally

ADM01 Process Design Consolidated Feedback_V5-0.doc

SSP Feedback Template No. Document Reference Initials of Reviewer Feedback SGS should be the last cog in the chain as the bulk of the assessment is done at this end stage as the assessment has to review the department and faculty assessment and the entire applications has to be assessed completely if it is to be assessed correctly. 34 Section 6.2 ADM01.1.1 Submit Application 35 Section 6.3.3 ADM01.2A.1 Assess application in accordance with selection criteria and make recommendation 36 Section 6.3.3 ADM01.2A.11 ADM01.2A.13/14 37 Section 6.3.3 ADM 1.2A.1 Assess application in accordance with selection criteria and make recommendation 38 GENERAL comment JM Mandatory requirement that all RHD applications have a department as a minimum recorded in order to assist in identification of appropriate department to forward the application to. Only minimal assessment can take place here. Thank you. This information is noted under the Research Higher degree requirements, section 6.2. Response to Feedback

JM

Noted, Thank you. We have documented that the Administrative Assessor undertakes review of the application and preparation of a summary of the outcomes; noting items that need to be escalated for academic assessment.

JM

There is usually follow up required at these stages for some applications with either applicants departments or faculty.

Thank you. We have updated the text for this section.

JM

Administrative assessor within faculty reviews application and scores the application for candidature and scholarship. Does the Administrative assessor have the expertise to be assessing for both candidature and scholarship? Isnt the scoring for scholarships undertaken by the departments?

It is assumed that the Administrative Assessor has been sufficiently trained to complete the task described.

JM

When an offer is made will staff be required to set up commencement date, confirmation/progress report due dates and completion dates as we do now? I.e. setting up provisional enrolments. It is unclear to me reading both this document (ADM)1 and ENR01 how the actually enrolments on the system will be set up. Admissions period report Data should also include previous qualifications, Thesis title Supervisors, recommendation, candidature details i.e. commencement, confirmation/progress report review dates and completion dates.

Thank you. We apologise for any confusion and appreciate that this document remains as a high level process design. The detail of how this information will be set up will be addressed during system design and staff will then be adequately trained on the new student system to complete their operational tasks. Thank you. The new student system has several reporting methods. During system design the Business will be asked to identify their reporting needs and then the SSP will work with them to identify specific requirements so that the appropriate reports can be designed. Page 8 of 11

39 Section 7. TACTICAL INFORMATION

JM

ADM01 Process Design Consolidated Feedback_V5-0.doc

SSP Feedback Template No. Document Reference Initials of Reviewer CS Feedback The ease of applicants submitting an online application will result in submissions from students that may not be entirely interested (able to submit with no supporting documents). Follow up may result in no response from applicants. Result will be more applications with more rejections and lapsed applications (this will skew statistics). An in-depth research proposal, at the very least, should be mandatory for all RHD applicants at the online application stage. SGS requires original or certified copies of transcripts. If these arent received when will these be followed up with the applicant to provide? At scanning stage or will the applicants be made conditional offers to supply original or certified copies of transcripts, IELTS/TOEFL etc. Response to Feedback Thank you. This application information required is documented under the Research Higher degree requirements in section 6.2. It should be noted that design of the online application has yet to be completed and it is anticipated that the applicant must submit minimum application requirements for the cohort and / or course to complete their application.

40 GENERAL comment

41 GENERAL comment

CS & JM

Noted. It would be the Assessor Academic decisions if there is sufficient information to make a conditional offer. Part of satisfying the offer conditions would most likely be the provision of original documentation. It as anticipated that the design of the online application will provide the ability for the student to indicate which documents they intend to submit in hardcopy. Thank you. We have noted staff concerns about the move to online applications and how we manage the combination of hardcopy document storage and electronic storage. Whilst this is one of the Universitys strategic directions the practicalities still require further consideration and in this respect the SSP has referred this item to the Policies and Procedures Working Group for further discussion to see if new policies are required. We also anticipate any changes would require a transitional period and will be dependant on advice received from the Universitys Central Records and Legal Services areas in respect to collection and storage of electronic information. The need for necessary hardware support was identified in the Strategic Directions papers produced at the start of the project. These papers were signed off by the SSP Steering Group and unresolved items were allocated to various areas of the University for further action to assist with successful implementation of the new student system. The ability to print applications submitted online is being considered during system design and any documents that are attached electronically are able to be printed. Noted. The process design will be revisited during system design to ensure it can satisfy the Universitys business requirements and agreed Admission strategic directions around improved tracking of Page 9 of 11

42 Section 4.1 and 4.3

MF & KN

Were concerned about moving entirely to on-line applications and the storage of all student details on-line (which we assume means fazing out of hard copy student files). Issues would be: scanning problems as youve already indicated, what happens to any hard copies of application/forms etc,

what happens if the computers are down or slow and do we have the hardware to cope with it all,

is the assessor (or assessors) meant to review the application on screen (its much easier, and better for the eyes, to look at printed copies particularly with some transcripts that dont scan very well) applications may be delayed if you need to ask the applicant to resend transcripts (or anything else) that hasnt scanned ADM01 Process Design Consolidated Feedback_V5-0.doc

SSP Feedback Template No. Document Reference Initials of Reviewer Feedback properly, Response to Feedback applications and improved turnaround times for assessment. It as anticipated that the design of the online application will provide the ability for the student to indicate which documents they intend to submit in hardcopy. The ability to print information from the system will be available. However, please note the issue of file management needs to be considered in the wider University context with appropriate transitional processes and policies. The design of the online application will mean that we can set cohort requirements and course level requirements so that the online application has some flexible and logical processing to ensure that every student is answering questions on the application that relate to their cohort / course applied for. For example an International applicant would not be able to apply for a CSP, or alternatively a Research applicant would be asked to provide a proposed supervisor.

what if you need to take an applicants entire file to a discipline committee or progress committee do we then have to reprint everything? 43 Section 6.2, ADM01.1.1 MF & KN Seems that the one application form is to be designed for all applicants. With all the information being asked for, it just becomes extremely confusing for applicants. For example, English, special entry via Access Melbourne and agent details are not appropriate for locals. So there should still be a different application form for locals and internationals, and undergrad, the new Graduate courses (such as the Juris Doctor), Postgrad coursework and Research should all be split up. A couple of issues with the Cohort-Specific requirements: Under postgrad coursework, the first requirement is a Research Proposal we cant see why this would be required for a coursework program. The CAP details are not at all appropriate for postgrads e.g. we dont need to know about year 12, but we do need other tertiary results. In fact our CAP applicants have the same entry requirements as full-course applicants, so need to provide the same information and transcripts. So separate undergrad and postgrad CAP needs to be set up. Some specific details we require in our local applications (fullcourse and CAP) that havent been addressed here are: Personal and Business address details (and which of these is the preferred mailing address), previous name if applicable (with evidence of name change) and the subjects they want to do this year. We ask for their subjects for various reasons including planning purposes, so that we can ensure a fast turnaround when theyve chosen a subject that starts soon and so we can advise the applicant if theyve chosen something that is already full or not appropriate for their course. So we would want these things included in an application. ADM01 Process Design Consolidated Feedback_V5-0.doc

Please note comments above. This data that is displayed to applicants as requirements can be set at a cohort and / or course level, and this is established in conjunction with the Business needs during later system design work.

Noted, Thank you. This majority of this information is documented as a base level requirement under Section 6.2. We have also updated the text to reflect the need to collect subject information for some cohorts (e.g. Postgraduate coursework). You may like to consider if it is necessary to collect a business address (unless it is also the contact address) at time of application if we are communicating with the applicant electronically and they can track their application through the online system?

Page 10 of 11

SSP Feedback Template No. Document Reference Initials of Reviewer MF & KN Feedback If applicants are submitting certified/original docs separately, there may be issues (and extra work created) in matching it to the application. And if they have already been submitted electronically with the on-line application, are they scanned in as well, kept separately or returned to applicant once sighted? I dont understand what this means Response to Feedback The applicant will be able to download a cover sheet with the applicants number to assist in document matching to the application if documents are required in hardcopy. If this information was already stored as an attachment there would be no need to scan said documents again, but complete the verification step of the process in the system. The process step Expand study package involves adding the subjects that relate to the course plan and displaying subjects to the student, via the student interface. It is a step that relates to functionality in the new student system and must be completed at some stage during the process to allow a student to enrol once they have satisfied all requirements and are admitted to their course.

44 Section 6.2, ADM01.1.2

45 Section 6.4, ADM01.3.1

MF & KN

ADM01 Process Design Consolidated Feedback_V5-0.doc

Page 11 of 11